Why Rural Matters 2007

124 Pages·2007·11.34 MB·English

Why Rural Matters 2007:
The Realities of Rural Education Growth
Jerry Johnson, Ed.D, Research and Analysis Unit Manager
Marty Strange, Policy Director
Rural School and Community Trust
A Report of the Rural School and
Community Trust Policy Program
October 2007
Why Rural Matters 2007:
The Realities of Rural Education Growth
Jerry Johnson, Ed.D, Research and Analysis Unit Manager
Marty Strange, Policy Director
Rural School and Community Trust
A report of the Rural School and Community Trust Policy Program
October 2007
ABOUTTHERURALSCHOOLANDCOMMUNITYTRUST
The RuralSchoolandCommunity Trustthe leadingnationalnonprofitorganization
addressingthe crucialrelationshipbetween goodschoolsandthrivingcommunities.
Our mission istohelpruralschoolsandcommunitiesgetbetter together.Workingin
some ofthe poorest,mostchallengingplaces,the RuralTrustinvolvesyoungpeople
in learninglinkedtotheir communities,improvesthe quality ofteachingandschool
leadership,andadvocatesin avariety ofwaysfor appropriate state educationalpoli-
cies,includingthe key issue ofequitable andadequate fundingfor ruralschools.
WhyRuralMatters2007:TheRealitiesofRuralEducationGrowth
© 2007by the RuralSchoolandCommunity Trust
Allrightsreserved.
Printedin the UnitedStatesofAmerica.
Publication ofthisreportisfundedin partby the AnnenbergFoundation.
Editor:Alison Yaunches
Exceptaspermittedunder the UnitedStatesCopyrightActof1976,nopartofthis
publication may be reproducedor distributedin any formor bany means,or stored
in adatabase retrievalsystemwithoutprior permission ofthe publisher.
ORDERINGINFORMATION
Toorder ahardcopy ofthispublication for $20,please contactthe RuralSchooland
Community Trustat:
Telephone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Email:[email protected]
Or order itonline atwww.ruraledu.org/store.
Apdfversion isavailable withfree registration atthe RuralSchoolandCommunity
Trust’swebsite:www.ruraledu.org/whyruralmatters.
Contents
ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................i
Report Methodology: Gauging Rural Education...............................................................................i
Report Highlights...............................................................................................................................iii
Other Report Highlights.....................................................................................................................iv
DataPresentationandAnalysis
Introduction...................................................................................................................1
Gauging Rural Education in the 50 States.......................................................................................1
Results............................................................................................................................4
Importance Gauge...............................................................................................................................5
Socioeconomic Challenges Gauge.....................................................................................................7
Student Diversity Gauge...................................................................................................................10
Policy Context Gauge.......................................................................................................................13
Outcomes Gauge...............................................................................................................................16
Rural Education Priority Gauge.......................................................................................................18
Discussion.....................................................................................................................21
Notes on Report Methodology........................................................................................................21
Top Ranking States...........................................................................................................................23
Meeting the Needs of Rural ELL Populations................................................................................25
Beating the Odds: Measuring the Gap between Socioeconomic Challenges
and Educational Outcomes..............................................................................................................27
Making Things Better or Making Things Worse: Investigating the Relationships
between Achievement Gaps and Educational Policy Variables....................................................28
PolicyImplications.......................................................................................................31
MapsofStateRankings..............................................................................................35
State-by-StateResults(alphabetical by state)..............................................................41
Indicators(rankings of all 50 states on each indicator)
Importance Gauge Indicators...........................................................................................................91
Socioeconomic Challenges Gauge Indicators.................................................................................96
Student Diversity Gauge Indicators...............................................................................................101
Policy Context Gauge Indicators...................................................................................................106
Outcomes Gauge Indicators...........................................................................................................111
Executive Summary
Why Rural Mattersisthe fourthin aseriesofbiennialreportsanalyzingthe importance ofrural
education in eachofthe 50statesandcallingattention tothe urgency withwhichpolicymakers
in eachstate shouldaddressruraleducation issues.
