One in three students attending public school in the United States attends a school in a rural area or small town of fewer than 25,000 people; more than one in five attend schools in places of fewer than 2,500. Nearly one-third of our public schools and public school teachers, and close to one-half of public school districts, are in rural locations (Beeson & Strange, 2003). Like their urban counterparts, rural schools face daunting challenges as they attempt to meet the teacher-quality and student-achievement mandates of the federal government's 2001 No Child Left Behind legislation. Many rural schools are finding solutions by entering into community and university partnerships and by developing innovative curriculums and teaching strategies for students and communities to work on together.
Game One and Game Two
Concern about the shortage of qualified teachers has intensified in recent years, and No Child Left Behind has significantly upped the ante by mandating that every classroom have a highly qualified teacher. Educators and noneducators alike embrace the intent of the law, but they are deeply divided over what constitutes teacher quality. At the core of this divide are conflicting ideas about the purpose of education.
Greg Grimes, superintendent of Pointe Coupee Parish Schools in Louisiana, put the issue in perspective at a recent meeting of the Rural School Leaders Working Group: “We have always known there were two games in town,” he said. “Game One is to get the test scores up so that we can stay in the public education business.” The goal of this game is survival—of public education in our communities and of the diminishing presence of African American teachers and leaders in public education.
Game Two, on the other hand, views the purpose of education much more broadly than increasing test scores. It challenges popular notions about the role of schools in their communities; it demands rigorous academic experiences while purposefully partnering young people with adults in solving community problems. It aims at preparing young people to be contributing citizens and producers of knowledge, goods, and services in their communities. Game Two is also a game of survival, because its purpose speaks to the heart of what it means to be free in a democratic society.
The No Child Left Behind legislation, however, defines teacher quality almost solely in terms of content knowledge. It views teachers as highly qualified only if they have a major, a master's degree, or have passed a test in the core subject areas in which they teach. This definition equates teacher quality with degrees and certifications, and quality teaching with students' high test scores. It is clearly a Game One definition.
Educators who are committed to accomplishing a broader purpose of education would agree that teacher quality encompasses content knowledge, but they also look for much more. Game Two raises the stakes on teacher quality, requiring not only teachers whose credentials include deep content knowledge, but also knowledge of the child and considerable skill in using inquiry-based strategies that connect student learning to community needs and interests. Nevertheless, the more narrow definition in the federal law is now driving the public discourse on teacher quality.
Rural Schools Face Challenges
By any definition, rural schools are at a disadvantage when competing for qualified teachers. More than 400,000 educators teach in rural schools, representing 31 percent of all public school teachers (Jimerson, 2003; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002). On average, they earn 13.4 percent less than their nonrural counterparts, with differentials of 1'3 percent for beginning teacher salaries and 17.2 for the highest-paid veteran teachers. In 49 states, experienced teachers can earn at least $4,000 more in nonrural districts than they can in rural districts. The difference between the highest rural and nonrural salaries is a startling $33,761 in Illinois, $20,640 in Missouri, $16,800 in Florida, and $7,425 in North Carolina (Jimerson, 2003).
In addition to low pay, teachers cite poor working conditions; a lack of suitable housing; an absence of amenities; and professional, cultural, and social isolation among their reasons for avoiding or leaving rural teaching assignments. Whatever the reason, many rural districts find themselves having to wait until other districts have had their pick before they can hire a “qualified” teacher. Consequently, some rural districts report that one-third to more than one-half of their teachers are not fully certified or licensed to teach.
The Rural School and Community Trust, a nonprofit organization devoted to improving schools and communities together, has identified 10 states as having rural situations that require urgent attention. In these states, high percentages of core curriculum classes and students in rural settings have teachers without a major or certification in the subjects they teach.
For example, in the 1999–2000 school year, 26.4 percent of secondary-level English classes in Alabama and 19.1 percent of students enrolled in those classes had teachers with no major or certification in the subject (see fig. 1). Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi had similarly high percentages. This pattern held true in secondary mathematics. In Kentucky, 2'7 percent of secondary mathematics classes and 2'9 percent of students enrolled in those classes had teachers with no major or certification in the subject. In Louisiana, 20.5 percent of classes and 18.8 percent of students had such teachers, and in Mississippi, 22.4 percent of classes and 19.4 percent of students did (Education Trust, 2003b).
Figure 1. What Percentages of Classes and Students Had Teachers Without Credentials?
