----

##  Interstate Variations in Rural Student Achievement and Schooling                Conditions. ERIC Digest.                                                     

Rural student achievement provides one important barometer for                  monitoring national progress in public education. Rural education               often has been discussed as a deficit model of instruction from                 which relatively low outcomes can be expected (Edington & Koehler,              1987). While this perspective has been reinforced by some local                 studies, it is not supported by national data (Fan & Chen, 1999;                Lee & McIntire, 1999; Stern, 1994). At the same time, aggregate                 national data conceal that the achievement of rural students varies             significantly from state to state (Lee & McIntire, 2001). This                  Digest reviews research on the status of rural student achievement              and schooling conditions and describes their variations across the              nation and the states. It examines (1) national trends and                      interstate variations in rural student achievement, (2) rural                   schooling conditions affecting achievement, (3) interstate                      variations in rural school conditions, and (4) the challenge of                 determining "what works" in rural schooling. NATIONAL TRENDS AND              INTERSTATE VARIATIONSThe achievement scores of rural students               have been comparable to national averages in virtually every subject            tested (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1991). For             example, data from the 1996 National Assessment of Educational                  Progress (NAEP) mathematics assessment, when compared with the 1992             data, showed that the most significant improvement occurred in the              rural/small town category (NCES, 1997).(1) In 1996 rural students               started to outperform nonrural students on the NAEP 8th-grade                   mathematics assessment. Rural students' average math scale score was            276, whereas nonrural students' average score was 268; the 8-point              gap amounts to approximately one-fourth of the pooled standard                  deviation.(2) 
Despite these aggregate national trends, Lee and                McIntire (2001) found substantial variations among states in rural              students' mathematics achievement and in the achievement gap between            rural and nonrural students. First, some rural states performed at              the top, while others performed below the national average. Second,             among the 35 states that participated in the NAEP 1992 and 1996                 8th-grade math assessments, 14 states had significant achievement               gaps between rural and nonrural students. Interestingly, rural                  students performed better than nonrural students in 7 of these                  states and worse in the other 7. 
The study also found interstate              variations in rural students' mathematics achievement gain over the             1992-96 period (Lee & McIntire, 2001). While both nonrural and rural            students made significant progress in 4 states, rural students made             significant progress in 8 states. Rural students did not make                   significant progress in the remaining 23 states participating in the            1992 and 1996 NAEP 8th-grade mathematics assessments. RURAL                   SCHOOLING CONDITIONS AFFECTING ACHIEVEMENTAn examination of                 rural schooling conditions that affect student achievement indicates            that rural schools may harbor inherent disadvantages, as well as                advantages. While rural schools are often small and conducive to                higher performance for disadvantaged students, at the same time they            may suffer from poor educational conditions. Sparse population bases            often result in geographic and cultural isolation, limited economic             development, and restricted educational opportunities (McCombs &                Bansberg, 1997). Rural schools typically lack the facilities,                   physical plants, course materials, and educational programs that                typify larger, more resource-rich districts. Also, rural teachers               generally have less professional preparation (Stern, 1994). 
On the            other hand, research on small schools (which included a large                   majority of rural schools) revealed that small school size can                  mitigate the influence of poverty (Howley, Strange, & Bickel, 2000).            The resource limitations rural schools often experience can be                  compensated for by the supportive ethos found in smaller communities            and their generally smaller schools (Stern, 1994). Many rural                   schools feature low student-teacher ratios, individualized                      instruction and attention, cooperative learning opportunities, close            relationships and ties to the community, and strong staff                       commitment (DeYoung, 1987; McREL, 1990). According to the Schools               and Staffing Survey, rural schools tend to be a better place for                learning than their urban or suburban counterparts in terms of                  teacher and student absenteeism, safe learning environment, student             misbehavior, and alcohol and drug use (Stern, 1994). INTERSTATE               VARIATIONS IN RURAL SCHOOL CONDITIONSRecent studies challenge               our monolithic view of rural education. Overly generalized                      conclusions about rural schooling conditions may obscure substantial            variations among the states (Beeson & Strange, 2000), let alone                 differences within states, which are often the result of factors                other than policy. Lee and McIntire (2001) found that interstate                variations in rural students' mathematics achievement relative to               their nonrural counterparts were closely related to interstate                  variations in key schooling conditions (e.g., instructional                     resources, professional training, safe/orderly climate).(3) In their            study, Connecticut and Virginia, two states with somewhat different             proportions of rural students (37 percent in Connecticut and 28                 percent in Virginia), showed opposite patterns of rural vs. nonrural            achievement gaps. In Connecticut, where rural students had                      relatively better schooling conditions, rural students performed                significantly higher than their nonrural counterparts. In Virginia,             where rural students had relatively worse schooling conditions,                 nonrural students performed significantly better than their rural               counterparts. 
