Education And Development In Poor Rural Communities
By: Shawn Cox
Submitted: 2010-10-05 14:49:46 | Word Count: 1028
More than a third of a century after the Great Society initiatives focused the nation's attention on inequalities of educational opportunity, poverty continues to put large numbers of students at risk of school failure (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). The "invisible" rural poor face particular challenges (Hodgkinson, 1994). The challenges to education and life success are most severe for children living in the nation's poorest rural counties, the 535 rural persistent poverty (RPP) counties.1
Teaching and learning happen within the social, cultural, political, environmental, and economic contexts of a particular "place." These contexts influence the opportunities students have to learn and what we expect of them. Although these contexts are interconnected, efforts to study and improve education, community services, economic development, and environmental protection often "pass in the night." Disciplinary structures of academe, departmentalized funding, lack of a shared definition of "rural," and implicit urban biases create many structural barriers in attempting to cope with the messy, nonlinear complexity of poor rural schools and communities.
Consequently, "the information specifically on poor, rural students, communities, and schools is sketchy, lacking in focus, and not comparable across studies" (Khattri, Riley, & Kane, 1997, p. 93). For example, while rural schools educate their students as well as urban systems (Gibbs, Swaim, & Teixeira, 1998), it is not clear from the data how poor rural schools compare with poor urban schools.
This Digest provides background information on RPP counties and outlines critical areas and types of multidisciplinary research needed to develop tools, programs, and community capacity that can improve the quality of life, including education, in poor rural communities.
[ advertisement ]
What Is Known about RPP Communities
Historically, most RPP communities developed from extraction-based economies in Appalachia, slave- and sharecropper-based economies in the rural South, migrant agricultural communities in the Southwest, and scattered Native American reservations in the northern and western United States (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997). Histories of inequality and outside control of resources have left many RPP communities with deep social stratification, low-performing (sometimes dual) education systems, and low expectations for students from poor families. Schools are asked to prepare students for jobs that are not available locally, and resources are often controlled by outsiders or local leaders who rely on access to a cheap labor force.
Studies show a direct relationship between employment opportunities and the quality of schooling in distressed rural communities (Smith, 1992; Smith & DeYoung, 1992). When major employers need an educated workforce, they tend to support quality schooling. This support is reinforced by the participation of educated parents. However, when local employment opportunities are insufficient, the well educated tend to leave the area. The community then loses its investment in education.
Reform efforts in RPP communities also must take into account economic, political, and social marginalization that continues to structure educational practice and community life. Sustained reform requires not only engaging community support but changing traditional social forces that contribute to poverty (Duncan, 1999).
Building community capacity for change requires developing stronger humanand social capital. Human capital is embodied in individuals' skills and knowledge and can be created through educational opportunities. Social capital, embodied in relationships among people, includes the webs of information flow, social norms, expectations, obligations, sanctions, and trust that make it possible to achieve particular goals (Coleman, 1988). Histories of social division across lines of class, culture, ethnicity, gender, or language in many RPP communities lead to fragmented relations and an inability to address school and community deficits (Putnam, 1995). Building social capital requires encompassing all segments of the community by forming equal partnerships with representatives of government, education (including higher education), economic development agencies, extension, churches/heritage institutions, civic groups, foundations, public/private entities, local media, and families.
In October 1999, an interdisciplinary group of researchers, policymakers, and experts in education and community engagement met to develop research agendas for revitalizing RPP communities. Participants at the conference, funded by the National Science Foundation, developed many of the recommendations outlined here (Kusimo, Keyes, Balow, Carter, & Poe, 1999). Their recommendations for research fall into three main categories: (1) capacity building, (2) policy, and (3) education and interdisciplinary approaches.
Capacity Building
Participants called for case studies, model development and testing, and evaluation studies to determine best practices. Additionally, other observers have called for robust comparative studies of poor and wealthy rural and urban schools (Khattri, Riley, & Kane, 1997). Useful research and development tools would include expanded databases and repositories for reports, videos, and multimedia representations.
Schools and community development. Much has been written about the potential role of schools in the economic life of rural communities and of schools as centers for community development; however, little research documents these interrelationships (Salant & Waller, 1998). A research agenda on the role of school/community linkages might include
strengthening educational achievement and improving schools,
helping youth become more resilient and adaptive,
fostering lifelong learning,
enriching community capacity building,
revitalizing and developing communities (Hobbs, 1987; 1989),
increasing educational expectations for all children,
creating new paradigms for young people to stay in and "grow" their communities.
Local leadership capacities. Research on building community-based leadership in various capacities might include:
democratizing relationships, building trust, addressing inequities in power structures, and involving all constituencies in decision making
supporting parents as agents of change for children
developing new avenues for civic engagement (for example, grassroots access to media)
identifying and building on cultural, historic, and economic assets
identifying and supporting technology use, including new and emerging technology as well as extant forms of technology
identifying reasonable targets of opportunity for capacity building (for example, creating school-based adult training programs in computer applications or other needed skills)
understanding strategic economic activities, including how to "grow" good jobs, provide education for staying in the community, train for new jobs, and capitalize on community skills and assets.
Technology. New technologies and increasing access to distance learning, telecommuting, and e-commerce show promise for changing power dynamics and providing new opportunities in distressed rural communities. Research to document the impacts of telecommunications technologies on poor rural communities and schools and on social structures and power relationships in RPP communities would be helpful. Case studies of communities where both new technologies and appropriate technologies have been used, as well as research on planning for and use of tomorrow's technologies in distressed rural communities, would inform future development.