Report Methodology: Gauging Rural Education
We framedthisreportaroundfive gaugesmeasuring:(1)the Importanceofruraleducation,(2)
the levelofSocioeconomic Challengesknown tobe barrierstoacademicachievementfacedby
ruralschools,(3)the levelofStudent Diversityamongruralstudents,(4)the ruraleducational
Policy Context,and(5)the educationalOutcomes ofruralstudentsin eachstate.Eachgauge is
comprisedofseveralequally weightedindicators—23indicatorsin all—the largestnumber of
indicatorsandgaugeswe have usedtodate.
The higher the rankingon agauge,the more importantor the more urgentruraleducation
mattersare in thatstate.
We then combinedthe five gauge rankings,computingan overallrankingcalledthe Rural
Education Priority Gauge toprioritize statesaccordingtothe overallstatusofruraleducation in
eachstate.
Importance
Sixofthe 13stateswhere ruraleducation ismostimportanttothe overalleducationalperform-
ance ofthe state are locatedin the Prairie/Plainsregion (SouthDakota,Oklahoma,Montana,
NorthDakota,Iowa,andKansas).The restofthe 13are in Northern NewEngland(Maine and
Vermont),the Southeast(NorthCarolina),the Mid-SouthDelta(MississippiandAlabama),the Far
West(Alaska),andCentralAppalachia(Kentucky).
Rural education is predominant in small states where there are no large cities, but also rela-
tively few rural students. The states with the most rural students are heavily urbanized, and
rural students, though large in number, constitute a small minority.The ten stateswiththe
highestpercentagesofruralstudentshave acombinedruralenrollmentofnearly 1.9million—
about45%ofthe totalstudentenrollmentin those states,butonly about19%ofthe totalrural
enrollmentin the U.S.On the other hand,more than halfofallruralstudentsattendschoolin 12
stateswhere they are amuchsmaller minority,includingsome ofthe nation’smostpopulousand
mosturban states:Texas,California,Ohio,Michigan,NewYork,andFlorida.
SocioeconomicChallenges
Socioeconomicchallenges,suchasthe percentage ofstudentseligible for free or reduced-price
mealsor the adultunemploymentrate,presentthe mostpersistentthreatstohighlevelsofstu-
dentachievement.Eightofthe 13statesfacingthe worstruralsocioeconomicchallengesare
locatedin the SoutheastandMid-SouthDelta(Mississippi,Louisiana,SouthCarolina,Alabama,
Tennessee,Arkansas,NorthCarolina,andGeorgia).Other regionsrepresentedin the top13are
CentralAppalachia(Kentucky andWestVirginia)andthe Southwest(NewMexico,Oklahoma,
andArizona).
StudentDiversity
Publicschoolsdonothave agoodtrackrecordin meetingthe needsofdiverse studentpopula-
tions.Agreatdealofdiversity amongruralstudentsindicatesbothachallenge andan opportu-
nity for astate tocontribute toclosingthe many nationalachievementgaps.Four ofthe 12
statesin whichattention toruralstudentdiversity ismostcrucialare locatedin the Southwest
(Arizona,NewMexico,Oklahoma,andTexas),andanother four are in the Southeast(Florida,
NorthCarolina,SouthCarolina,andGeorgia).The remainingstatesare scatteredin different
regions:the Northwest(Oregon),the Midwest/GreatLakes(Illinois),andthe Far West(California
andAlaska).
PolicyContext
Characteristicsofthe publicschoolingsystemthatare driven by policy decisions—suchasinstruc-
tionalexpendituresper pupilor the size ofschoolsanddistricts—are often closely relatedto
studentachievementandoverallstudentwell-being.Four ofthe statesin whichthe policy con-
textisleastconducive toruraleducationalachievementare locatedin the Southeast(Louisiana,
Florida,Alabama,andMississippi).Three othersare allor partly in the CentralAppalachian Region
(Kentucky,Virginia,andOhio).The remainingtop13statesare scatteredacrossseveralregions:
the Southwest(Arizona),the Midwest(IllinoisandMissouri),the West(UtahandIdaho),andthe
GreatPlains(NorthDakota).
