Taylor; Final Research Proposal

Miles Apart:

Examining Rural and Urban Education Systems

Megan Taylor

Political Science 381 Professor Jenna Bednar

12/16/2015

MEGAN TAYLOR POLISCI 381

MILES APART: EXAMINING RURAL AND URBAN EDCUATION SYSTEMS

2

Abstract:

How is education reform framed and perceived in contemporary movements of education

reform? This research proposal seeks to question whether contemporary education reform tends

to understand educational reform in a manner that focuses on urban rather than rural education

systems. By identifying critical differences in the challenges that urban and rural schools face,

the importance of tailoring policy to the educational environment is emphasized. This proposal

seeks methods to serve as measurable proxies of an urban bias in education reform. This

proposal intends to collect data on recent educational policy proposals and analyze dominant

initiatives, to examine the flow of funds from federal and state governments to school districts,

and to conduct surveys and interviews with educators, policymakers and members of the public

to explore the manner that greater society tends perceive and understand education reform. The

proposal hypothesizes that the consequence of this potentially problematic framework is that

interests of rural systems may be overlooked in favor of urban systems. The proposal concludes

that education reform would be most effective if specific issues challenging rural systems were

recognized and policies and remedies were tailored accordingly to the diverse educational

environments.



3

Miles Apart: Examining Rural and Urban Education Systems

The Link Between Education and Social Mobility:

Education matters. The well-established link between education and social mobility

accentuates the importance of providing all students with the equal opportunity to receive a

quality education. Scholars have long explored the relationship between education, social

mobility, and the perpetuation of generational poverty. Education has been identified as an

indicator of an individuals eventual economic well-being (Weber, Marre, Fisher, Gibbs, and

Cromartie). Furthermore, education has been recognized as an avenue out of the vicious cycle of

poverty. Weber et al. demonstrate in their research that the greater an individual’s educational

attainment, the lower the risk of eventual poverty, stating, “people with more education are less

likely to be poor” (P. 443). They conclude that there is a strong, direct link between education

and one’s subsequent risk of living in poverty. Neelson echoes this conclusion, referencing

education to be an instrument of socialization in which “education reflects the norms and values

of the ruling groups and has essentially the function of confirming and stabilizing existing class

differences” (p. 143). In this understanding, education functions as a tool for the upper classes to

perpetuate the asymmetric power relations between social classes and ensure the continuation of

their dominance. Education is thus an influential institution, which has the power to either

welcome or impede opportunities which may have a significant effect on one’s life trajectory.

Recognizing the powerful potential that education has in determining the course of one’s life has

significant implications.

Educational attainment is a significant indicator of one’s eventual social class standing,

with lower educational attainment as a primary indicator of an individuals’ risk of eventual

poverty. The acknowledged relationship between education, social mobility and the generational



4

cycle of poverty underscores the genuine importance of providing a quality education to all

children. Every child is entitled to an equal opportunity to receive a quality education; to

determine their own pathway in life, rather than to be constrained and limited by the arbitrary

social class or physical location that they were born into. Moreover, education has the potential

to function as a tool to lift individuals out of this cycle of poverty.

These points considered, it is thus essential that all students, no matter their race,

ethnicity, socioeconomic status or zip code, have the equal opportunity to receive a quality

education. It is critical that policy makers and educators seek to provide an equal education for

all students. Consequently, it is crucial that the diverse educational environments, and the

specific challenges and realities of these environments, be examined.

Conceptualizing public education through the lens of the physical environment of school

systems has recently been questioned. Does an analysis of the physical environment and

community the school is situated within have benefits to offer to educational research? How

important is it for education policy to consider the effects of the urban or rural environments of

school systems? This proposal argues that in contemporary education, rural and urban schools

face unique challenges that are directly impacted by the effects of the physical community, that

is the effect of the rural or urban climate that the school is located within. Due to the pervasive

influence of physical environment, it is imaginable that rural and urban schools may be

confronted with significantly different issues that may or may not be relevant to the other. Thus,

it is crucial that education research seek to tangibly identify the disparities that may exist

between challenges that rural and urban schools are facing. Moreover, it is essential that the

framework that education policy is situated within be critically examined.



5

This research seeks to understand and explore the differences between rural and urban

educational systems. Specifically, this research questions the manner in which contemporary

educational reform is perceived and understood by policymakers, educators and the public. Does

contemporary public educational reform tend to be perceived in a manner that focuses on urban

education systems rather than including rural education systems? This question is essential,

because in order to truly provide an equal, quality education to all students, all educational

systems must be recognized and included in the endeavor towards reform and structural change.

