Education, Youth

The academic preparation of rural students in kindergarten through grade 12; elementary- and secondarylevel instruction. This entry provides key information about the education of students in rural America: the number and location of students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools, their academic performance, and their post-high school careers.

Locating Rural Students

Rural students, even in this era of rampant urbanization, constitute a sizable portion of America’s student body. In the early 1990s, there were an estimated 6.9 million students in rural areas, accounting for 16.7 percent of regular public school students. The 22,400 schools they attended comprised 28 percent of America’s public elementary and secondary schools (Elder, 1994).

These students are found throughout the U.S. in a range of settings from isolated farms to villages and settlements on the fringe of urban concentrations of various sizes. Distinguishing between urban and nonurban locales is done in two ways by the Census Bureau. One approach defines urban and rural along a continuum by population size in a place, whereas the other makes population density distinctions by county type—metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan. The definitions are not equivalent. Rural pockets or places may be found within metropolitan counties, whereas a considerable number of urban centers exists in otherwise sparsely settled nonmetropolitan counties.

This interrelationship between these two ways of distinguishing between urban and rural is reflected in school designations as well. For example, 12 percent of schools in metropolitan counties are located in rural places. In the nonmetropolitan counties, just over half of the schools are actually in rural settings; the remainder are in the urban population concentrations located within these lightly populated counties. An awareness of these finer distinctions is critical when developing state and federal policies intended to impact rural schools and the students they serve. The following discussion is limited to the intersection of the two primary ways the federal government defines rural. Among the several states and within numerous federal, state and private programs affecting rural issues, still other definitions may be found.

Although rural students are found in every state, the extent of their numbers and their proportion to the whole student population vary considerably. For example, Texas has the largest number of rural students (443,000), representing 12.9 percent of its student population. But although their enrollments are lower, 40 other states have higher proportions of students in rural settings. Overall, proportions of students located in rural areas range from 3.5 percent in Connecticut to 47.1 percent in South Dakota.

Student Performance

Student population services in rural settings were commonly viewed as deficient a few decades ago. Improvement is the product of several converging forces. For over 100 years, extensive consolidation efforts drastically reduced the number both of rural schools and rural school districts. At the same time, states and districts continued to bring many of the latest innovations to remote and resource-strapped schools. Rural school personnel, for their part, traditionally approached their challenges creatively; the multi-grade classroom is just one of many strategies devised to accommodate low enrollments.

Recent data from federal studies provide a new appreciation of what rural education can achieve. Earlier National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores of students from what is termed, “extreme rural” areas (generally, farming) fell below the national average. But by the 1980s, when the ongoing reform movement was launched, students from that population matched the average in every subject tested. These improved performance levels continue to be maintained. In another NAEP comparison, rural students scored higher than disadvantaged urban students, although they lagged behind advantaged urban students (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1991a). In a test given to a large sample of eighth-graders in the federal National Longitudinal Study of 1988, or NELS 88, (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1991b), rural students (here encompassing a wide spectrum of all those in nonmetropolitan counties) met or exceeded the national average on every measure. As with the NAEP results, rural students scored above urban students, but below those from suburban areas.

Two factors must be considered when interpreting these findings. First, there is considerable research suggesting that the positive elements of rural schooling, such as small classes, personal attention and community ethos, may serve to offset the comparatively limited breadth of curricular offerings often dictated by low enrollments (Fowler and Walberg, 1991). In this regard, the NELS findings showed that students in the smallest schools outperformed those from the largest ones. This is relevant to document school quality in rural America since very small schools abound there. Nearly three out of four rural elementary and secondary schools have fewer than 400 students, and almost 20 percent have fewer than 100 students (Elder, 1994).

Second, there is abundant research literature showing conclusively that poverty, as measured by socioeconomic status and certain other factors, has a limiting effect on school performance. About one in five rural students (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1991b) exhibit at least two risk factors such as low family income, coming from a single-parent home, having parent(s) with little education, being home alone in excess of three hours a day, or having a sibling who dropped out of school. A larger proportion of urban students (26 percent) and a smaller proportion of suburban students (15 percent) are similarly at risk. Correlated with test results within each sector, these findings show that the greater the evidence of risk, the poorer the performance. Crippling poverty hampers the capacity of many rural schools to deliver services. It is not surprising that rural schools and districts took the lead in most of the 25 states where there has been school finance litigation. In 12 states, courts found school finance systems unconstitutional. Mandated remedies should generally benefit rural schools.

Preparing for Life after High School

National survey data (Marion et al., 1996) reveal what rural educators long have known: rural youth have fairly high dropout rates (although not the worst); they are less likely to gain an equivalency diploma later on; and those who remain in school tend less than their metropolitan counterparts to anticipate, prepare for, and enter postsecondary education programs. These are sobering findings because in today’s economy as never before, future earnings are linked to education.

According to one national study (Kaufman and McMillan, 1991), 7 percent of rural youth dropped out of school between the seventh and eighth grades, more than the suburban rate (5 percent), although below the urban rate (9 percent). In another national survey (Alsalam et al., 1992), 16 percent of rural sophomores dropped out, which was the same as the national average and the suburban rate; urban youth had a far higher rate (24.5 percent). As these were not the same cohorts, the junior high and senior high school data cannot be added. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that perhaps more than one in five rural teenagers leave school before acquiring the minimal necessary skills to compete in today’s demanding job market.

