Contemporary Federal Education Policy and Rural Schools: A Critical Policy Analysis

Abstract

This article focuses on contemporary federal education policy as it manifests in rural schools. Rural schools differ appreciably from nonrural schools in terms of organizational systems, structures, and culture. Federal policies that drive school improvement initiatives (e.g., those regulating the functioning of schools and those managing the distribution of resources to schools) are often not attentive to such differences, adopting one-size-fits-all approaches resulting in policy contexts that are ineffective and even harmful to rural schools and communities. The few national policies explicitly designed for rural schools, moreover, generally fail to engage the state and regional variations that characterize rural schools, resulting in seemingly unpredictable results that often work against the announced policy goals. This article considers three major educational policies of the post–No Child Left Behind era: the Race to the Top grant program, the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, and the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP). Along with describing these programs and analyzing the impact of their implementation in rural settings, the article also offers perspectives on how to level the playing field for rural schools and communities.

Notes

In Romance languages the same word indicates “policy” and “politics,” e.g., the French politique and the Spanish política. Thus the vocabulary of other languages recognizes the objective connection between politics and policy that American usage tends instead to separate, with politics the realm of power, whereas policy is understood as the concern of administrative or technical expertise: policy experts rather than politicians, but certainly not ordinary people (see Lasch, 1995, for further discussion of the implications of such expertise for democracy).

Neoliberalism is the ideology of globalization, which we have defined elsewhere (Howley & Howley, 2007) as “the postindustrial worldwide manifestation of free trade under neoliberal economic rules” (p. 305). They are indeed inseparable: neoliberalism argues the rights, privileges, and purposes associated with globalization. More to the point among ordinary people, globalization requires reorganization both cultural (e.g., altered education systems) and political (e.g., transnational corporations as the new-world citizenry). Neoliberalism, in a sense, is the contemporary force most ready to argue the requirements of school reform, and to impose decisions. The extent of its dominion makes neoliberalism robustly resilient to critique. We make the critique nonetheless.

As they prepare for the profession, one must also note, rural teachers are subjected to an induction process that includes the cultivation of the standard professional norms that reflect the extant policy (and pedagogical) infrastructure. That is: their professional preparation tends to work against their personal attachment (see Theobald & Howley, 1998, for further discussion).

From the perspective of globalization, rural places are important as extractive zones and dumping grounds. As consumer markets, though, they are unpromising profit centers. In many places, electrification arrived only after World War II (this is the case where the second author lives). High-speed Internet service options are much more meager in rural places than in metropolitan regions.

Applicants were required to demonstrate one of the priorities by having more than 50% of students in either (a) school districts in RTT states, (b) rural school districts in RTT states, (c) school districts in non-RTT states, or (d) rural school districts in non-RTT states.

Perhaps because rural places and people are culturally unfamiliar (nonmetropolitan), with historical connections to a lost agrarian way of life, rural schools—like urban schools—are presumed to be comparatively deficient (Kannapel & DeYoung, 1999; Schafft & Jackson, 2010). The standard of comparison is the affluent suburban school (so well positioned and provisioned for racing to the top). The presumed deficiency is the result of cultural ignorance. We don't mean that improvements aren't needed in rural schools or other schools. They are needed. Indeed, we think they are especially needed where schools and communities seriously embrace RTT commitments and principles. We ourselves regard RTT as likely to inflict yet more damage on rural schools and communities.

See Smarick, 2014, for just such a proposal, on the neoliberal model; for the second author's review of the proposal, see http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2014/03/review-new-frontier.

State RTT awardees must use one of four strategies to remake a chronically low-performing school (U.S. Department of Education, 2009): (a) turnaround (the school principal and all teachers are fired; a new principal may rehire up to 50% of the former teachers and must implement school improvement strategies approved by the USDOE); (b) restart (the district must either convert the school to a charter or close it and reopen it under outside—often private—management); (c) school closure (the school is closed and students are transferred to higher performing schools); and (d) transformation (the school principal is replaced [in most instances] and the school must adopt improvement strategies approved by the USDOE).

As follows: Part A of Title I (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged); Part A of Title II (Improving Teacher Quality State Grants); Part D of Title II (Educational Technology State Grants); Title III (Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students); Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities); Part B of Title IV (21st Century Community Learning Centers); and Part A of Title V (State Grants for Innovative Programs).

When a state agency designates an area as rural, the U.S. Department of Education must agree to the designation before the LEA may participate.

Namely, (a) teacher recruitment and retention, including financial incentives; (b) professional development, (c) educational technology that meets the requirements of Part D of Title II; (d) parental involvement activities; (e) activities authorized under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants program; (f) activities authorized under Part A of Title I (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged); and (g) activities authorized under Title III (Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students) (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. 23).

Mes Pensees, 1007, general maxims of politics, No 13. Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/ simple.php?id=2534#c_P1007. Our colleague Paul Theobald, a historian, explains that Montesquieu's politics are more rural because he doubted that a large state (an American continental empire, say; or a Russian, Chinese, or Indian one) could organize political life wisely or justly (Theobald, 2009).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jerry Johnson

Jerry Johnson chairs the Department of Teacher Education and Educational Leadership at the University of West Florida. A former K–12 educator and previous research director for the Rural School and Community Trust, his research has been cited in state school finance litigation and legislation, and he has testified before state legislative committees and presented research briefings on Capitol Hill. Johnson earned a doctorate in Educational Administration from Ohio University.

Craig B. Howley

Craig B. Howley of WordFarmers Associates recently retired from the Educational Studies Department at Ohio University. His research interests include educational scale, rural education, and the relationship between culture, political economy, and schooling. Forthcoming work includes a chapter (with Caitlin Howley) on neoliberal arrangements that extract profit from impoverished students and an article on contemporary dilemmas of rural superintendents. He earned his Ed.D. in Education Administration from West Virginia University.