Urgent Request - Support Forest County and Schools Program!

We would like to ask for your immediate assistance in urging Members of Congress to sign a letter to congressional leaders in support of the Forest County and Schools program. The letter, being circulated by Representatives DeFazio (D-OR) and Walden (R-OR), calls for inclusion of language to reauthorize and fund the program in upcoming Emergency Supplemental legislation.

Background: The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act has made a real difference for schools in rural, timber-dependent counties, by ensuring them a consistent funding stream.

Unfortunately, the program expired at the end of 2006. Failure to reauthorize and fund it immediately will result in a substantial and devastating funding cut for rural counties across the country. Congress has only a short time to act before counties have to start implementing cuts to schools and services. In fact, a number of counties around the country have already begun sending out pink slips notifying employees of potential lay offs.

Action Needed: Contact the Members of Congress listed below from your state (all cosponsors of the reauthorization legislation in the 109th Congress) and urge them to add their names to the DeFazio-Walden letter. The deadline for signing the letter is tomorrow – Wednesday, January 24. To sign the letter, Members should be directed to Penny Dodge in Congressman DeFazio's office (penny.dodge@mail.house.gov) and Colby Marshall in Congressman Walden's office (colby.marshall@mail.house.gov ).

A copy of the draft DeFazio-Wyden letter is attached here for your information.

Thank you for your assistance on this urgent matter.

What the Research Says

Report: Rural Enrollment up 15%

The Rural School and Community Trust has released "Why Rural Matters 2007: The Realities of Rural Education Growth". This new report shows that rural school enrollment is up 15%, a reversal from previous years' declines in enrollment. Perhaps the most startling statistic in this year's report is the evidence of a 55% increase in minority student enrollment in rural schools, with some states showing more than a 100% increase. Read "Why Rural Matters 2007: the Realities of Rural Education Growth."

Report: Education Reform Tough on Rural Schools

A February 2005 report from the Rural School and Community Trust suggests an urgent need for policymakers to pay attention to rural education issues across the United States. Read  "Why Rural Matters 2005: The facts about rural education in the 50 states."  

Navigating Resources for Rural Schools Offers Extensive Data

The National Center for Education Statistics has updated its rural education Web site, Navigating Resources for Rural Schools. The January 2006 version of the site contains a wealth of data, including:

• an overview of how locale is defined in various NCES data collections 
• data on student enrollment and participation rates, student assessment, progress through school, and per-pupil expenditures and revenues
• data on teachers' credentials, salaries, attrition rates, and student/teacher ratios
• information on coursework, including vocational education offerings
• measures of the quality of the school environment, including student behavior, school discipline, and crime
• data on school facilities, including access and use of technology
• data on parents’ satisfaction and engagement with schools

Timber-Funded Schools

Some rural districts depend on a share of proceeds from federal timber sales for funding. Revenue from timber sales has dropped dramatically, resulting in a severe loss of revenue to these districts.

The losses have had a devastating impact on districts dependent upon funding from timber sales. They have resulted in staff reductions, elimination of extracurricular activities, cancellation of school meal programs and the forgoing of much needed building maintenance and repair.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has released more than $384 million to 41 states and Puerto Rico under the NEA-supported Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, popularly known as the Forest County Schools Bill. The money will help rural communities improve public schools, invest in road improvement projects and strengthen forest stewardship programs. The legislation brings relief to rural schools dependent on logging revenue from federal lands. It represents a critical step in guaranteeing adequate education funding for rural forest communities.

Many rural, timber-dependent communities have seen dramatic reductions in federal forest-land revenues due to significant decreases in federal timber sales. Payments to some local schools dropped to less than ten percent of their historic levels. Devastating losses of education funding led to reductions in teaching staff and other education personnel, elimination of extracurricular programs, cancellation of school meals programs, and postponement of desperately needed building repairs. This legislation ensures a predictable payment to federally-impacted forest counties. Guaranteed, consistent funding, such as that provided in this legislation, is essential to stabilize rural education.

Based on legislation passed in 1908, 25 percent of Forest Service revenues from timber sales, grazing, recreation, some mineral use fees and other land use receipts go to states that host national forests. The new legislation gave counties the option of staying with the traditional payment plan or choosing a predictable payment based on the average of the state's three highest payments between fiscal years 1986and 1999. Some 75 percent of the 700-plus counties affected elected to use the new formula.