Outcomes
Studentacademicachievementoutcomes—suchasperformance on nationalassessments
or schools’successin graduatingstudents—illustrate the urgency withwhichpolicymakers
shouldapproachimprovingruralschools.Seven ofthe 13stateswiththe pooresteducational
outcomesare locatedin the SoutheastandMid-SouthDelta(Alabama,Mississippi,Georgia,
SouthCarolina,Louisiana,Tennessee,andNorthCarolina).Twoeachare in the Southwest
(ArizonaandNewMexico),CentralAppalachia(Kentucky andWestVirginia),andthe Far West
(CaliforniaandHawaii).
RuralEducationPriority
The statesrankingthe highestoverallare locatedin quintessentially ruralregionsofthe country:
the Southeast (NorthCarolina,SouthCarolina,Tennessee,Florida,andGeorgia),the Mid-South
Delta(Mississippi,Alabama,andLouisiana),the Southwest (Arizona,NewMexico,andTexas),
andCentral Appalachia(Kentucky).Oklahoma,whichbordersthe Mid-SouthDeltaandthe
Southwest,isalsoincluded.The lowestrankingstatesare mostly urban stateson the EastCoast
andin the GreatLakesRegion.
Nostate scoresatthe topon allfive indicators,butthe four highestpriority states(Mississippi,
Alabama,Arizona,andNorthCarolina)score the higheston four ofthem.
The top priority states have challenging rural populations, few resources, and poor outcomes.
Statesidentifiedasthe highestpriority are oneswhose ruralschoolsface more substantialchal-
lengesthan ruralschoolsin other states,receive fewer resourcesthan others,andproduce less
than othersin termsofstudenteducationaloutcomes.Poverty,fiscalincapacity,lowlevelsof
adulteducation,andlowlevelsofstudentachievementrun in the same mutually reinforcing
circlesin these states,many ofwhichare asfiscally challengedastheir citizensandschools.
Rural students in urban states are out of sight, out of mind. The stateswhere ruraleducation is
mostnotably underperforming(thatis,the state’sperformance ranksworse than itssocio-
economicchallengeswouldsuggestitshould)are predominantly non-ruralstateson the Eastor
Westcoastwhere the ruralpopulation is“outofsight,outofmind,” including,amongothers,
CaliforniaandMaryland.
ii WHY RURAL MATTERS 2007
Major Report Highlights
(cid:2)
Ruralstudentenrollmentisincreasingbothabsolutelyandasapercentageofthe
nationalstudentenrollment(seepage1).
Between 2002-03and2004-05,ruralschoolenrollmentgainedwhile non-ruralschoolenroll-
mentdeclined:
• Overallpublicschoolenrollmentin the U.S.increasedby about602,000students,or 1%.
• Enrollmentin ruralschools(those in communitieswithapopulation under 2,500) increased by
over 1,339,000 (or 15%).
• Enrollmentfor schoolsin communitiesofgreater than 2,500decreased by over 738,000or 2%.
For consistency,the above comparisonsuse categoriesfromthe locale code systemfirstdeveloped
in the 1980sby the NationalCenter for Education Statistics(NCES).However,in 2006,NCES
releasedanewlocale code systemthatincorporatesgeospatialelements—e.g.,distance from
urban areas—in an efforttooffer greater precision.We use thisnewlocale code systemtodefine
ruralschoolsanddistrictsfor Why Rural Matters 2007.
Usingthe newlocale code system,in 2006,there were 9,974,462studentsattending26,390
schoolsin U.S.communitiesofunder 2,500,accountingfor 22%ofU.S.publicschoolenroll-
ment.Nationally,29%ofpublicschoolstudentsattendedschoolin communitiesoffewer than
25,000people.Meetingthe needsofnearly ten million ruralchildren isachallenge thatisworthy
ofsociety’sattention.
(cid:2)
ThehighestpriorityruraleducationregionsaretheSouthwest,Southeast,
Mid-SouthDelta,andAppalachia(seepages18-20).