Thus, the realties of both urban and rural schools should be acknowledged and reflected in the

policies and initiatives that have emerged in the fight for educational equity.

The remainder of this proposal will seek to present the critical differences between rural

and urban education systems, including differences in the issues that each system is respectively

challenged with. First, I will provide a foundational definition of the terms, ‘rural’ and ‘urban’, a

contested issue within the dominant literature that I discovered in the literature review. Secondly,

I will establish that a significant difference between rural and urban schools does exist. It will

then follow logically that policies and initiatives targeting education reform should be narrowly

tailored to more effectively affect the specific educational environment. Once I have illustrated

the significant differences between urban and rural systems, I will discuss the significance of

rural spaces, and why rural communities matter. I will then sketch out my proposed methods and

research design, including limitations and specific obstacles I may encounter. Finally, I will

discuss potential results and conclusions, as well as implications if my hypotheses is proven.

Defining the Terms: “Rural” and “Urban”:

The foundational question of this research proposal, that is the influence of the physical

environment on school systems, relies on one fundamental independent variable; the physical



6

environment that schools are situated within. All findings and results concerning the differences

between urban and rural school systems rests on the foundational definition of “urban” and

“rural”. If educational policymakers intend to create narrowly-tailored, effective policy it is

essential that this variable be defined with clarity and widespread acceptance so that policy may

specifically address the physical environment of schools. What definition is utilized to categorize

school systems as either “urban” or “rural”?

Due to the immense size of rural America, it has commonly been said that “rural America

defies generalization” (Monk, p. 156). This has complicated policy, and posed challenges to

classifying and differentiating between urban and rural spaces. Historically, the definitions used

to define rural and urban spaces have been ill-defined, vague and inconsistent (Issermen). This

inconsistency and lack of a reliable definition has proven extremely problematic in stabilizing

the dominant understanding of rurality. Beynon, Crawley and Munday reference the elusive and

multi-dimensional nature of rurality and describe the historical dispute that has occurred in

attempts to define rurality (p. 1).Beynon et al. states, “complex patterns that exist in

contemporary human geography lack the presence of one single variable that can ‘capture’ rural-

urban dynamics” (Beynon et al., 2015, p. 5). Echoing this, Weisheit (1999) notes, “Like concepts

such as ‘truth’, ‘beauty’, or ‘justice’; everyone knows the term rural, but no one can define the

term very precisely” (p. 213). The challenge of generating a concrete definition that accurately

encompasses rurality has resulted in a wide range of definitions used in the dominant literature.

In 2006, due to this highly problematic lack of a consistent definition, the National Center

for Educational Statistics (NCES) responded by partnering with the United States Census Bureau

to release a revised, credible set of definitions of school locale types. This classification system



7

has since become the standard definition that is relied on in defining ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ spaces

for educational purposes.

The revised definitions rely on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions

of metro spaces and utilize newly improved geocoding technology. The newly released

definitions place emphasis on a communities’ proximity to an urbanized area, and a diminished

reliance on the previous standard that relied on population size and county boundaries.

This emphasis on the proximity of a community to an urban center or cluster as been

classified as an “urban-centric” classification system, which has replaced the previously accepted

“metro-centric” system. The “urban-centric” approach allows for the differentiation between

rural schools in remote areas and school districts that are located just outside of an urban cluster.

This is essential, as “a community might be small but densely settled. The term rural then, might

imply small, but small need not imply rural” (Monk, p. 156). Four categories of locale are

recognized in the revised system: city, suburban, town, and rural. This classification system

allows for the identification of subtypes within the categories, labeled as large, midsize and small

within the “city” and “suburb” categories, and fringe, distant and remote within the “town” and

“rural” categories. This urban-centric classification system will be utilized in this research

proposal to accurately define and identify urban and rural school systems.

The following table, created by the OMB, assigns numerical definitions and differentiates

between the four categories based on proximity to a principle city, urbanized area or urban

cluster. The following table serves to provide data that this research proposal will rely on in

defining and differentiating between rural and urban school systems (NCES Website).



8

Exhibit A:

NCES's urban-centric locale categories, released in 20061.

Locale Definition

City

Large Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population of 250,000 or more

Midsize Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000

Small Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 100,000

Suburb

Large Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population of 250,000 or more

Midsize Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000

Small Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 100,000

Town

Fringe Territory inside an urban cluster that is less than or equal to 10 miles from an urbanized area

Distant Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles from an urbanized area

Remote Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 35 miles from an urbanized area

Rural

Fringe Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban cluster

Distant Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster

Remote Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster

SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget (2000). Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Metropolitan Statistical Areas; Notice. Federal Register (65) No. 249.