Over the next six years, the USDA, through the Forest Service, will provide another $1.1 billion for schools and rural communities in addition to the initial $384 million recently released.

Other Resources

Coalition Seeks To Improve Rural Schools

Organizations Concerned about Rural Education is a coalition of more than two dozen education, farm, rural, technology and utility organizations that share a "common concern for the economic future of rural America, particularly, the education of rural children." The coalition is dedicated to the improvement of public education and economic development in rural America. Its Web site provides information on "what you can do to improve schools in your community, what your neighbors are already doing, and what is being done throughout rural America."

Rural School and Community Trust

NEA supports the efforts of the Rural School and Community Trust to enlarge student learning and improve community life by strengthening relationships between rural schools and communities. The Trust supports "young people and their teachers who use community as a laboratory for learning" and assists "rural citizens in developing policies that address the unique issues of rural schooling and to build knowledgeable, effective persistent advocates for rural children, schools and communities."

National Research Center on Rural Education Support

The National Research Center on Rural Education Support studies ways to help children in rural areas do better in school and continue their education. Its projected projects include training teachers to work as "intervention specialists" and studying the effectiveness of online learning in rural schools. The Center, established in 2004 with funding from the Institute for Educational Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education, is based at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

NRCRES programs focus on:

• retention of qualified teachers
• student achievement and dropout
• availability of and access to opportunities for advanced placement courses
• improvement in teacher quality through professional development
  
  

ECS Offers Rural Education Resources

The Education Commission of the States (ECS) offers a variety of resources for those involved in and interested in rural education issues (select "rural" from list and click "Go to Issue"). The ECS Web site includes summaries of relevant state programs, selected research and readings, and a list of other Web sites that address rural education needs and issues.

NEA Resources

Consolidation Hits Rural Schools

Small schools are facing big problems, according to an NEA Today article, "Rural Education Gets Squeezed." West Virginia alone has closed a fifth of its schools in the last decade. They're all victims of a relentless school consolidation effort, leaving children with fond memories to think about on their new, much longer bus rides to bigger schools. (March 2001)

NEA Supports Increased Attention to Rural Schools

The federal government must place increased emphasis on the needs of rural schools, including targeting resources to help attract, train and retain quality teachers. Background information and the Association’s specific recommendations are included in an issue paper on rural education. (June 2001)

NEA Seeks Solution to Funding Forest-area Schools

In testimony presented to a congressional committee, NEA offered six recommendations for finding a "permanent solution" to the problem of funding schools in forested areas where funding now is tied to fluctuating timber sales. Decreases in recent years in federal timber sales have resulted in payments to many rural forest schools dropping to less than ten percent of their historic levels. Many forest communities have faced devastating losses of education funding leading to reductions in teaching staff and other education professionals, elimination of extracurricular programs, cancellation of school meals programs, and postponement of desperately needed building repairs. (July 2002)

July 15, 1999

The National Education Association strongly supports the County Schools Funding Revitalization Act of 1999 (H.R. 2389) as a critical step in guaranteeing adequate education funding for rural forest communities.

Many rural, timber-dependent communities have seen dramatic reductions in federal forest land revenues due to significant decreases in federal timber sales. Payments to many rural forest counties have dropped to less than ten percent of their historic levels. Consequently, many forest communities are facing devastating losses of education funding leading to reductions in teaching staff and other education personnel, elimination of extracurricular programs, cancellation of school meals programs, and postponement of desperately needed building repairs. This is clearly a time of crisis for many forest county education systems.

The County Schools Funding Revitalization Act of 1999 offers a sensible interim solution to the forest county education funding crisis. The legislation ensures a predictable payment to federal forest counties for a five-year period, thereby protecting communities from the uncertainties of the yearly appropriations process. Other programs designed to help federally impacted communities -- such as the Payments In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Federal Impact Aid -- have traditionally received appropriations significantly below authorization levels. Funding for Impact Aid has been seriously eroded over the past few years, with the President proposing a 15 percent cut for FY 2000. This unpredictability has forced many communities to cut funding for schools and, in some cases, borrow money just to keep schools open. Guaranteed, consistent funding, such as that provided in H.R. 2389, is essential to stabilize rural education.