Poverty,fiscalincapacity,lowlevelsofadulteducation,andlowlevelsofstudentachievementrun
in the same mutually reinforcingcirclesin statesin these regions,many ofwhichare asfiscally
challengedastheir citizensandschools.Ofthe 23indicatorsusedin thisreport,the onesmost
closely associatedwiththe overallpriority state rankingare (in order ofcorrelation strength):
1.Percentage ofruralfamiliesin poverty
2.Percentage ofruralstudentseligible for free or reducedmeals
3.RuralNAEPreadingscore
4.Ruralmedian householdincome
5.RuralNAEPmathscore
6.Percentage ofruraladultswithahighschooldiploma
7.Ruralinstructionalexpendituresper pupil
(cid:2)
Ruraleducationpolicymakersfacefourrealities(seepages28-30).
Significantresultsfromstatisticalcorrelationsbetween state rankingson the five gaugesusedin
thisreportsuggestthe followingrealities:
1.The more ruralthe state,the more severe the ruralsocioeconomicchallenges.
2.The poorer astate’sruralpopulation,
a. The worse the ruraleducationaloutcomes.
b. The worse the ruraleducationalpolicy context.
3.The more racially andethnically diverse astate’sruralpopulation,
a. The more severe the ruralsocioeconomicchallenges.
b. The worse the ruraleducationaloutcomes.
c. The worse the ruraleducationalpolicy context.
4.The worse the policy context,the worse the ruraleducationaloutcomes.
WHY RURAL MATTERS 2007 iii
(cid:2)
Inlowachievingstates,policiesaremakingthingsworse,notbetter.
Researchsuggeststhatstatesservinghigher percentagesofstudentswhoare poor or have limited
Englishlanguage skillswillhave toinvestadditionalresourcestoenable their studentstoreach
the same levelofachievementasother states.Researchalsodemonstratesthatpoor andminority
studentsderive substantialachievementbenefitsfromattendingsmaller schoolsanddistricts.But
the actualpatternswe findin ruralAmericaare exactly the opposite.Asexpected,the states
where the educationaloutcomesin ruralschoolsrequire the mosturgentattention are the states
withthe mostimpoverished,minority,andELLruralstudents.They are alsothe stateswhere
schoolsreceive the fewestresourcesandwhere studentsattendthe largestschoolsanddistricts.
Other Report Highlights
(cid:2)
Manystateshaveseenadramaticchangeinthedemographicmakeupoftheir
studentpopulationinthepastdecade(seepage11).
Stateswhere the demographicmakeupofthe studentpopulation haschangedmostdramatically
in the pastten yearsare alsoamongthe stateswiththe smallestruralminority enrollmentsin the
nation (the topten—NewHampshire,Iowa,Illinois,Missouri,Vermont,Pennsylvania,Nebraska,
Maine,Kansas,andUtah—together serve justover 100,000ruralminority students).Their average
percentage increase is124%.While the size ofthe ruralminority population in these statesisnot
large,the rapidrate ofchange suggeststhatschoolsmightnotbe preparedtomeetthe needsof
studentswithdifferentbackgrounds.
Substantialincreasesin the number ofruralminority studentsare notlimitedtostateswithsmall
ruralminority enrollments,however.Nationally,the percentincrease isabout55%,andstates
suchasTexas,California,andNorthCarolina—eachrankingnear the topin termsofnumber
and/or percentruralminority enrollment—showincreasesofmore than 50%.
(cid:2)
RuralschoolsaremostraciallyandethnicallydiverseintheSoutheastand
Southwest(seepage10).
In five states(Hawaii,NewMexico,Alaska,Arizona,andCalifornia),there isnoracialor ethnic
majority groupin ruralschools.Minority studentsmake up25%or more ofthe studentpopula-
tion in 11other states(in descendingorder,Mississippi,SouthCarolina,Texas,Oklahoma,
Louisiana,NorthCarolina,Georgia,Delaware,Florida,Alabama,andVirginia)andthese states
serve 80%ofallruralminority studentsin the U.S.