1 A principal city is a city that contains the primary population and economic center of a metropolitan statistical area, which, in turn, is defined as one or more contiguous counties that have a "core" area with a large population nucleus and adjacent communities that are highly integrated economically or socially with the core. Urbanized areas and urban clusters are densely settled "cores" of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely settled surrounding areas. Core areas with populations of 50,000 or more are designated as urbanized areas; those with populations between 2,500 and 50,000 are designated as urban clusters. Rural areas are designated by the Census Bureau as those areas that do not lie inside an urbanized area or urban cluster.



9

The Literature Review:

Critical Differences: Rural and Urban Education Systems

Before embarking on the questions this research proposes it is important to have a basic

understanding of the various perspectives that education policy is currently framed through. The

literature collected and discussed here includes both sources that examine the differences

between urban and rural education systems and theoretical sources that question the frameworks

that education systems are currently and have historically been situated within. The goal of this

literature review is to construct an understanding of the current landscape of the dominant

framework that education reform is situated within.

Primarily, the existing literature has established the link between how education is

framed and the resulting policy; showing that the framework of education reform is extremely

influential in how education reform is understood by policymakers and the general public.

However, the majority of prominent theoretical pieces regarding educational reform have failed

to expand their theories to include rural systems. This literature review details the implications of

these theoretical gaps, concluding that further research should seek to produce a more complete

and holistic understanding of the diverse educational environments.

Influence of the Rural Community on the Obstacles Challenging Rural Schools:

There is a variety of existing research which questions the relationship between the

effects of the rural community and the obstacles that challenge rural schools. Collectively, the

sources establish a foundation that identifies specific obstacles which may be more prevalent

within rural systems due to the pervasive effects of the rural environment. Specifically, the

obstacles that the sources identify include: the challenge of hiring and retaining quality teachers,

increased exposure to poverty, increased high school dropout rates, failure to adequately prepare



10

for college, lack of college preparatory classes and finally the tension between competing

commitments to the physical location of their community against attaining higher education.

One primary obstacle that is examined is the increased challenge that rural schools face in

hiring and retaining high-quality teachers. Monk illustrates that rural schools face a greater

challenge in attracting qualified teachers due to lower teacher salaries, lack of opportunities for

specialization and other organizational features of rural schools. Monks explains that frequently

in rural schools, teachers tend to be less qualified than their urban counterparts and are more

likely to be teaching a subject that is far removed from their area of training (Pg. 167). These

specific features of rural systems have created, “the revolving-door phenomenon” which

demonstrates the amplified challenge that rural schools face in retaining teachers. (Pg. 164).

Monk concludes that,

“Salaries are lower for teachers in rural schools for many interconnected reasons, and

rural schools struggle to appoint qualified teachers or make do with teachers who have

fewer qualifications and face higher turnover rates. Moreover, teacher experience is more

limited in rural schools – a disturbing finding, given that teacher experience is emerging

as one of the most important predictors of teaching effectiveness” (Pg. 167).

Monk provides a clean analysis that both demonstrates and explains why rural schools struggle

in hiring and retaining high-qualified teachers. Likewise, Gibbs echoes this argument. Gibbs

claims that rural teachers tend to attain a lower level of education and are half as likely to have

attended a highly prestigious university (Pg. 83). Regarding lower teacher salaries, Gibbs cites

that urban salaries are approximately 21% higher for starting teachers, and 35% higher for

teachers who possesses 20+ years of experience or a master’s degree (Pg. 83). Moreover, Gibbs

echoes Monk’s fear, arguing that this discrepancy between rural and urban schools is “troubling,



11

given the established links between quality of a teacher’s education and classroom performance”

(Pg. 83). Collectively then, Gibbs and Monk establish and explain why rural schools face an

increased challenge in hiring and retaining qualified teachers.

Two additional obstacles are identified and established by Lichter. Lichter analyzes the

relationship between high school dropouts and rural schools, as a large share of high school

dropouts occur in rural communities (Pg. 54). Lichter claims that rural students experience a

higher rate of exposure to poverty and as a result are more likely to dropout of high school.