There also has been an effort to compare findings               across states using research conducted in individual states. The                best example of this effort was the synthesis of research on the                effects of district/school size and poverty in seven states (Alaska,            California, Georgia, Ohio, Montana, Texas, and West Virginia). The              synthesis found that the effects of size on excellence (as measured             by the level of average achievement) varied substantially by state              while the effects of size on equity (as measured by the relationship            between achievement and SES) were highly consistent from state to               state (Howley et al., 2000). This kind of cross-state comparison has            implications for state policies. State policy agendas for improving             the outcomes of rural education should assess the unique schooling              conditions and their effects on student achievement. 
During the               past two decades, state legislatures have issued numerous mandates              directed toward improving the quality of public education. Rural and            small school districts with low fiscal capacity have often found                these requirements difficult to meet (Hughes, 2000). In some cases,             through extraordinary local effort, full compliance with state                  mandates has been met. In other cases, reform legislation has                   resulted in consolidation and reorganization of rural schools and               school districts (Stern, 1994). The perennial challenge faced by                rural schools is to provide cost-effective and high-quality                     schooling experiences as standards and expectations are raised for              all students. THE CHALLENGE OF DETERMINING "WHAT WORKS"Given              that many rural students are poor and attend schools where                      instructional resources and course offerings are limited, the level             of their academic performance relative to their nonrural                        counterparts is encouraging. Indeed, the literature shows that rural            schools, having achieved so much with relatively fewer resources,               can provide "a model of strength" worth studying and emulating (see             Lee & McIntire, 1999, for demonstration with national                           data). 
However, there is lack of consensus about what works for               improving rural student achievement--a situation complicated by the             variance in rural schooling conditions and in definitions                       of "rural." Also noteworthy is the finding that in some states rural            students scored higher than their nonrural counterparts and in                  others they scored lower. The variability of achievement can take               place within states as well as between states, and these differences            are often the result of factors other than policy. Comparison of                rural and nonrural education is challenged by the variations in                 definitions of rural. The Census Bureau definitions do not take into            consideration the type of employment in the area and the degree of              isolation (see Khattri, Riley, & Kane, 1997, for different                      definitions of "rural"). In need of further examination is the issue            of how different definitions of "rural" change the status of rural              student achievement. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether rural             students' academic growth will continue to outpace that of their                nonrural counterparts. NOTES1. This classification system is              based on geographic characteristics of the schools' locations and is            related to the Census Bureau definitions of metropolitan statistical            areas (MSAs), population size, and density. "Rural" includes all                places and areas with a population of less than 2,500. A small town             is defined as a place outside an MSA with a population of less than             25,000 but greater than or equal to 2,500. This definition differs              from the "extreme rural" category in past NAEP reports that                     encompasses students in nonmetropolitan areas with a population                 below 10,000 and where many parents are farmers or farm workers.                Discontinuing the classification that combined community size with              employment and SES, NAEP currently reports results by Census-based              type of location. Schools in central city, urban fringe, or large               town areas are classified as "nonrural," and schools in rural areas             or small towns as "rural." In comparison with students in                       rural/small towns, students in central city areas scored 16 points              less and students in urban fringe/large town areas scored 2 points              less. 