NEA applauds H.R. 2389Â]]>’

Public education in rural forest communities is at great risk. The County Schools Funding Revitalization Act of 1999 will help protect children and schools in forest counties by guaranteeing funding for education. NEA urges support of this important legislation.

Rural Education

Background

Rural schools educate a significant number of America's children. Nearly forty percent of America's school-age children attend public schools in rural areas or small towns with populations of less than 25,000. Forty-nine percent of the nation's public schools are located in rural areas and small towns and 41 percent of public school educators teach in rural community schools.

Rural public schools offer positive benefits to students and educators. Rural schools tend to be smaller in size than their suburban or urban counterparts, with smaller class sizes and more interaction among faculty, students, and parents. Rural school districts are often the largest single employer in their area and rural schools serve as the social, recreational, and cultural foundation of their communities.

Smaller classes and greater community involvement have resulted in higher average student achievement scores, higher graduation rates, and greater involvement in extracurricular activities among rural students. In addition, rural communities have launched a number of innovative strategies that have promise for all schools – including cooperative learning, site-based management, multi-grade classrooms, resource consolidation, regional consortia, distance education, community involvement, and cross-disciplinary course work and teaching.

Rural schools face formidable challenges in continuing to provide high-quality education. While rural and small town schools have many of the same needs as other schools, they often face different challenges based on their unique characteristics. Approximately 100 small rural public schools close each year; small rural districts are closing at a rate of 80 per year. Funding deficiencies, lack of programs targeted to students with special needs, difficulties in recruitment and retention of teachers, and inadequate facilities are among the challenges facing rural schools:

• Lack of Funding: Although rural and small schools educate nearly 40 percent of America's students, they receive less than 25 percent of the total federal, state, and local spending on public education. Rural and small schools tend to be located in areas with low property values and few industries, making it more difficult to raise additional revenues. In addition, because federal grants are awarded based upon student population, rural districts often receive insufficient grant funds to accomplish the stated purpose. Rural school districts also often lack the expertise and capacity their urban and suburban counterparts in formulating grant applications for competitive federal grants.
  
• Teacher Recruitment and Retention: Rural schools face formidable challenges in recruiting and retaining quality teachers. Compared with teachers in central city schools and urban fringe schools, rural teachers tend to be less educated, slightly less experienced, younger, and less likely to belong to a minority group. Professional isolation and chronically low salaries and benefits exacerbate the difficulty in attracting quality teachers to rural and small town schools.
  
  Rural and small town teachers are also less likely to have access to professional development, special services, and opportunities for peer collaboration. They are more likely to have to teach out of the field in which they are certified. Few accredited teacher education institutions prepare teachers to teach in rural areas.
  
• School Modernization: Fifty-two percent of rural and small town schools have at least one inadequate building feature, such as leaky roofs, faulty wiring, peeling paint, and malfunctioning heating, ventilation, or air conditioning systems. Approximately 4.6 million students in rural areas attend schools with at least one inadequate building feature. In building new schools with better technologies, some states and districts have closed older, smaller schools, forcing rural students to travel two hours or more to school.

Congress has already recognized the unique needs of rural schools. The 106th Congress recognized the need to devote additional resources to rural schools. Legislation enacted in 2000 guarantees a predictable federal payment to rural counties dependent on timber revenues. The 106th Congress also funded a Rural Education Initiative (REI) to facilitate increased funding for education technology, professional development, teacher recruitment and retention, parental involvement, or academic enrichment programs in rural districts.

Congressional Issues Overview

RURAL EDUCATION

June 2002

The new ESEA law included the NEA-supported Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), which authorized $300 million a year for six years for small rural schools and poor rural schools. REAP allows schools to combine funds from the professional development, education technology, Safe and Drug-Free schools, and Innovative Education Strategies Titles and use the funds for smaller class size and teacher professional development, among other things.

The Message to Members of Congress:

• Oppose elimination of the rural education program. Provide funding of $300 million for 2003.

Statement
of
The National Education Association
Before the
Forest Counties Payments Committee

July 10, 2002

The National Education Association, representing 2.7 million educators across the nation, is pleased to provide testimony regarding the need to find a permanent funding source to help forest and public land-impacted counties and schools.

