Rural Education Opportunities & Challenges Brad Balch, Indiana State University

Board Voices – There Are Many!  Local boards have governed for more than 200 years.  In 1930, there were 200,000 school boards in the U.S. (Source: Meier, 2003)  Today, approximately 95,000 board members serve on 15,000 school boards in the U.S. (Source: Education Week, 9/26/2007).  The ISBA has a membership of 290 school boards and 1,685 board members (Source:

Demographics matter too! (Source: Hess, 2002)  A 2002 study prepared for the NSBA, which included 2,000 school districts found that large districts (i.e., 25,000+ students) are fundamentally different from smaller districts.  Urban/Suburban districts are political bodies, with more costly board campaigns, more attentive interest groups, more politically oriented candidates, and more hotly contested elections.  Rural districts are apolitical bodies, attract little attention and feature inexpensive, often uncontested campaigns.  However, the public image of school boards and school systems is largely informed by conditions prevailing in the 2% of “large” districts.

Representative Rural School Benefits (Source: Duke& Trautvetter, 2001, p.2)  “Researchers for the Rural School and Community Trust looked at 13,000 schools in Georgia, Montana, Ohio, and Texas and found that smaller schools consistently outperformed larger schools.”  “Smaller schools posted higher scores on standardized tests than would have been predicted from their poverty levels alone. In other words, the negative effect of poverty is reduced in smaller schools.”

Representative Rural School Benefits (Source: EQR, 2003, p.45 as cited in Lawless, 2009, p.19)  Rural schools are forging ahead with an emphasis on using technology in the classroom. Some studies have found, “a higher proportion of rural students than urban students used computers more than once a month at school.”

Representative Rural School Benefits (Source: Lawless, 2009, p.17)  A great advantage of many rural schools is the tendency for smaller classes.  In smaller classes teachers are able to spend more time with individual students and provide more assistance to students having difficulties, which can result in higher student achievement.  “When looking at pupil/teacher ratio it was found that achievement was greater in smaller schools with smaller classes” (Greenwald, Hedges & Laine, 1996, p.369 as cited in Lawless, 2009).

Rural School Consolidation (Source: Fanning, 1995)  School officials and boards are under pressure to run schools efficiently.  The logic for consolidating schools springs from the industrial era idea: Economy of Scale.  Since “A Nation at Risk”, economy of scale and the pursuit of national goals encourage a “one best system of schooling.”

Indiana School District Consolidation (Source: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy – CEEP, 2007)  Indiana’s last reconsolidation started in 1959, reducing over 900 districts to around 400 over an 11-year period.  Since 1970, the number has dropped to just over 290 school districts.  In 2005, a budget provision allowed for the study of consolidation of district central offices.  A 2007 budget provision provided money for districts consolidation feasibility studies or examining service mergers with other districts.

Indiana School District Consolidation (Source: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy – CEEP, 2008)  “Although there was little solid evidence that consolidation of school districts with fewer than 2,000 students would result in tangible financial savings or academic gains, a case can be made to consolidate districts with fewer than 1,000 and some cost efficiencies result.”  “Consolidation had no proven positive impact on student achievement and may negatively impact student achievement.”  “Thus, consolidation should be encouraged on a case-by-case basis.”

Indiana School District Consolidation (Source: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy – CEEP, 2010)  Despite legislative interest in mandating consolidation, the results wouldn’t benefit students and would have minimal impact, if any, on state spending on public education.  Proponents of consolidation argue the smaller districts are inefficient, have too much overhead, and spending too much on administration. “This data suggests otherwise.”  “The data show little difference in student achievement between larger and small districts.” However, districts with more than 20,000 students had statistically lower ISTEP outcomes.

Indiana School District Consolidation Recommendations (Source: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy – CEEP, 2010)  Collaborative opportunities should be explored, such as joint purchasing agreements on bus purchases and health insurance.  Track expenditures by line item to better understand how schools might operate more efficiently and links to student achievement.  Expand the curriculums with virtual learning, joint summer programs, and open enrollment.  Consider deconsolidation as an option too. /projects/PDF/PB_V8N3_summer_2010_EPB.pdf.

Rural School Resources (Source: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory – Learning Point Associates, 2010)  NCLB and Rural Schools  Rural Student Mobility  Challenges/Advantages of Rural Schools  Rural Programs and Services  Rural Advisory Council  Resources for Rural Schools