Running header: EXAMINING AND DEVELOPING RURAL SCHOOLS

Examining the Circumstances of Rural Schools and

Shifting Toward Asset-Based Community Development Models

Drew Hemesath

Drake University
EXAMINING AND DEVELOPING RURAL SCHOOLS 2

Abstract

The ideas associated with rural America are often affiliated with simplicity, self-sufficiency, and

free from the complexities of the cities. The reality, however, is that rural communities are facing

many of the same issues that are prevalent in urban and suburban areas. In rural America, rates

of poverty are higher, college attendance and graduation rates are lower, and members of the

communities have additional difficulties accessing medical and mental healthcare due to their

geographic distances from services (Bright, 2018). Consequently, rural schools are feeling the

strain of these circumstances. This paper aims to explore two questions: 1) How did rural schools

find themselves in such trying conditions? 2) What can rural schools do to empower their

organizations to overcome inimical outside factors? While many suggested remedies involve

sending students to larger communities with more readily available resources, this approach

perpetuates the cyclical nature of these pressing issues. Because of the unique nature of many

rural communities, efforts to operationalize school development models must be led by school

leaders. With a thorough understanding of their individualistic communities, school leaders,

especially guidance counselors, are in high leverage positions to identify the specific areas of

need for students and cultivate relationships within the community to bolster services and

resources available for students and families.

EXAMINING AND DEVELOPING RURAL SCHOOLS 3

Examining the Circumstances of Rural Schools and

Shifting Toward Community-Based Development Models

When addressing the current state, trends, and direction of education in America, it is not

uncommon to hear of the increasing demands in urban and suburban school districts. The

discourse of societal issues and political agendas, as well as the overall perspective of America,

is frequently drawn from the happenings in metropolitan areas. Rural America, however, has

fallen into the shadows of the educational landscape. Despite the fact that one-half of school

districts, one-third of schools, and one-fifth of students in America live in rural areas, the needs

of rural education continue to rise as it is quietly neglected (Lavalley, 2018).

Despite the high number of schools and students, there is a considerably limited amount

of scholarly and professional literature available on the needs of rural education. Bright (2018)

reports that a review of publications from the top five educational journals from 2004 to 2014

found only five results for articles titles containing the word rural compared to sixty-four

containing the word urban. To make matters worse, when rural education is addressed, it is often

examined through the perspective and values of metropolitan academics and policymakers

(Lavalley, 2018). This clearly suggests a lack of study, understanding, and attention for a

significant portion of the population.

Educational researchers and publishers are not the only professionals neglecting the

needs of rural students. Lavalley (2018) shares the results of a survey in which 57% of policy

insiders felt that rural education was not important to the U.S. Department of Education. This

startling statistic may explain why the needs of rural communities are often overlooked in policy

discussions. With a focus on urban and suburban areas, the specific and unique concerns of rural
EXAMINING AND DEVELOPING RURAL SCHOOLS 4

communities continue to go unaddressed. Consequently, leads to funding and attempts at

educational reform do not accommodate the rural context (Lavalley, 2018).

The disregard for rural areas may be attributed to their traditional perception as vibrant,

picturesque communities free from the tribulations faced by cities. The current reality, however,

is that many issues are shared, and sometimes intensified, in rural settings. While poverty is often

associated with urban areas, it actually exists at higher rates, is felt at deeper levels, and is more

persistent in rural America compared to metropolitan areas. Nearly 64% of rural counties have

high rates of child poverty, topping the rate of urban counties at 47% (Schaefer, Mattingly, &

Johnson, 2016). Additionally, rural areas are becoming increasingly diverse, which compounds

economic inequities with racial and ethnic inequities in the education system, thus complicating

already unheeded challenges (Lavalley, 2018).

Considering the significant challenges rural students, staff, and schools must overcome,

one would expect these issues to be at the forefront of policy, reform, and funding; however, that

is not the case. The Title I funding formula, which emphasizes the number of students in poverty

over the portion of a school’s students that are in poverty, disadvantages rural districts. Not only

do rural schools receive smaller financial awards than those in urban and suburban areas, but

rural schools also receive funding less frequently. Before the Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA), 58% of School Improvement Grants were given to urban schools, while just 18% were

given to rural schools (Lavalley, 2009). Even under ESSA, rural schools receive minimal focus.

Rurality is suggested as a quality to consider when distributing grants, but without minimum

measurements or requirements, rural schools are not ensured equity. The pattern of distribution

and policy focus reflects a metropolitan perspective and funding prioritization that neglects the

needs, funding, and reform rural schools deserve (Lavalley, 2009).

EXAMINING AND DEVELOPING RURAL SCHOOLS 5

The disregard for rural education amplifies the inherent barriers already faced by rural

students. Rural students begin school with lower reading achievement than suburban students,

which may reflect the effect of rural poverty due to the influence of home and family life on

literacy. Students in rural districts have limited access to advance courses, which adversely

shapes their curricular path at the secondary level (Lavalley, 2018). Additionally, rural students

are significantly less likely to attain a college degree compared to metropolitan students. While

about 62% of urban adults have attended at least some college, approximately 51% of rural

students do not pursue any postsecondary education. Large numbers of rural students—

particularly minority students—are opting out of college, and many of them who do attend

college do not complete a four-year degree (Lavalley, 2018).