Lichter concludes, “Not only are poverty rates among rural children higher than urban children,

but the negative effects of poverty are slightly stronger in rural areas. Poor rural youth are 4.66

more likely than the non-poor to drop out of school” (Pg. 70). Lichter examines the influence

that poverty as over students and finds that living in poverty in early childhood has a strong

detrimental influence on educational goals and attainment. (Pg. 57). Monk supports this finding

as well, reporting, “Among the 250 poorest counties in the United States, 244 are rural, and out

of more than 8 million children attending public schools in rural areas, 2.5 million live in

poverty” (Pg. 156). As poverty rates are significantly higher among rural children, it follows that

the effects of poverty on rural children will strongly impact their education as well. Thus,

creating the unique challenge of increased high school drop out rates in rural schools.

The influence of these specific obstacles discussed above are examined collectively by

Howley. Howley seeks to understand the influence of the rural environment on children’s

educational aspirations, and she ultimately calls for a reordering of the way in which rural

communities are understood. Howley claims that the educational aspirations of students are

directly shaped and limited by rural students’ commitment to the physical location of their

community. Howley highlights the tension that rural students face between the conflicting



12

aspirations of physical location and education attainment, because often for rural students,

“moving up in social mobility means moving out of their rural community due to lack of

opportunities” (Pg. 66). Thus, often rural students may choose to forgo opportunities for higher

education in order to remain in their already established rural community (Pg. 66). Howley’s

theory draws attention to ways in which rurality may structure rural children’s dreams, desires

and understanding of the world. This again provides an example of a unique challenge that rural

schools are facing; that is, seeking a way to mediate conflicting commitments by developing

rural communities so that “moving up” does not automatically have to entail “moving out” for

rural students.

In sum, through the work of Gibbs, Monk, Lichter and Howley, several obstacles specific

to rural schools have been identified and established. Primarily, these authors have discussed the

challenge that rural schools face in hiring and retaining high-quality teachers, in increased high-

school drop out rates, in increased exposure to poverty and in conflicting commitments between

education and physical place.

Influence of Theoretical Framework on Education Policy and Conceptualization:

In addition to identifying obstacles that pose unique challenges to rural schools, the

literature successfully establishes that the manner in which education reform is framed is

important and has influential implications for how education reform and research are

conceptualized. A multitude of the sources were questioning and attempting to deconstruct an

existing framework, or were seeking to construct and promote a new theoretical framework.

Historically, the framed understanding of education has shifted with society. The oldest source

examined was written in 1927 by John Wahlquist. In Wahlquist’s piece, Wahlquist criticizes and

deconstructs the then dominant framework which manipulated IQ scores to show that rural



13

students were, by heredity, less intelligent than urban students. Wahlquist claims that the

traditional method of analyzing IQ scores was seriously flawed and created false conclusions.

While this research may seem amusing today, (who would ever think rural students to be simply

less genetically intelligent?), this demonstrates how the dominant understanding can frame and

consequently limit education research.

Fast-forward seventy-five years to Silver’s piece, and again the influence of the dominant

framework on education is extremely evident. Silver claims that, “despite the fact that a non-

trivial percent of the school population around the world resides in rural communities, there has

been precious little research on teaching and learning in these places” (Pg. 2). Silver critiques

the dominant theories for failing to include an analysis specific to rural settings and claims that

the research was “not framed in a way which directly related to the rural setting” (Pg. 2). Silver

is not alone in this conclusion, Lichter echoes this belief as well stating, “My interest in rural

youth provides a needed balance to the current tendency to focus on urban (or all) children” (Pg.

54). Here a significant gap within the existing research is identified – to a large extent the

existing dominant research has failed to include rural communities and the specific challenges

that confront rural systems. The consequence of this shortcoming may be that rural students get

left behind, Silver hints at this fear stating, “we are highly unlikely to reach our lofty goals if we

continue to ignore the student population living in rural communities” (Pg. 3). Moreover, when

the realities of rural students are examined specifically, rural students are often depicted in a light

that is not in accordance with their rural values or experiences. Howley criticizes this, arguing,

“rural youth are not allegedly the backwards actors they are depicted to be” (Pg. 76). Education

theorists need to stop assuming that rural communities are simply “backwards”, instead of going



14

the extra mile to examine specific features that make rural communities different than their urban

counterparts.

