In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, pundits and analysts were hyper-focused on rural communities. NPR wrote that voters there played a “big part” in the election, and The New York Times claimed that the election “highlighted a growing rural-urban split.” Many in the education sphere predicted that all this attention might convince policymakers to finally focus in on rural schools and their unique struggles.
Yet two years later, the majority of education debates continue to revolve around urban and suburban communities—at least in Ohio. That’s mostly a function of size. According to recent data, the Buckeye State has 229 rural school districts serving over 250,000 students—15 percent of the state’s student population. Urban districts comprise over 28 percent of the population, and suburban districts over 33 percent. Together, they make up the majority of the state’s students. It’s understandable that they would dominate policy discussions.
But even considering their small size, rural districts should get more attention than they do. More than half are considered high poverty, and almost half of their students are economically disadvantaged. In places with steep poverty rates, rural schools face many of the same issues as urban districts, including lower rates of student achievement, post-secondary readiness, and completion. For example, although 50 percent of rural students enroll in two or four year colleges after high school, only 28 percent earn at least an associate degree within six years of leaving high school. Only 3 percent of rural students earned a passing AP score during the 2017–18 school year—the lowest percentage of any district typology in the state.
These issues are exacerbated by the unique challenges facing rural communities. Some places still lack widely available high speed internet access, and reliable public transportation is virtually non-existent. As a result, many of the school choice and course access options that urban and suburban areas offer are difficult to replicate. Rural districts also spend less per pupil then suburban and urban schools and often have a weaker tax base.
Salaries for rural educators are lower than those offered to their peers in suburban, urban, and small-town areas, too. On average, teachers in rural areas make around $53,000 a year compared to the statewide average of $62,000. The cost of living in rural communities is significantly lower than it is in other areas, so lower average salaries don’t necessarily indicate serious problems. After all, teacher shortages are far more complicated than most headlines indicate. But data do show that states consistently report having trouble staffing subjects like special education, math, science, and career and technical education. Because they have less money to spend and offer lower-than-average salaries, Ohio’s rural districts may have a harder time competing for talent in harder to staff subjects.
In short, Ohio’s rural districts face a ton of complicated problems. The good news is that, despite the lack of media coverage and an only-occasional seat at the policy and advocacy table, there are plenty of innovative programs and organizations doing really good work.
Consider the Rural Schools Collaborative, a national organization that aims to strengthen the bonds between rural schools and communities through rural philanthropy, developing teacher-leaders, and place-based engagement, a learning model that focuses on personalized learning and competency-based assessment, among other things. Their work with teachers includes the Rural Teacher Corps, a network of programs that recruit, prepare, develop, and retain effective rural educators. The Buckeye State is home to one such program, a recently established partnership between Graham Local Schools, Urbana University, and Ohio Hi-Point Career Center in the western part of the state. The program is tailored toward students who are interested in pursuing a career in education, and it allows them to earn credit from Urbana University via College Credit Plus. The ultimate goal of the program is for students to “return to Graham or other local districts in the region to bring their teaching talents back to Ohio’s rural places.” Going forward, state leaders should invest in far more of these programs. A teacher residency program aimed at serving a group of rural communities would be a good place to start, and so would creating an incentive program to help rural areas attract and develop high-performing teachers.
College Credit Plus in particular has proven to be especially valuable for rural districts. Overall enrollment statewide skyrocketed from around 54,000 students in 2015–16 to more than 71,000 during the 2017–18 school year, but it’s rural students who earn the highest rate of credits. Twenty-five percent earned three or more college credits during the 2017–18 school year, compared to the state average of just 19 percent. Rural schools are also taking advantage of Ohio’s growing career and technical education sector: 7 percent of rural students earned an industry-recognized credential last year, compared to the state average of 4 percent. That number isn’t huge, but it is larger than any other district typology. By continuing to support the growth and improvement of both College Credit Plus and career and technical education, Ohio lawmakers can ensure that rural students continue to have access to rigorous opportunities.
Another promising organization is the Ohio Appalachian Collaborative (OAC), which was established in 2010 as a partnership between Battelle for Kids and rural Appalachian districts centered in southeastern Ohio. As of 2016, the OAC included 27 districts serving around 48,000 students, over half of whom live in poverty. While the OAC focuses on several initiatives, its work with personalized learning is particularly interesting. Using grants from the Straight A Fund, OAC and over two dozen districts created model pathways that outline personalized learning routes for students that are aligned to Ohio’s career clusters, are focused on sectors that have a direct link to Ohio’s Appalachian region, and include dual enrollment classes, work-based learning opportunities, and career advising and counseling.
Unfortunately, the Straight A Fund no longer exists. That’s a shame because, with just a few tweaks, the fund could have inspired even more initiatives like OAC’s model pathways. If lawmakers want to lend a helping hand to rural districts looking to problem-solve in creative ways, they could create a newer, better version of Straight A that supports initiatives in rural schools.
Overall, Ohio’s rural districts have plenty to be proud of. But there’s a lot of work ahead, too. Policymakers should continue to invest in what’s already working and in research that can support further improvement. But they should also commit to creating even more opportunities; investing in job programs aimed specifically at rural communities, expanding school choice options like charters and independent STEM schools, and supporting changes to school transportation are all good places to start.