The sets of challenges rural schools face are as individualistic as the communities they

inhabit. While some may be tempted to examine rural schools through one lens, this would lead

to a faulty and incorrect perception of their needs. Lavalley (2018) articulates, “Little is

understood about rural schools and the unique challenges they face outside of the communities in

which they operate. As an added complication, broad regional variations make it difficult to

categorize all rural schools into a singular story” (4). To approach all struggling rural districts in

the same manner is to ignore the very issues that have perpetuated their initial struggles. Much

like their metropolitan counterparts, rural districts are aided and complicated by the specific

economic, environmental, and demographic factors that comprise their communities.

Given the stark realities of policy and funding for rural districts, it is evident that outside

assistance and interventions are an unlikely occurrence. This emphasizes the need for schools

and other stakeholders in the community to provide the unique and catered support that many

districts are currently lacking. With the variety among rural districts presenting idiosyncratic
EXAMINING AND DEVELOPING RURAL SCHOOLS 6

challenges, utilizing the model of community schools can be an effective approach to balance

systemic discrepancies and promote student success. Though the image and operations of

community schools are general and broad, that is what allows communities to make them

specific to their individualistic needs. Jacobson, Villarreal, Muñoz, and Mahaffey (2018)

describe community schools as “the hub of the neighborhood, uniting educators, community

partners, and families to provide all students with opportunities to succeed in school and in life”

(2). They are institutions that promote neighbors, students, clergy, educators, and parents to

come together to discuss and address concerns, combine local resources, and find effective and

sustainable ways to respond to challenges (Jacobson et al. 2018).

School counselors can be pivotal figures in orchestrating and developing traditional rural

school models into community schools as a means of countering the unique challenges they face

in order to provide equity and opportunity to students (Johnson, 2017; Bright, 2018). Given the

lack of immediate resources in many rural schools, a school counselor should be a bridge to

connect students and schools to the resources available in the community. Bright (2008) suggests

that counselors working in rural communities must be prepared to address issues associated with

poverty, such as physical and mental health concerns, homelessness, transience, and families

requiring assistance with obtaining community, state, and federal resources.

Many rural schools face limitations with the number of roles on staff. In such cases,

school counselors should act as a liaison between the needs of the school and the resources in the

community. Through such roles as coordinating local resources in school fairs, distributing

newsletters listing available community resources, coordinating the availability of in-school

mental health resources for students, as well as creating local community and educational

partnerships, counselors can not only deepen the connection between the school and the rest of
EXAMINING AND DEVELOPING RURAL SCHOOLS 7

the community, but they can also diversify and broaden the services the school is able to provide

to students and families (Bright, 2018). Many traditional career and educational resources often

remove rural students from their communities. However, by utilizing an asset-based community

development model, counselors incorporate opportunities within the community such as

mentoring programs, local career fairs, job shadowing opportunities, and district career

development task forces (Bright, 2018).

In addition to an asset-based community development model, schools can also use the

CARE model. In the CARE model, the counselor cultivates relationships, acknowledges realities,

removes barriers, and expands clients’ strengths (Johnson, 2017). Like most effective models in

education, the CARE model is best when applied to a specific area or concern. School

counselors, with the assistance and guidance of others in the school, can utilize the four

components of the CARE model when providing college opportunities, career transitions,

healthcare resources, or any other resource needed to meet the unique needs of their students

from rural or low income households (Johnson, 2017). Though it is not a blueprint to overturn

the disadvantages faced by rural or impoverished communities, the CARE model provides a

framework through which counselors and other school leaders can leverage the strengths and

opportunities in their communities to promote the success and wellbeing of their students.

There has never been a more pertinent time to reexamine the practices and resources of

rural schools. While the education systems in urban and suburban areas continue to grow and

adjust to new demands, it is imperative that the pressing challenges facing rural schools do not

continue to be ignored. In order to do so, it is essential that more attention is given to rural

schools when discussing and implementing policies to ensure all schools receive equitable

opportunities and funding. Additionally, rural schools should shift away from the traditional
EXAMINING AND DEVELOPING RURAL SCHOOLS 8

model of working as independent organizations. By utilizing an asset-based community

development model, rural schools will be more able to connect students and families with the

resources that will best support their current and future accomplishments.
EXAMINING AND DEVELOPING RURAL SCHOOLS 9

References

Bright, D. (2018). The rural gap: The need for exploration and intervention. Journal of School

Counseling. 16(21). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1193574.pdf

Johnson, G. S. (2017). School counselors supporting the career and college preparedness of

Students from Poverty: Using the CARE Model. Journal of School Counseling, 15(18), 1.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edo&AN=132546656&site=eds-

live

Jacobson, R., Villarreal, L., Muñoz, J. & Mahaffey, R. (2018). It takes a community: Community

schools provide opportunities for all. Phi Delta Kappan. 99(5).

Lavalley, M. (2018). Out of the loop. Center for Public Education. Retrieved from

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/system/files/Rural%20School%20Full%20Repo

rt.pdf

Schaefer, A., Mattingly, M., & Johnson, K. (2016). Child poverty higher and more persistent in

rural America. Casey School of Public Policy. Retrieved from

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=carsey