2. Results from the 2000 NAEP mathematics assessment were               not available at the time this Digest was prepared. 
3. The state              profiles of rural and nonrural student achievement and schooling                conditions are available online at                                              http://www.ume.maine.edu/naep. REFERENCESBeeson, E., &                    Strange, M. (2000). Why rural matters: The need for every state to              take action on rural education. Randolph, VT: Rural School and                  Community Trust. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445 847)            Retrieved December 7, 2001, from                                                http://www.ruralchallengepolicy.org/streport.html 
DeYoung, A.                 J. (1987). The status of American rural educational research: An                integrated review and commentary. Review of Educational Research,               57, 123-48. 
Edington, E. D., & Koehler, L. (1987). Rural student              achievement: Elements for consideration (ERIC Digest). Las Cruces,              NM: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC              Document Reproduction Service No. ED 289 658) 
Fan, X., & Chen, M.             J. (1999). Academic achievement of rural school students: A                     multi-year comparison with their peers in suburban and urban                    schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15(1),                         31-46. 
Howley, C., Strange, M., & Bickel, R. (2000). Research                 about school size and school performance in impoverished                        communities (ERIC Digest). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on                Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction                  Service No. ED 488 968) 
Hughes, M. F. (2000). Financing facilities            in rural school districts: Variations among the states and the case             of Arkansas. In S. E. Dewees & P. C. Hammer (Eds.), Improving rural             school facilities: Design, construction, finance, and public                    support (pp. 21-39 ). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural               Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.            ED 445 857) 
Khattri, N., Riley, K. W., & Kane, M. B. (1997).                  Students at risk in poor, rural areas: A review of the research.                Journal of Research in Rural Education, 13(2), 79-100. 
Lee, J.,&              McIntire, W. G. (1999, April). Understanding rural student                      achievement: Identifying instructional and organizational                       differences between rural and nonrural schools. Paper presented at              the annual meeting of American Educational Research                             Association (AERA), Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction               Service No. ED 430 755) 
Lee, J.,& McIntire, W. (2001). Interstate             variation in the mathematics achievement of rural and nonrural                  students. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 16(3),                        168-81. 
McCombs, B. L., & Bansberg, B. (1997). Meeting student                diversity needs in poor, rural schools: Ideal practices and                     political realities. In M. C. Wang & K. K. Wong (Eds.), Implementing            school reform: Practice and policy imperatives (pp. 162-91).                    Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human                    Development and Education. 
Mid-Continent Regional Educational                 Laboratory, Rural Institute. (1990). Rural schools and education                reform: They may be closer than you think. The Rural Report. Aurora,            CO: Author. National Center for Education Statistics. (1991). Trends            in academic progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of                        Education. 
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). NAEP             1996 mathematics: State report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department            of Education. 
Stern, J.D. (ed.). (1994). The condition of                     education in rural schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of                  Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC                Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 935) 
----- 
Dr. Jaekyung            Lee is Assistant Professor at the College of Education and Human                Development, University of Maine. He specializes in educational                 policy research and evaluation. E-mail [email protected] for                 correspondence about this Digest. 
This publication was prepared               with funding from the Office of Educational Research and                        Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no.                   ED-99-CO-0027. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily                 reflect the positions or policies of OERI, the Department, or AEL.           **Title:** Interstate Variations in Rural Student Achievement and Schooling                Conditions. ERIC Digest.                                                     **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC/CRESS, P.O. Box 1348, Charleston, WV 25325-1348. Tel:                      800-624-9120 (Toll Free). For full text:                                        http://www.ael.org/eric/digests/edorc01-5.htm.                               **Descriptors:**  Academic Achievement,  Educational Environment, Educational Trends,            Elementary Secondary Education, Mathematics Achievement, Poverty,                Rural Education, Rural Schools, Rural Urban Differences, School                Size, Small Schools, Socioeconomic Influences, Student School                   Relationship                                                                 **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]