The theoretical pieces by Lubienski, as well as Moolenaar and Daly, are excellent

examples of recent educational theories, which have failed to include rural communities in their

analysis. When searching for sources, I choose to read these pieces because I thought the theories

proposed by each respectively was extremely interesting. I was thus extremely disappointed

when after reading, I realized that these theories had completely failed to include a discussion

which was at all relevant to rural systems. In Lubienski piece, “Celebrating Diversity and

Denying Disparities: A Critical Assessment”, Lubienski explores how the recent dominant

discourse of promoting diversity often serves as a tool to mask the realities of inequalities within

school systems. Essentially, Lubienski is arguing that the dominant framework of diversity has

produced biased conclusions and has consequently constrained education research and hindered

the promotion of equity in educational reform (Pg. 33). Moreover, Lubienski successfully

identifies the necessity of narrowly tailored policy, “without understanding the specific

difficulties undeserved groups of students face in schools, it is much more difficult, if not

impossible to effectively address these difficulties” (Pg. 35). Here, Lubienski comes so close, yet

still fails to specifically expand this theory onto rural students. Consider the potential if

Lubienski had instead asked, how does the discourse of diversity distract from conversations

about inequality of resources that may be occurring between urban and rural schools?

Similarly, Moolenaar and Daly theorize that social networks in schools strongly influence

instructional quality and student outcomes. Moolenaar and Daly conclude that reform

implementation takes place within daily interactions in the classroom, and thus, the student to

student and student to teacher relationships should be highly valued (Pg. 2).



15

While the theories of Moolenaar and Daly and Lubienski are important contributions,

they should be expanded to include a specific analysis of how their theories affect rural schools.

The challenge is to push these theories to combine both the research that has already identified

unique challenges facing rural schools and incorporate that into their respective theories. Many

sources have explicitly addressed how the framework of educational issues can limit research,

however, the variability within these frameworks is large and leaves much to be desired.

In conclusion, the dominant literature that examines the influence of physical

environment on school systems has established a strong foundation which identifies how some

obstacles, such as increased exposure to poverty, may have a stronger effect on rural schools, due

to influences from the rural environment. Additionally, the existing literature has established that

the framework of education policy is extremely influential and has a strong impact on how

education is understood by policymakers and the general public.

Nevertheless, there are visible weaknesses and gaps within the existing literature. Due to

the disjunctive nature of the existing theories, the existing literature is calling for a more

comprehensive, holistic research which bridges the gap between simply identifying differences

between rural and urban schools to applying the various theories onto rural schools. Future

research should seek to produce a theory which synthesizes these results. This holistic,

comprehensive theory should empirically demonstrate the various differences between urban and

rural systems and consolidate the existing research to highlight the primary challenges that are

unique to rural systems. This theory should explore the benefits of narrowly-tailored policy and

question if education policy should be more narrowly adapted to the various environments to

more effectively address the differing challenges. Finally, future research should acknowledge

that the existing educational framework is extremely influential but is in need of a dramatic



16

update and expansion. There is a need to apply currently existing theories of educational

framework specifically onto rural settings, for example, the theories of Moolenar and Daly, and

Lubienski. With this foundational understanding of the existing dominant research, it is clear that

there is much to be gained in future research by expanding educational theories to include a

discussion of the rural situation.

Statement of Hypotheses:

Having now established that rural and urban education systems are situated in

significantly different realities, and are thus confronted with distinct challenges, the hypotheses

of this proposal will now be presented.

I hypothesize that contemporary public educational reform tends to be perceived in a

manner that focuses on urban education systems rather than including an analysis of rural

education systems. This perception is consequentially problematic, because the emphasis on

urban systems subsequently favors urban interests, at the expense of denying the reality of rural

school systems. Consequently, as a result of of this problematic framework I hypothesize that

rural schools are at risk of falling behind compared with their urban counterparts, which will

sustain the perpetuation of rural and generational poverty.

To provide significance to this hypothesis, I will now present data that speaks to the

importance of rural spaces and rural schools in the landscape of national education.

Why Rural?

In questioning the potential that contemporary movements for educational reform favor

urban education systems and urban interests, the immediate reaction is, so what? Given that there

is simply an immensely greater proportion of students enrolled in urban school systems, is it not

expected that reform movements would focus on the areas where the majority of students attend



17

school? At first, this reasoning may seem rational; but, given the established relationship

between education, social mobility and the perpetuation of generational poverty, this line of

reasoning is simply not acceptable. As already discussed, the link between education and the

perpetuation of generational poverty signifies the importance of providing equal access for all

students to receive a quality education. Thus, every student, regardless of their zip code is worthy

of a quality education, which indicates that every students’ interests should be of equal worth and

consideration. Every school district, regardless of their physical location, should be represented

in the fight for educational equity.

Moreover, rural education, while it may not constitute the majority, is not a trivial portion

of the national educational landscape. Rather, rural schools and students are often invisible to

policy makers, due to extremely evident patterns of urban education and the vast geographic

terrain of rural America. This persistent invisibility of rural education presents a challenge in

envisioning the significance of rural education.