NEA strongly supported passage of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act as a way to ensure a consistent stream of funding to impacted schools. In recent years, many forest-impacted communities saw dramatic reductions in federal forestland revenues due to significant decreases in federal timber sales. As a result, payments to many rural forest schools dropped to less than ten percent of their historic levels. Many forest communities faced devastating losses of education funding leading to reductions in teaching staff and other education personnel, elimination of extracurricular programs, cancellation of school meals programs, and postponement of desperately needed building repairs.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act offered a sensible solution to the forest county education funding crisis by ensuring a predictable payment to federally impacted forest counties, regardless of the level of timber sales. This formula effectively removed education funding from dependence on timber sales. When the law expires in 2006, we must ensure that we have in place a permanent process for continuing to support forest county schools.

The following are NEA's recommendations for a permanent solution to the forest county schools funding problem:

• Make Funding Mandatory. Impacted schools need a predictable, guaranteed source of income and should not have to rely on the unpredictable annual appropriations process. Providing a mandatory funding stream will enable impacted school districts to plan ahead. In addition, mandatory funding will protect schools from losing funding to competing congressional priorities, as has happened with other aid to federally-impacted areas.
• Link Funding Levels to a Permanent Source. Current law mandates a floor for payment levels of 25 percent of forest product receipts. The law also provides a formula for distributing dollars above the floor based on the average of the three highest years of payments. If necessary, Congress could identify and earmark receipts from other sources. However, Congress must always ensure an identified funding source other than annual appropriations. Decoupling from forest land receipts should not be an option at this time.
• Target Sufficient Funding to Impacted Schools. Any permanent funding legislation must target a fair share of dollars to schools in impacted counties, with the largest dollar amounts flowing to the schools with greatest needs. Funding from the federal legislation must supplement, not supplant, state and local dollars.
• In addition, we recommend that the Committee include in its report to Congress information on how each state distributes the federal funding. States have diverse fund distribution formulas - allocating money for roads and other infrastructure needs in addition to schools. Funds put into general state education aid formulas may be diverted into other funding pools.
• Adopt Legislation Addressing only this Issue. Legislation should focus solely on the forest county schools funding issue and should not address other issues related to national forests, the environment, land use, or rural economic development. While such issues are important, and do impact the amount of dollars available, they should not be included in forest county reauthorization legislation.
• Include a Survey on Fund Use. We recommend that the Committee's report to Congress include a survey of the use of impact dollars by schools. For example, NEA leaders in Flagstaff, Arizona, report that the new law has had a significant positive impact on their district, including providing a financial cushion in the wake of decreasing state sales tax revenues. This year, Flagstaff used funds received under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act to cover approximately one-fourth of their teacher salary increase.
• Include Information on Resource Advisory Committees. We recommend that the Committee compile information on the participation of teachers and other education professionals in Resource Advisory Committee activities and other processes used to determine how funds authorized by the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act are spent.

NEA looks forward to working with this Committee and with Congress as you seek a permanent solution to the forest county funding problem. NEA will also continue to work to ensure consideration of the broader issues facing rural education, including the impact of federal lands, the unique education funding needs, and the drain of human and natural resources from rural areas.

We thank you for the opportunity to share our comments.

Status of Public Education in Rural Areas and Small Towns: A Comparative Analysis

NEA Research

September 1998

Introduction

This report is to examine the current status of public education in rural areas and small towns. Included in the analysis are topics related to schools, students, teachers, technology, and education funding. Seven strategic recommendations are developed based on the analysis.

To reveal a clear picture of the current status, rural schools are compared with central city schools and urban fringe schools.

According to the definitions of the Department of Education and the Bureau of the Census, a rural area is a place with a population of less than 2,500 and is defined as rural. A small town is a place not within a SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area), with a population of less than 25,000 but greater or equal to 2,500.

Urban fringe is a place within a SMSA of a large or mid-size central city or a large town with a population greater than or equal to 25,000.

Central cities include large and mid-size central cities. A large central city is a central city of a SMSA with population greater or equal to 400,000 or a population density greater than or equal to 6,000 per square mile. A mid-size central city is a central city of a SMSA but not designated a large central city.

The report is primarily based on data from national research studies conducted by federal agencies such as the Department of Education and the General Accounting Office.

The results of this report will assist the NEA and OCRE (Organization Concerned about Rural Education) in addressing the needs of education in rural areas and small towns.