Rural Routes to Success - table 1
State | English | Mathematics | Science | Social Studies | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classes | Students | Classes | Students | Classes | Students | Classes | Students | |
| United States | 14.9 | |||||||
| Alabama | 26.4 | |||||||
| Arkansas | 13.0 | |||||||
| Kentucky | 19.4 | |||||||
| Louisiana | 22.7 | |||||||
| Mississippi | 23.6 | |||||||
| North Carolina | 9.2 | |||||||
| North Dakota | 7.8 | |||||||
| South Carolina | 8.3 | |||||||
| South Dakota | 10.7 | |||||||
| West Virginia | 15.0 |
In 1999–2000, high percentages of secondary school classes and students in the 10 states identified by Rural Trust as requiring urgent attention had teachers without a major or certification in English, mathematics, science, and social studies.
* NCES reporting standards not met.
Source: Education Trust, 2003b.
Although rural students in the United States are predominantly white, 2.8 million (20 percent) are of other racial or ethnic groups: 9.8 percent are African American; 6.3 percent are Hispanic; '3 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander; and 2.3 percent are American Indian or Alaska Native (NCES, 1999). The 10 rural states identified by Rural Trust as requiring urgent attention have large percentages of schools in rural areas and students who are rural, and seven of these states have rates equal to or higher than the national percentage of rural students who are minorities (see fig. 2). In Mississippi, for example, where 5'2 percent of the population is rural, 45.9 percent of rural students are minorities (Beeson & Strange, 2003). Minority student enrollments of more than 90 percent are common in rural areas of the deep South.
Figure 2. What Percentages of Rural Students Are Minorities?
Rural Routes to Success - table 2
State | % State Population That Is Rural | % Public Schools in Rural Areas | % Public School Students in Rural Schools | % Rural Students Who Are Minorities |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 21.0 | 31.3 | 21.0 | 19.7 |
| Alabama | 44.6 | 34.8 | 31.8 | 24.5 |
| Arkansas | 47.5 | 44.4 | 30.5 | 14.5 |
| Kentucky | 44.2 | 45.7 | 37.6 | 3.9 |
| Louisiana | 27.4 | 31.9 | 26.3 | 31.7 |
| Mississippi | 51.2 | 41.5 | 39.7 | 45.9 |
| North Carolina | 39.8 | 42.1 | 39.5 | 31.1 |
| North Dakota | 44.1 | 71.2 | 46.0 | 19.7 |
| South Carolina | 39.5 | 38.7 | 33.4 | 41.7 |
| South Dakota | 48.1 | 77.3 | 46.8 | 25.4 |
| West Virginia | 53.9 | 53.8 | 45.8 | 2.6 |
Seven of the Rural Trust's top 10 high-priority rural states have percentages equal to or higher than the national percentage of rural students who are minorities.
Source: Beeson & Strange, 2003.
Throughout the United States, poor children and children of color are more likely than others to have teachers who are less than fully qualified, including teachers lacking even a minor in the field in which they are teaching. The percentage of classes taught by such teachers in high-poverty schools (34 percent) almost doubles that of low-poverty schools (19 percent). The 10 highest-priority rural states follow a similar trend, with Kentucky and Louisiana reporting that more than one-half of secondary classes in high-poverty schools have teachers with no major or minor in the subjects that they teach (Education Trust, 2003a, 2003b).
Teacher quality has a powerful impact on student achievement, so it should come as no surprise that wide gaps persist between the test scores of the privileged and those of the not so privileged, especially in our 10 high-priority states (Education Trust, 2002–2003; see fig. 3). Children of color and poverty, who most often live in geographic areas without the resources to supplement their educational experiences, disproportionately have the weakest, least experienced, and least qualified teachers. Herein is the great unfairness of the testing game.
Figure 3. How Wide Are the Achievement Gaps* in Rural States?
Rural Routes to Success - table 3
State | Latino | African American | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Science | Reading | Math | Science | Reading | |
| United States | 33 | 33 | 27 | 39 | 39 | 29 |
| Alabama | 36 | 48 | 29 | 36 | 38 | 25 |
| Arkansas | 38 | 36 | 33 | 37 | 41 | 28 |
| Kentucky | — | — | — | 22 | 29 | 23 |
| Louisiana | 39 | 35 | 34 | 36 | 41 | 27 |
| Mississippi | 41 | 37 | 47 | 30 | 36 | 25 |
| North Carolina | 22 | 19 | 32 | 35 | 35 | 22 |
| North Dakota | 24 | 25 | — | — | — | — |
| South Carolina | 29 | 32 | 38 | 30 | 33 | 24 |
| South Dakota | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| West Virginia | 16 | — | — | 21 | 26 | 17 |
The 8th grade math and science scores (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2000) and reading scores (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1998) for the Rural Trust's 10 high-priority states indicate achievement gaps of up to nearly four years of learning.
* The gap is a measure of the difference between white and nonwhite average scale scores. Ten points are roughly equivalent to one year of learning.
Source: Education Trust, 2002–2003.