The mostdiverse ruralstudentpopulationsare concentratedin stateswhere ruraleducation isnot
likely tobe aprimary policy focus.Many ofthe statesthatrankhighestoverallon the Diversity
Gauge are larger stateswithlowpercentageruralpopulationsbuthighnumbersofruralpeople,
andfive ofthe mostdiverse statesrankin the bottomhalfofthe Importance Gauge—Texas,
Florida,California,Illinois,andOregon.Given the limitedpolicy effortstomeetthe needsof
diverse studentpopulationsin any setting,providingappropriate servicestoruralminority
studentsin these statescouldprove doubly challenging.
(cid:2)
RuralEnglishLanguageLearnersaremostprevalentintheWest(seepage11).
In bothNewMexicoandAlaska,aboutone in three ruralstudentsqualifiesfor ELLservices;in
ArizonaandCalifornia,one in five.The highestrankingstate eastofthe MississippiRiver isNorth
Carolina,withjustover 5%(or one in 20)ofstudentsqualifyingfor ELLservices.
iv WHY RURAL MATTERS 2007
(cid:2)
RuralinstructionalexpendituresperpupilarelowestinSouthernstates,where
ruralschoolsfaceseveresocio-economicchallenges(seepages13-14,9).
Instructionalexpendituresper pupilrange from$3,600in ruralOklahomatomore than $7,900in
ruralNewYork.Seven other statesjoin Oklahomain spendinglessthan $4,000per pupilfor
instruction in ruralschools:Mississippi($3,688),Arkansas($3,790),Alabama($3,793),Tennessee
($3,856),Arizona($3,925),Idaho($3,925),andUtah($3,994).Significantly,nine ofthe 13top
ratedstateson the SocioeconomicChallengesgauge are amongthe 13stateswiththe lowestper
pupilinstructionalfunding:Mississippi,Kentucky,SouthCarolina,Alabama,Tennessee,Arkansas,
NorthCarolina,Arizona,andOklahoma.Thatthese statesserve the mostimpoverishedrural
schoolsandcommunitiesin the nation,andthatthey dosowithfewer resources,suggestsa
disturbingpattern in whichthe distribution ofresourcesappearstobe compoundingalready
challengingcircumstances.
(cid:2)
Lowruralteachersalariesdominateinthenation’sheartland(seepage14).
The 13stateswiththe lowestspendingon instructionalsalariesare in contiguousstatesin
the Heartland,fromCanadatothe GulfofMexico,includingMontana,NorthDakota,South
Dakota,Nebraska,Iowa,Kansas,Missouri,Oklahoma,Arkansas,Louisiana,Mississippi,Alabama,
andTennessee.
(cid:2)
BigschoolsinbigdistrictsdominateinSoutheasternstatesknownforconsoli-
datedcountywideschooldistrictsandregionalhighschools(seepage14).
The 13stateswiththe largestschoolsin the largestdistrictsare locatedin or adjacenttothe
SoutheastRegion:(in order)Maryland,NorthCarolina,Florida,Georgia,SouthCarolina,Alabama,
Tennessee,Virginia,Louisiana,Delaware,Mississippi,Kentucky,andWestVirginia.Stateswiththe
smallestschoolsanddistrictsare mostly in the GreatPlainsandthe West—stateswithmostly local
independentschooldistricts.
(cid:2)
Thepoorerandmorediversetheruralstudentpopulation,thelowertherural
NAEPscores(seepages16-17,9,12).
Twelve stateshave the lowestaverage scoreson boththe mathandreadingNAEPtestfor rural
schools.They are locatedprimarily in the Southwest,the Southeast,andCentralAppalachia
(Alabama,Arizona,Arkansas,Georgia,Hawaii,Louisiana,Mississippi,Nevada,NewMexico,Okla-
homa,Tennessee,andWestVirginia).These statesalsohave highsocioeconomicchallengesand
studentdiversity,showingastrongcorrelation between these factorsandlowruralNAEPscores.
(cid:2)
GraduationratesarelowestinstatesmostlyintheSoutheast,butsomestates
withthehighestoverallgraduationratesalsohadthelargest“graduationgaps”
betweenwhiteandminoritystudents(seepage17).