Schools and Students

About half of the nation’s public schools and approximately 40 percent of public school students are in rural areas and small towns. Rural schools are smaller; less likely to have minority students; less likely to provide bilingual, ESL, magnet, and job placement programs; but are more likely to offer remedial programs and Chapter One programs.

There are approximately 80,700 public schools nationwide, with 24 percent in central cities, 27 percent in urban fringe areas, and 49 percent in rural areas.

There are approximately 41.6 million students in public schools nationwide, with 29 percent in central cities, 33 percent in urban fringe areas, and 38 percent in rural areas.

Among 39,644 public schools in rural areas, 67 percent are elementary, 29 percent secondary, and 5 percent combined.

In public schools nationwide, there is an average of 17.0 students per full-time-equivalent (FTE) teacher. The ratio is 17.5 in central city schools, 18.4 in urban fringe schools, and 16.1 in rural schools.

On average, a central city school has 634 students, an urban fringe school has 619 students, and a rural school has 401 students.

Nationwide, 32 percent of public school students belong to a minority group. It is 54 percent in central city schools, 30 percent in urban fringe schools, and 19 percent in rural schools.

In central city public schools, 9.4 percent are limited English proficient students. It is 4.8 percent in urban fringe schools, and 2.1 percent in rural schools.

Rural schools (86%) are more likely to offer remedial programs than central city schools (79%) and urban fringe schools (82%).

Rural schools (68%) are also more likely to provide Chapter One programs than central city schools (58%) and urban fringe schools (53%).

By comparison, rural schools (2.3 percent) are less likely to provide magnet programs than central city schools (13%) and urban fringe schools (8.3%).

Rural schools (12.8%) are also less likely to provide bilingual programs than central city schools (29.2%) and urban fringe schools (16.9%).

Rural schools (29%) are significantly less likely to provide ESL programs than central city schools (54%) and urban fringe schools (58%).

Rural schools (95%) do not differ much from schools in central city (95%) and in urban fringe areas (97%) in having a library.

Rural schools also do not differ much from other schools in providing:

• disability services (90%)
• diagnostic services (82%)
• medical services (59%)
• free or reduced price lunch (95%)
• drug and alcohol prevention (94%)
• substance abuse counseling (37%)

Compared with central city schools (42%) and urban fringe schools (37%), rural schools (18%) are less likely to offer extended day programs.

Rural schools (73%) are also markedly less likely to offer kindergarten programs than central city schools (81%) and urban fringe schools (77%).

Rural schools with 12^th grade (21%) are also much less likely to offer job placement services than central city schools (40%) and urban fringe schools (31%).

Rural high school graduates (56%) are equally likely as central city graduates (56%) to apply to 2- or 4-year colleges, but less likely to do so than urban fringe graduates (59%).

School Employees

Approximately 40 percent of public school teachers are in rural and small town schools. Compared with teachers in central city schools and urban fringe schools, they tend to be less educated, slightly less experienced, younger, and less likely to belong to a minority group.

There are approximately 2.56 million public school teachers, of which 28 percent are in central city schools, 31 percent in urban fringe schools, and 41 percent in rural community schools.

Rural school teachers (28.2%) are slightly more likely to be male than central city schools (26.5%) and urban fringe schools (26.1%).

Rural school teachers (8%) are less likely to belong to a minority group than central city teachers (25%) and teachers in urban fringe areas (11%).

On average, rural school teachers, aged 42.2, are slightly younger than central city school teachers (43.7) and teachers in urban fringe schools (43.7).

Rural school principals (75%) are much more likely to be male than principals of central city schools (53%) and urban fringe schools (59%).

Principals of rural schools (6.9%) are much less likely to belong to a minority group than principals of central city schools (34.6%) and urban fringe schools (15.1%).

Rural teachers are not as well educated as their peers, with 37 percent having earned a Master’s degree, compared with 44 percent of teachers in central city schools and 47 percent in urban fringe schools.

Rural school teachers are also slightly less experienced. On average, they have 14.7 years of teaching experience, compared with their colleagues in central city schools (15.1) and urban fringe schools (15.9).

Rural teachers (31.7%) are more likely to have participated in textbook or materials committees in the previous school year than central city teachers (25.2%) and urban fringe school teachers (28.5%).

Rural teachers are equally likely as their peers to have participated in the previous school year in the following activities:

• School or district workshops or in-service training (94%)
• Extension, adult education, or college courses (39%)
• Professional association activity (51%)
• Curriculum committees (16%).