Playing Game Two, Winning Both Games
Despite the challenges they face, rural schools present many lessons for meeting and exceeding state standards when they develop high-quality, culturally relevant curriculums that connect schools and communities. The Rural Trust calls this approach place-based education —teaching and learning rooted in the history, environment, culture, and economy of a local place. A far more liberating practice than the increasingly narrow approaches that have resulted from the focus on high-stakes testing, place-based education inspires high academic performance and promotes civic engagement. Numerous examples around the rural United States verify that place-based education engages students across racial divides and benefits the communities in which they live.
Howard (Miner County), South Dakota, offers one example. Students in a Future Business Leaders of America class conducted a community spending survey and determined that if residents increased their local spending by 10 percent, the local economy would gain more than $2 million a year. Students presented their findings to local officials, residents, and business people, sparking a community-wide revitalization movement. Five years later, the community had surpassed initial revenue projections several times over. Locals credit student work for the change. The students' work also provided the impetus for the formation of Miner County Community Revitalization, a nonprofit organization that has embraced the philosophy of place-based education. The Northwest Area Foundation has awarded the organization $500,000 for community revitalization and $5.9 million in matching funds over five years to support a regional revitalization effort.
In East Feliciana, Louisiana, 4th grade science scores on the state assessment improved by 13 percentage points in the first year of using place-based education as an improvement model. And Saint Helena Elementary School in Saint Helena, South Carolina, saw its historically low mathematics scores rise above those of its sister school in Hilton Head as a result of the place-based approach and innovative curriculum of the Algebra Project (Moses & Cobb, 2001).
Education Renewal Zones
Other rural communities are learning the power of collaboration to overcome their challenges. In Missouri, the Rural Trust has for two years piloted an Education Renewal Zone model—a collaborative effort that brings together 10–15 rural schools with a higher education institution or group of institutions, community members, youth, and support organizations—and concentrates financial and human resources on improving high-needs rural schools and their communities. An Education Renewal Zone simultaneously addresses school and community issues on multiple fronts: school leadership; youth and community services; and preservice, novice, and career teacher development.
With little external funding, Missouri partners have achieved some notable successes. In central Missouri, Linn State Technical College, working with Central Methodist College, developed an 18-month degree program to prepare technology coordinators for rural schools. The program enrolls high school students in a campus-based summer program at Linn, followed by paid academic-year internships in their sponsoring school districts, with additional coursework at Linn and through four online courses from Central Methodist College.
Northwest Missouri State University integrated a Rural Advocacy Program into its Regional Professional Development Center. The program's staff helps 15 schools plan and implement reforms and provides support services for administrators of small schools in such areas as technology planning and implementation, e-Rate filing, grant procurement and management, financial planning, data analysis, and professional development.
Southeast Missouri State University has planned two separate Education Renewal Zones, one in the Missouri Bootheel region and the other serving the impoverished Ozarks region. Bringing together the concepts of professional development schools, place-based education, and learning communities, this effort has proposed a professional development school model for academically deficient and hard-to-staff rural schools. The proposed model would include extended internships for preservice teachers, job-embedded professional development for inservice teachers, extensive training of teachers as leaders, clinical supervisors, mentors for new teachers, and the housing of university faculty at the school to provide continual support and sustained inservice training of teachers.
Other partners in the Missouri Education Renewal Zone include the Coordinating Board of Higher Education, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Missouri Distance Learning Association, and a fledgling organization, supported by Education Renewal Zone funding, called GreaterNET. In its first year of activity, GreaterNET arranged distance-learning coursework in academic areas for which rural school districts could not hire teachers locally. To date, the organization has arranged 40 interactive television classes, mostly in foreign languages, for nearly 600 students in more than 15 school districts.
Survival and Success
The greatest promise for the survival and success of rural schools may be their own willingness to re-create themselves into new kinds of institutions that dissolve the boundaries between school and community, ensuring that facilities and programs serve the entire community, and holding schools and communities mutually accountable. These are Game Two institutions that require teachers who can do more than teach students to pass a test and who can do more than pass a test themselves. They require teachers who know their subject matter well and who respect and connect culturally to the communities in which they work. They require teachers who can expand students' learning experiences through high-level use of multiple technologies.
Leaders of these institutions must help schools and communities commit themselves to the fulfillment of a vision beyond increased test scores. These leaders must be able to identify the learning needs of their staff and other adults in the community and align professional development and adult learning experiences to meet those needs. They must be able to inspire teachers, students, and the community to expect the best from one another and to meet high expectations.
Disaggregating test data, mandating adequate yearly progress, and shining the public light on the achievement gap are unjust practices if they are not accompanied by full disclosure of the persistent inequities in the current system, together with practical and adequately financed efforts to alleviate them. It would mean little to win the testing game and lose the more important game of educating children.