Ruralgraduation ratesare below70%in ten states,mostly in the Southeast:Alabama,Alaska,
Arizona,Delaware,Florida,Georgia,Mississippi,NorthCarolina,SouthCarolina,andTennessee.
SouthCarolinaleadsthe nation withthe lowestrate at55%.
In sixstates,lessthan halfofallminority studentsin an 8thgrade cohortgraduatedfromhigh
schoolfive yearslater (Nebraska,SouthDakota,Iowa,Delaware,Georgia,andIndiana).In ten
other states,the graduation rate amongruralminority studentswaslessthan 60%(Nevada,
Kansas,Oregon,Wyoming,NorthCarolina,Utah,Connecticut,Missouri,Alaska,andAlabama).
WHY RURAL MATTERS 2007 v
Some ofthe statesthatproducedthe highestoverallruralgraduation rateshadthe largestgaps
in graduation ratesbetween white andminority students(e.g.,Nebraska,SouthDakota,Iowa,
Utah,Wyoming).In these states,avery highpercentage ofruralminority studentsare Native
American or Hispanic.
(cid:2)
Thepoorestruralpopulationsareinthepooreststatesleastabletoaffordthe
costofanadequateeducation(seepages23and31).
Unfortunately,over $12billion in federalaidthroughTitle Iofthe Elementary andSecondary
Education Act(ESEA)intendedtohelpschoolscombatthe effectsofpoverty isdistributed
throughformulasthatsystematically discriminate againstsmall,high-poverty schooldistricts.
Congressshouldeliminate thatbiasandalsoconsider apilotprogramunder Title IIofESEAthat
takesamore targetedapproachtoteacher improvementin some ofthe very poorestruralschools
in the poorestruralregions.
(cid:2)
AsruralAmericagrowsincreasinglydiverse,theneedforadequateresourcesand
supportivepolicyenvironmentstomeettheneedsofEnglishLanguageLearner
(ELL)studentsgrowsevermoreimportant(seepages25-27).
Nearly one-halfofallELLstudentslive in ruralcommunities,andthe rate ofgrowthofthis
population isvery high.Butthe growthin ELLstudentpopulationsisruralareasisnotspread
uniformly acrossstates,within states,or even within schooldistricts.Regionally,the fastest
growth(in termsofbothactualgrowthandpercentage growth)occurredin the southeastern U.S
(see pages31-32).
Ruralschoolsservingproportionally larger ELLstudentpopulations,on average,face higher
concentrationsoftraditionalbarrierstoeducationalachievementthan dotheir counterparts
servingfewer ELLstudents.In many states,higher percentagesofELLstudentsare associated
withhigher levelsofpoverty amongallstudents.
In consideringpolicy implications,the limitedleveloffundingavailable toruraldistrictsserving
ELLstudentsismostpressingbecause itdirectly impactsmany other areasofconcern (e.g.,
teacher recruitmentandretention,professionaldevelopment)andbecause itisindicative ofthe
waysin whichpolicy contextscan workagainstpubliceducation in ruralsettings.
In the 2002-03schoolyear,the mostrecentdatayear available,federaldollarsfor bilingual
education amountedtolessthan $51per ELLstudent,andmostofthatwasin the formofcom-
petitive grantsthatmany ruraldistrictsdidnothave the capacity tocompete for.Amongdistricts
enrollingatleast100ELLstudents,only 36%receivedfederalELLfunding.
Only nine states(Arkansas,Colorado,Florida,Maryland,Michigan,NorthDakota,NewJersey,
Virginia,andWashington)reportedprovidingcategoricalfundstoruralschooldistrictsfor ELL
programsin the 2002-03schoolyear,rangingfrom$1,716per ruralELLstudentin Floridato
$20per ruralELLstudentin Michigan.Some other statestake intoaccountthe additionalcosts
ofELLprogramsby allocatingresourcesbasedon weightedstudentenrollmentcounts.
vi WHY RURAL MATTERS 2007