Rural school teachers are less likely to have participated in in-service or professional development programs more than eight hours in length on the following topics:

• Education technology
• Teaching methods
• Subject fields
• Student assessment
• Cooperative learning.

Teaching Assignments

Teachers of rural schools and small town schools spend more time being with students at schools and outside school hours. They have fewer students in departments and in self-contained classrooms.

On average, rural school teachers are required to be at school slightly more hours (32.4) per week than their peers in central city schools (31.7) and in urban fringe schools (31.6).

Rural school teachers spend an average of 3.7 hours per week in activities with students outside school hours, compared with 2.9 hours spent by teachers in central city schools and 3.1 hours by teachers in urban fringe schools.

There are fewer students for rural school teachers in departments (22) than those for central city school teachers (24.3) and for urban fringe school teachers (24).

Similarly, there are fewer students for rural teachers in self-contained classrooms (24) than those for central city teachers (25.7) and for urban fringe teachers (26.3).

Compensation

Teachers in rural schools and small town schools have smaller incomes. They are less likely to receive health insurance.

Full-time teachers in rural schools receive an average annual salary of $33,298, less than their counterparts in central city schools ($37,173) and in urban fringe schools ($40,842).

Teachers in rural schools are less likely than their peers in central city schools and in urban fringe schools to receive the following benefits:

• Medical insurance (85%, 89%, 89%)
• Dental insurance (55%, 70%, 77%)
• Group life insurance (54%, 63%, 68%)
• Pension contributions (57%, 64%, 68%)

Opinions

Teachers in rural schools and small town schools perceive the use of alcohol to be a more serious problem. They have more influence on policies regarding setting discipline policy and establishing curriculum, but less influence on policies regarding school budget decisions.

Teachers in rural schools (12%) are more likely to perceive use of alcohol as a serious problem in their schools than teachers in central city schools (7%) and urban fringe schools (8%).

Teachers in rural schools are less likely than teachers in central city schools and urban fringe schools to perceive the following as a serious problem in their schools:

• Student absenteeism (10%, 22%, 14%)
• Tardiness (6%, 18%, 11%)
• Verbal abuse of teachers (7%, 17%, 11%)
• Student disrespect for teachers (15%, 25%, 17%)

Teachers in rural schools are equally likely as their peers in urban fringe schools, but less likely than teachers in central city schools to perceive the following as a serious problem in their schools:

• Lack of parental involvement (24%, 24%, 36%)
• Student apathy (22%, 22%, 28%)

Teachers in rural schools (18%) are less likely than teachers in central city schools (29%), but more likely than those in urban fringe schools (13%) to perceive poverty as a serious problem in their schools.

Teachers in rural schools are more likely than teachers in central city schools and urban fringe schools to think that they have a great deal of influence on policies regarding the following issues:

• Setting discipline policy (37%, 32%, 35%)
• Establishing curriculum (40%, 28%, 34%)

Teachers in rural schools are equally likely as teachers in central city schools and urban fringe schools to think that they have a great deal of influence on policies regarding the following issues:

• Content of in-service training
• Hiring full-time teachers
• Teacher evaluation

Teachers in rural schools are less likely than teachers in central city schools and urban fringe schools to think that they have a great deal of influence on policies regarding school budget decisions.

Teachers in rural schools (12%) and those in urban fringe schools (12%) are equally satisfied with the overall working conditions. They are more satisfied than teachers in central city schools (9%).

Teachers in rural schools are equally satisfied as teachers in central city schools, but more satisfied than those in urban fringe schools with the following working conditions:

• Buffering and enforcement of rules (21%, 21%, 14%)
• Cooperation among staff (30%, 30%, 27%)
• Adequacy of resources (9%, 9%, 6%)

All teachers in the three areas are equally satisfied with administrative support and leadership.

Thirty-nine percent of rural school teachers "certainly would become a teacher again", compared with 40 percent of teachers in urban fringe schools and 36 percent in central city schools.

Teachers in rural schools (32%) are equally likely as their peers in central city schools (32%) to plan to remain teachers as long as able, but they are less likely to do so than their colleagues in urban fringe areas (35%).

Teacher Supply and Demand

Rural schools and small town schools are less likely to use substitute teachers to fill teaching vacancies. They are less likely to have teaching vacancies in some major fields such as math and physical sciences, but tend to have vacancies in music and agriculture.

