Rural and Small Community Educator Responses to State Academic Standards

Rural and small town schools are in the midst of revising curriculum to meet state and national mandates. This article presents information gained from a two-year grant funded training program for rural teachers focusing on the Indiana state-mandated curriculum change. The context in which teachers teach and their prevailing attitudes and beliefs about students and learning shape how they respond to the state standards in their classrooms. Teachers respond to state standards through a "customized approach " based on personal philosophical orientations to teaching and learning. Indiana has consistently set rigorous expectations for student learning (Indiana Department of Education, 2010). Integrating state standards into already established local school curriculum is a complex endeavor that brings added dimensions to the work of rural and small school teachers. While there is ample rhetoric regarding the value of standards-based curriculum, there is less understanding regarding rural and small community practitioner attitudes and beliefs as they modify teaching practices in response to these mandated standards. This study explored rural and small school teachers' responses and adaptations to state-mandated student standards. Literature Review The concept of rurality has been engrained in American culture for centuries. The term conjures images of farms, towns, and small spaces. However, no one definition clearly divides rural and urban entities: Many different definitions exist developed by different agencies and organizations (Rural Assistance Center, 2010). These multiple definitions involve boundaries, land-use, and shifts in populations, reflecting the multidimensionaliry of the term (Cromartie & Bucholtz, 2008). For example, the National Center for Education Statistics (2010) differentiates towns and rural areas on the basis of their proximity to larger urban centers, while the Rural Housing Program delineates rural eligibility as areas with populations of less than 20,000 people (Cromartie & Bucholtz, 2008). Approximately 19% of the total number of students enrolled in US public schools attends very small schools located in rural areas. Meeting the educational needs of rural children is a challenge. In Indiana alone, nearly four often Indiana public schools are located in rural areas (Johnson & Strange, 2009). Changing Value of Smallness Much of the twentieth century, rural, small community, educational reform movement concentrated on redesigning small and rural schools to resemble their urban counterparts (Kannapel & De Young, 1999; Kliebard, 2002). Generally, these initiatives resulted in school consolidations (DeYoung, 1995). However, in more recent years, the trend has changed to support smallness. Larger schools are increasingly being reorganized to resemble small community schools in efforts to connect with students and provide more individual attention (Learn, 2006; Meier, 1995). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation recently dedicated over $200 million to reducing the size of U.S. high schools (Wasley, 2002). Research on rural schools indicates high levels of overall satisfaction by teachers (Huysman, 2008), better connections between teachers and students (Blum, 2002), more opportunities for students (Mitchell, 2000), and lower violence, misbehavior, tardiness, and class cutting (Dinkes, Kemp, Baum, & Snyder, 2009). Conditions traditionally associated with rural and small schools, such as poor educational conditions and limited economic development (Roscigno & Crowley, 2001), higher dropout rates, lower percentages of adults with degrees (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007), and high rates of child poverty (Farmer et. al., 2006; Johnson & Strange, 2007), have become acceptable trade-offs to the public for the perceived advantages. Mandates for School Change The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) has mandated school changes that have impacted rural and small school educational decision-making in varying ways. …