Yet, the following national statistics, produced by Johnson et al., demonstrates that rural

education is significant to “the national educational landscape” (p. 16). The following data was

collected by the Rural School and Community Trust Foundation, in their annual “Why Rural

Matters”2 report, in which the foundation assesses the condition of rural education in all fifty

states.

In the National context, nearly 9.7 million students are enrolled in rural school systems,

that is 20%, or one in five students nation-wide, that attend rural schools. Similarly, nationally,

rural schools constitute 33% of public schools. However, this figure varies significantly by state.

For instance, in Massachusetts, only 6.5% of schools are categorized as rural, meanwhile, in

2 All of the following statistics will draw from this source. A complete citation can be found in the bibliography.



18

Montana approximately 75.3% of schools are identified as rural. In over fifteen states, over half

of the public schools are rural schools. (Johnson et. al, p. 6-7). Moreover, in an additional fifteen

states, over one-third of public schools are rural schools. This reality that the prevalence of rural

education varies by state again emphasizes how important it is for movements for educational

reform to consider the educational environment, rather than a single, one-size fits all approach.

Additionally, rural schools have increasingly grown more complex in regards to

increasing rates of impoverished and diverse student populations. Regarding the socioeconomic

situation of rural education, 46% of rural students qualify to receive federally subsidized free or

reduced lunch. To be eligible, the students’ family must be at or below 185% of the federal

poverty line (USDA Fact Sheet). This range includes families who are classified as “near poor”,

who although above the poverty line, may still not have the capacity to properly feed their

children (USDA Fact Sheet). This statistic is commonly relied on as an indication of student

poverty, and it shows that “more than 2 in 5 rural students live near or below the poverty line”

(Johnson et. al, p. 16).

Regarding the increasing diversity in rural communities, Johnson et. al notes that 26.7% of rural

students are of minority racial or ethnic identities, signifying that one in four rural students is a

minority student, totaling to 2.6 million rural minority students. Although again, this statistic

varies widely by state, with states such as New Mexico serving a rural minority population as

great as 82.5%.

Finally, it is important to note that the growth rates of rural students have increased in the

past several years. This reported increase in growth rates again speaks to the significance of rural

education to our greater understanding of national education. Johnson et. al concludes, that with

these data points considered, it highlights that it is extremely problematic for policy makers to



19

“ignore the challenges faced by rural schools and the students they serve, or what those

challenges mean to state and national goals of improving achievement and narrowing

achievement gaps between advantages and disadvantaged groups” (Johnson et. al, p. 28).

Thus, building on the data provided by Johnson et. al, it is clear that rural education is a

significant feature on the national scale. With these statistics in mind, the importance of the

inclusion of rural school systems into contemporary movements for education reform is again

emphasized. As rural education is a prevalent aspect on the national scale, it is critical that

movements for educational reform value all educational environments, rather than falling prey to

the challenging, invisible nature of rural education.

Methods:

Focusing in now on the proposed hypotheses, that the general perception and

understanding of contemporary education reform may be skewed to favor urban education

systems, I will now describe the proposed methods and approach this proposal will utilize. To

examine the dominant perception of education reform, I will pursue measurable proxies that

would establish an urban bias. Three proposed methods will collectively serve as indicators to

determine the presence of an urban bias. Specifically, this research proposes to conduct surveys,

to examine the flow of money from the state to specific education systems, and to analyze recent

policy proposals and popular initiatives within educational reform. Each method will be detailed

below respectively.

First, this proposal seeks to conduct interviews with educators, both in rural and urban

areas, as well as surveys of the general public in hopes to gage the general perception and

dominant understanding of education reform, both within the field of education and within

greater society. These surveys and interviews will provide a qualitative foundation and serve as a



20

framework to explore the general societal perception of education reform, which is essential, as it

has already been established that the dominant perception has a great influence on guiding

proposed policies and initiatives.

Secondly, I will turn to examining the flow of funds, conducting an analysis of both

federal and state funds, to question how the funds are primarily utilized. For instance, if the

funds are used to create new initiatives or programming, and what the targets of those initiatives

and programs are. Given the vast range of expenditure per student, varying by location, this will

allow for an examination of state priorities and serve to distinguish if the disparities in funding

occurs due to state, or local actors. This quantitative and analytical examination will be effective

in providing tangible evidence that will indicate the dominant perception of education reform.