With teaching vacancies, rural and small town schools (10%) are less likely to use substitute teachers than central city schools (24%) and urban fringe schools (16%). They (96%) are more likely to hire qualified teachers than central city schools (90%), but almost equally likely to do so than urban fringe schools (95%).

Compared with central city schools and urban fringe schools, rural area schools are less likely to have teaching vacancies in the following major fields:

• General elementary (82%)
• Special education (52%)
• Math (41%)
• Physical sciences (30%)
• Biology or life science (26%)
• ESL or bilingual education (21%)
• Foreign language (28%)

However, rural schools are more likely to have teaching vacancies in music (31%) and agriculture (9%).

Rural school teachers (6.3%) are slightly less likely to be first-time teachers than teachers in central cities (8.4%) and in urban fringe schools (7.5%).

School Conditions

Three out of 10 rural and small town schools have inadequate buildings. One in two schools have at least one inadequate building feature. Approximately one-half have unsatisfactory environmental conditions. About 4.6 million students are attending schools in inadequate buildings.

Thirty percent of schools in rural areas report at least one inadequate building, compared with 38 percent of central city schools and 29 percent of urban fringe schools.

About 4.6 million students in rural area schools are attending schools with at least one inadequate building, compared with 5.6 million students in central city schools and 3.5 million students in urban fringe schools.

Fifty-two percent of rural schools report at least one inadequate building feature, compared with 67 percent of central city schools and 57 percent of urban fringe schools.

Rural schools are less likely than central city schools and urban fringe schools to report the following inadequate building features:

• Roofs
• Exterior walls, finishes, windows, and doors
• Interior finishes
• HVAC
• Electrical power
• Electrical lighting
• Life safety codes

Rural schools (54%) are the least likely to have unsatisfactory environmental conditions, compared with central schools (65%) and urban fringe schools (59%).

Compared with central schools and urban fringe schools, rural schools are the least likely to have the following unsatisfactory environmental conditions:

• Lighting
• Heating
• Ventilation
• Indoor air quality
• Energy efficiency

Technology

Rural and small town schools report lower rates of Internet access and of using telecommunications to access information, keep records, and communicate with parents. Rural schools are more likely to use telecommunications for distance learning.

Urban fringe schools reported higher rates of Internet access than schools in rural locales. In 1996, 75 percent of urban fringe schools were connected to the Internet, compared with 60 percent of rural schools and 64 percent of city schools.

Among those rural schools that do not currently have access to the Internet, 87 percent plan to obtain access by year 2000.

Sixteen percent of instructional rooms in urban fringe schools have access to the Internet, compared with 14 percent of instructional rooms in rural schools and 12 percent in city schools.

Rural schools (71%) reported lower rates of using advanced telecommunications (including but not limited to the Internet) to access information than urban fringe schools (81%). Seventy-two percent of city schools reported using advanced telecommunications to access information.

Sixty percent of rural schools used advanced telecommunications for record keeping within schools or school districts, compared with 70 percent of city schools and 71 percent of urban fringe schools.

Sixteen percent of rural schools used advanced telecommunications to communicate with parents, compared with 26 percent of city schools and 25 percent of urban fringe schools.

Rural schools (29%) are more likely to use advanced telecommunications for distance learning than central city schools (22%) and urban fringe schools (19%).

Teachers in rural schools are almost equally likely as their peers in city schools and urban fringe schools to use advanced telecommunications for teaching, professional development, and curriculum development.

Rural (13%) and urban fringe (13%) schools are more likely to mandate advanced telecommunications training for teachers than city schools (7%).

Urban fringe schools (39%) are more likely than city (30%) and rural (30%) schools to encourage advanced telecommunications training for teachers.

Central city schools (59%) are more likely than urban fringe schools (46%) and rural schools (50%) to leave up to teachers to initiate participation in advanced telecommunications training.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided $2.25 billion in discounts on telecommunications services sold to schools. Half of $2.25 billion may help defray costs in rural, insular, and other high-cost areas.

Funding

In 1995, the amount of total public school funding was approximately $232.6 billion.

Of this amount, the federal government provided 9.4 percent, the state governments 45.5

percent, and the local governments 45.1 percent.