Location hampers the capacity of rural youths who left school early to later gain an education. Suitable programs are too few and too widely dispersed (Sherman, 1992). As a result, rural dropouts are less likely than their metropolitan peers to find a place to obtain a high school equivalency diploma. This difficulty is reflected in one follow-up study where after six years, high school completion rates had risen only six percentage points for rural students compared to 11 points for suburban youth and eight points for urban youth (Alsalam et al., 1992).

Rural youths who remained in high school nevertheless had comparatively limited plans to further their education relative to their urban and suburban peers. One federal study (Marion et al., 1994) documented that rural seniors expected to conclude their education at lower levels and were more focused on work than on academic studies compared to students in metropolitan areas. Predictably with these attitudes, they tended to take fewer college preparation courses (algebra, trigonometry, calculus, chemistry and physics) and more courses in vocational and business fields (Pollard and O’Hare, 1990). With lower aspirations and less preparation, fewer rural students (62 percent) compared to urban and suburban students (70.0 and 73.5 percent, respectively) enrolled in post-high school programs of study.

Researchers (Hailer and Virkler, 1992; McGranahan and Ghelfi, 1991) suggest two reasons for this phenomenon: a lack of role models and a lack of employment opportunities. A major national study (Pollard and O’Hare, 1990) found proportionately fewer rural seniors than nonrural seniors (12 and 19 percent, respectively) had college-educated parents (who tend to encourage their offspring to also obtain a degree). The students reported that their fathers wanted them to attend a trade school or to go directly into employment more often than nonrural students. Lower aspirations represent a realistic response to the local job market where there are few opportunities to pursue professional or technical careers that require a college education.

Nevertheless, many rural youths do receive encouragement from home and school guidance counselors to continue their education after high school and many did matriculate, although at lower rates than their metropolitan counterparts. And while at lower rates than their nonrural peers, many rural youths did have professional ambitions. Nearly a quarter said they expected to hold a professional job by age 30, and 9 percent said they expected to be at high levels in their chosen professional career.

Of those who attended college, 36 percent completed four years of education, a rate that essentially matched that of urban youth, but dipped below the 40 percent completion rate for suburban youth. When matching youth by socioeconomic status, nonrural advantage disappeared. In short, in terms of persistence in college, rural students demonstrate the capacity to succeed. Problems emerge, not as problems peculiar to location, but as handicapping conditions associated with poverty. When students having the same socioeconomic status are compared, performance is essentially the same regardless of location.

Overall, rural schools succeed, sometimes in the face of severe challenges associated with isolation and lack of resources. However, the employment picture rural youths face after high school is bleak because today’s economy is an urban economy. Low-skill, lowpaying jobs remain in the countryside, whereas highpaying jobs are in the cities to which rural America’s most talented youth is drawn. The metropolitan, nonmetropolitan pay distinction at one time was close to the difference in the cost of living. But by the mid- 1980s, nonrural high school graduates earned 15 percent more in real terms, and college graduates in urban areas were enjoying a 30 percent advantage. To stem the tide of migration from the countryside, rural economic development and job creation must go hand in hand with any improvement in education opportunities. Until that is done, rural America will continue to train and educate its youth only to see too many of them exported to urban areas.

— Joyce D. Stern

See also

• Adolescents; Education, Special; Educational Curriculum; Educational Facilities

References

• Alsalam, N., L.T. Ogle, G.T. Rogers and T.M. Smith. The Condition of Education 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992.
• Blackwell, Debra L. and Diane K. McLaughlin. “Do Rural Youth Attain Their Educational Goals?” Rural Development Perspectives 13, no. 3 (1999): 37-44.
• Elder, William L. “Location and Characteristics of Rural Schools and School Districts.” In The Condition of Education in Rural Schools. Edited by Joyce D. Stern. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Programs for the Improvement of Practice, 1994.
• Fowler, W.J. and H.J. Walberg. “School Size, Characteristics, and Outcomes.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 13 (1991): 2.
• Haller, E.J. and S.J. Virkler. “Another Look at Rural- Urban Differences in Students’ Educational Aspiration.” Paper presented at the Rural Research Forum of the National Rural Education Association Meeting in Traverse City, MI, 1992.
• Kaufman, P. and M.M. McMillan. Dropout Rates in the United States: 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1991.
• Marion, Scott F., Denise A. Mirochnik, Edward J. McCaul, and Walter McIntire. “Education and Work Experiences of Rural Youth.” In The Condition of Education in Rural Schools. Edited by Joyce D. Stern. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Programs for the Improvement of Practice, 1994.
• McGranahan, David A. and Linda M. Ghelfi. “The Education Crisis and Rural Stagnation in the 1980s.” Education and Rural Economic Development: Strategies for the 1990s. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1991.
• McGrath, Daniel J., Swisher, Raymond R, Swisher,~Glen H. Elder, Jr. and Rand D. Conger. “Breaking New Ground: Diverse Routes to College in Rural America.” Rural Sociology 66, no. 2 (2001): 244-267.
• National Center for Education Statistics. Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1991a.
• National Center for Education Statistics. The Tested Achievement of the National Education Longitudinal Study of the 1988 Eighth Grade Class. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1991b.
• Pollard, K.M. and William P. O’Hare. “Beyond High School: The Experience of Rural and Urban Youth in the 1980s.” Staff working paper. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, 1990.
• Sherman, Arloc. Falling by the Wayside: Children in Rural America. Washington, DC: The Children’s Defense Fund, 1992.