Finally, in hopes of producing a more tangible method to explore the potential of an

urban bias, this research will analyze both recent policy proposals and recent popular initiatives

within education reform. This research proposes to collect and analyze recent policy proposals in

education reform, specifically, to examine the goals of the policy and whom is the target of the

policy. This will include policies that are proposed and supported by dominant organizations and

institutions such as the U.S. Department of Education and the National Education Association

(NEA). Secondly, this research proposes to analyze dominant initiatives that have emerged in the

fight for educational equity; such as Teach for America and City Year. Both Teach for America

and City Year are two popular initiatives that have surfaced with specific goals for education

reform; such as providing high-quality teachers to urban, low-income and high-need school

systems. This analysis will examine the focus of these initiatives, considering their location and

which issues the initiatives target. This application of specific initiatives, similar to the nature of

a case study, will produce a tangible and visible trace of an urban bias.



21

Collectively, these methods will aid in the examination of the current, dominant

perception of education reform. Establishing this framework will serve to indicate the presence

of an urban bias, which will ultimately produce implications for the future of education reform.

Anticipated Limitations:

All points considered, it is important to now recognize the potential limitations of this

research design and obstacles which may be encountered. Three explicit challenges are

recognized as potential limitations to this proposed design; that being, a significant lack in

current research which focuses on rural education systems, a challenge in accessing data on

recent policy proposals, and a misunderstanding regarding the goals of the proposal.

First, in addressing the potential misunderstanding, it is possible that their may be a

pushback from those whom advocate for urban spaces, arguing that because urban systems

simply constitute a much greater majority, the presence of an urban bias is in fact not

problematic, but logical. In responding to this, it is necessary to emphasize that the goal of this

proposal is not to argue that rural education systems are more important than urban systems. This

proposal does not wish to devalue, disrespect or undermine the significant and unique challenges

that are facing urban schools. Rather, this proposal simply seeks to demonstrate that all

educational environments should be valued equally and included when exploring the future of

educational reform. Throughout the research process, it will be important to emphasize this to

avoid this misunderstanding.

Regarding the lack of current research, it may be difficult to establish a credible

foundation from which to begin this research, as historically, there as been a significant lack of

educational research on rural education systems. As noted in the literature review, several of the

scholars examined in the literature review note that there has been little research on rural schools



22

in comparison to their urban counterparts. (Silver, p. 2; Lichter, p. 54). Silver states, “there are

issues of specific concern to the students, teacher, and schools in rural communities – issues that

are not adequately covered by research that addresses broader topics…it appears that that they

are grossly underrepresented in the research literature” (Silver, p. 3). Moreover, Silver

demonstrates this by referencing the fact that among the four hundred submissions in “The

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education”, not a single submission was focused solely on

rural education (p. 2). This lack of research may pose difficulty in establishing a foundation for

this research, but, it does again signify the importance of this research and the value that is to be

gained by contributing to this problematic gap in the research.

Finally, practically, it may be challenging to receive access to data to analyze recent

policy proposals. The source for analyzing these recent policy proposals has yet to be identified,

and will need to be secured in order to accurately and credibly analyze the recent policy

proposals as this research hopes to do. Furthermore, moving forward, it will be essential to

consistently narrow the scope and select the initiatives to be analyzed carefully.

Despite these potential obstacles and limitations, I am confident that this research design

is strong and has immense potential.

Potential Results and Concluding Discussion:

Having now presented my hypotheses and evidence plan, I will now present the potential

results and the consequent implications of those results. The methods presented above will serve

as indicators of the presence of an urban bias. For instance, if the surveys show that educators

and the general public tend to perceive education reform mainly as an urban issue, this will be a

key indicator of the greater societal perspective and understanding of education reform.

Similarly, if the examination of the flow of moneys from the state to school districts notes a



23

disproportionate provision of funds between rural and urban school systems, this would again

indicate the State’s perception of education reform, and the State’s priorities. Finally, the

analysis of policy proposals and popular initiatives, such as Teach for America, will be tangible

indicators of the current landscape of education reform. If it is confirmed that the majority of

recent policy proposals and initiatives were created in hopes of targeting urban systems, this

would again serve to indicate the presence of an urban bias.

If my hypotheses are proven, that an urban bias exists in the manner that education

reform is typically perceived, it would indicate that our understanding of educational reform

needs to be recreated, to create space to understand the specific challenges facing rural education

systems. This hypothetical skewed perception is problematic, as it complicates rural students

access to equal opportunity to receive a quality education. This inequality threatens that rural

schools may begin to fall further behind urban systems; consequentially perpetuating the cycle of

generational poverty and increased poverty levels in rural areas.