Of this $232.6 billion total funding in 1995, 37.5 percent went to central city schools, 40.3 percent to urban fringe schools, and 22.1 percent to rural and small town schools.

Of the approximately $22 billion in school funds from federal, 45.8 percent went to schools in central cities, 30.8 percent to urban fringe schools, and 23.4 percent to rural and small town schools.

Of the $105.8 billion from states, 39.1 percent went to central city schools, 35.7 percent to urban fringe schools, and 25.2 percent to rural and small town schools.

Of the approximately $104.9 billion from local governments, 34.2 percent went to central city schools, 46.9 percent to urban fringe schools, and 18.8 percent to schools of rural areas and small towns.

About $51.5 billion went to schools in rural areas and small towns, of which 10 percent came from the federal government, 51.7 percent from states, and 38.3 percent from local governments.

Strategic Recommendations

• Advocate more funding for rural education

While half of the nation’s public schools and about 40 percent of the nation’s students are in rural and small town areas, only 22 percent of the total education budget ($232.6 billion in 1995) goes to schools in rural and small towns.

Of approximately $22 billion school funding from federal in 1995, 23.4 percent went to rural and small town schools.

Of $105.8 billion from states, 25.2 percent went to rural and small town schools.

Of approximately $104.9 billion from local governments, 18.8 percent went to schools in rural areas and small towns.

• Promote better salaries and benefits for teachers in rural education

Teachers in rural education earn lower incomes. They receive an average annual salary of $33,298, less than their counterparts in central city schools ($37,173) and in urban fringe schools ($40,842).

They are also less likely than their peers to receive benefits in medical insurance, dental insurance, group life insurance, and pension contributions.

• Seek to improve rural school conditions

Thirty percent of schools in rural areas report at least one inadequate building.

About 4.6 million students in rural area schools are attending schools with at least one inadequate building.

Fifty-two percent of rural schools report at least one inadequate building feature such as roofs, exterior walls, finishes, windows, doors, electrical power, or electrical lighting.

• Promote Internet access and use of telecommunications in rural schools

Rural schools (60%) have lower rates of Internet access than city schools (64%) and urban fringe schools (75%).

Rural schools (71%) also reported lower rates of using advanced telecommunications to access information than urban fringe schools (81%).

Sixty percent of rural schools used advanced telecommunications for record keeping within schools or school districts, compared with 70 percent of city schools and 71 percent of urban fringe schools.

Sixteen percent of rural schools used advanced telecommunications to communicate with parents, compared with 26 percent of city schools and 25 percent of urban fringe schools.

• Encourage rural school teachers to enhance their teaching qualifications and skills by taking courses and specific professional training

Rural school teachers are not as well educated as their peers, with 37 percent having earned a Master’s degree, compared with 44 percent of teachers in central city schools and 47 percent in urban fringe schools.

Rural school teachers are less likely to have participated in in-service or professional development programs more than eight hours in length on education technology, teaching methods, subject fields, student assessment, and cooperative learning.

• Help teachers of rural schools deal with alcohol use by students

Teachers in rural schools (12%) are more likely than teachers in central city schools (7%) and urban fringe schools (8%) to perceive that the use of alcohol is a serious problem in their schools

• Assist teachers of rural schools in influencing policies on school budget decisions

Teachers in rural schools are less likely than teachers in central city schools and urban fringe schools to think that they have a great deal of influence on policies regarding school budget decisions.

Bibliography

Federal Communications Commission, Commission Implements Telecom Act’s Universal Service Provisions: Adopts Plan to Ensure Access to Affordable Telecommunications Services for All Americans, May 1997

General Accounting Office, School Facilities, America’s Schools Report Differing Conditions, June 1996

General Accounting Office, School Facilities, Profiles of School Condition by State, June 1996

Howley, Craig B., & Barker, Bruce, The National Information Infrastructure: Keeping Rural Values and Purposes in Mind, April 1997

Howley, Craig B., & Eckman, John M., Sustainable Small Schools: A Handbook for Rural Education, 1997

National Association of State Boards of Education, Rural Education: What’s Down the Road for Schools, July 1996

National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, February 1997

National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1997

National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, July 1996

National Center for Education Statistics, Students’ Reports of School Crimes: 1989 and 1995, March 1998

Stern, Joyce D., The Condition of Education in Rural Schools, June 1994