Improvement Efforts in Rural Schools: Experiences of Nine Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants

Abstract

Low-performing schools in rural settings can face challenges common to all struggling schools, such as low student motivation and maintaining a qualified teaching staff. However, aspects of rural schools’ settings, such as the distance from urban areas and the commute between the schools and the students’ and teachers’ homes, can exacerbate the challenges that rural schools face. This article focuses on the experiences of nine rural schools that were part of a study for the U.S. Department of Education on the school improvement process in a purposive sample of 35 schools receiving federal funds through the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program. In particular, it examines how respondents in the rural schools perceived that the schools’ rural setting influenced the schools’ challenges and improvement actions and presents findings on the recruitment and retention of teaching staff, an activity integral to school improvement efforts under SIG.

Notes

The three tiers of SIG eligibility are defined as follows: (1) a Tier I school is a Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is either (a) among a state's lowest achieving 5% or the lowest achieving five schools (whichever is greater) or (b) a high school with a graduation rate below 60% over a number of years; (2) a Tier II school is a secondary school that is eligible for but does not receive Title I, Part A funds, and meets the performance criteria for a Tier I school; and (3) a Tier III school is a Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not included in Tier I.

For findings from these studies, please see Le Floch et al. (2014); Golden et al. (2014); and Rosenberg, Christianson, Angus, and Rosenthal (2014).

Data from the CCD can be retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.asp

Data from the CCD can be retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.asp

Schools’ rural/urban status was determined using four data sources: (a) urban-centric locale code from the 2010–2011 CCD (http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp); (b) district-level urban-centric locale code also from the 2010–2011 CCD; (c) county-level 2004 urban influence code from the Economic Research Service (ERS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/urban-influence-codes.aspx); and (d) county-level 2003 rural–urban continuum code from ERS at USDA (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/documentation.aspx). Using these measures, the nine schools were categorized as: (a) most remote, with the least urban influence; (b) moderately remote, with some urban influence; or (c) least remote, with the most urban influence. For more information, please contact the authors.

This school name is a pseudonym.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Linda Rosenberg

Linda Rosenberg is a senior researcher in Mathematica's Human Services Research Division. She has more than 20 years of experience conducting qualitative research of programs in a range of policy areas, including education, labor, and welfare. She is Mathematica's project director for the U.S. Department of Education's Study of School Turnaround. Rosenberg holds an M.P.A. in Public Affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Megan Davis Christianson

Megan Davis Christianson is a senior program analyst for Mathematica's Data Management and Analytics group and has 15 years of experience conducting qualitative research in education. For the Study of School Turnaround, she led site visits and analyzed interview responses and other content. Christianson earned a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.

Megan Hague Angus

Megan Hague Angus is a research analyst in Mathematica's Human Services Research Division. She has more than 13 years of experience conducting qualitative research for federal clients, including the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor. For the Study of School Turnaround, she led site visits, coded and analyzed qualitative data, and contributed to interim and final deliverables. She holds an M.A. in Educational Policy Studies from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.