These points considered, if the hypotheses are proven correct, it would have significant

implications for the future of education reform and policy making. This result would indicate

that policy proposals and initiatives would be most effective if they were tailored to the specific

environments in which educational issues arise – rather than a one size fits all approach for

public education. This realization should encourage policymakers to educate themselves more on

the rural situation and the specific challenges confronting rural students and school systems.

Fighting against the invisible nature (Johnson et. al) of rural education systems will be a step in

the right direction, to genuinely acknowledge rural school systems rather than continuing to

create and implement policy that in reality, may be irrelevant to rural settings.



24

In concluding, it is necessary to reemphasize the importance of considering the

educational environment that schools are respectively situated within. If our nation desires to

provide an equal and quality education to all students, then it is essential that all communities

voices are heard, and that policymakers fight back against the invisible nature of rural education.

Indeed, it will be highly improbable to reach the goal of providing an equal education to all

children if the rural student population continues to be ignored (Silver, p. 3). It is crucial that the

critical differences between rural and urban education systems be examined and acknowledged,

so that policy can be more effectively tailored to the educational environment. Only then, once

we have let go of the convenience of a one-size fits all approach, then, education reform can

begin to reach its true potential, valuing all students – regardless of their zip code.



25

Bibliography

Ahmed, Manzoor. "Economic Dimensions of Sustainable Development, the Fight Against Poverty and Educational

Responses." International Review of Education 56.2/3, The Midway Point of the UN Decade of Education for

Sustainable Development: Where Do We Stand? (2010): 235-53. Print.

Beynon, Malcolm J., Andrew Crawley, and Max Munday. "Measuring and Understanding the Differences between

Urban and Rural Areas." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design (2015) Print.

Brewer, Paul R., and Kimberly Gross. "Values, Framing, and Citizens' Thoughts about Policy Issues: Effects on

Content and Quantity." Political Psychology 26.6 (2005): 929-48. Print.

Collins, Randall. "Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification." American Sociological

Review 36.6 (1971): 1002-19. Print.

Gibbs, Robert. "The Challenge Ahead for Rural Schools." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 15.1

(2000): 82-7. Print.

Howley, Caitlin W. "Remote Possibilities: Rural Children's Educational Aspirations." Peabody Journal of

Education 81.2 (2006): 62-80. Print.

Isserman, Andrew M. "In the National Interest: Defining Rural and Urban Correctly in Research and Public

Policy." International Regional Science Review 28.4 (2005): 465. Print.

Jeffrey L Jordan, Genti Kostandini, and Elton Mykerezi. "Rural and Urban High School Dropout Rates: Are they

Different?" Journal of Research in Rural Education (Online) 27.12 (2012): 1. Print.

Johnson, Jerry, et al. Why Rural Matters 2013-2014: The Condition of Rural Education in 50 States. 7th ed. Rural

School and Community Trust, 2014. Print.

Lichter, Daniel T., Gretchen T. Cornwell, and David J. Eggebeen. "Harvesting Human Capital: Family Structure and

Education among Rural Youth1." Rural Sociology 58.1 (1993): 53-75. Print.



26

Lubienski, Sarah Theule. "Celebrating Diversity and Denying Disparities: A Critical Assessment." Educational

Researcher 32.8, Theme Issue: Expertise (2003): 30-8. Print.

Moolenaar, Nienke M., and Alan J. Daly. "Social Networks in Education: Exploring the Social Side of the Reform

Equation." American Journal of Education 119.1 (2012): 1-6. Print.

National Center for Educational Statistics. "Rural Education in America: Definitions." 2006.Web. <https://nces-ed-

gov.proxy.lib.umich.edu/surveys/ruraled/definitions.asp>.

Neelsen, John P. "Education and Social Mobility." Comparative Education Review 19.1, Politics/Education (1975):

129-43. Print.

Silver, Edward A. "Attention Deficit Disorder?" Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 34.1 (2003): 2-3.

Print.

United States Department of Agriculture: Food and Nutrition Services. "National School Lunch Program."

9/30/2013 2013.Web. <http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf>.

Wahlquist, John T. "Intelligence of Rural and Urban Children." The Elementary School Journal 27.9 (1927): 682-4.

Print.

Weber, Bruce, et al. "Education's Effect on Poverty: The Role of Migration." Review of Agricultural Economics 29.3

(2007): 437-45. Print.

Date post:	14-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	megan-taylor
View:	105 times
Download:	2 times

Taylor; Final Research Proposal

Documents