Rural School Closings & Consolidation in America, Literature Review

Small towns across America are crumbling and their schools are closing at a rapid pace. As rural communities lose their schools, they also lose their identity, sense of place, and for some, the largest employer in the area. The consequences of rural school closure and consolidation stretch far beyond the classroom and the quality of education, which has suffered as a result of reckless decisions based on short-sightedness and seemingly false assumptions that the benefits outweigh the consequences of closing a community school. As school districts consolidate and close rural schools, students are subjected to long bus-rides and are separated from their family, friends, and community, creating trauma and emotional negativity, resulting in decreased extra-curricular participation, poor school performance, and lower grades. Along with the rise in rural school closings over the past several decades, rural communities have seen an increase in drop-out rates, opioid addictions, and the number of adults remaining idle (McShane and Smarick 4).

School districts have been closing and consolidating rural schools since the early 1900’s. However, the pace at which rural schools have closed has rapidly increased over the past two decades as a result of legislation and mandates established by state and federal governments, declining enrollment, decreased funding, and increased financial pressures. According to James A. Bryant Jr, Appalachian State University, author of Killing Mayberry: The Crisis in Rural American Education, the federal No Child Left Behind Act, enacted under President Bush, appears to have been developed for urban schools and failed to take into consideration the unique needs and challenges that rural schools face (8). Because of the additional financial burdens NCLB placed on schools to meet its criteria, many rural schools were not able to balance the budget and could not afford necessary building repairs, technology upgrades, and new textbooks. Rural schools throughout the United States were forced to close and consolidate in order to “pool resources” to meet its requirements (Bryant 8).

In addition to NCLB mandates, some states have established their own set of rules and minimum enrollment numbers, resulting in forced consolidation. ?Virginia, for example, withheld funding necessary for repairs until minimum class size numbers were met. Once rural schools consolidated, funding for the building of a new school or remodeling an existing structure was released. Rural community members throughout the state of Virginia opposed the consolidations, but the governor ignored their pleas and appointed a representative from the construction industry to oversee the School Authority Board (Bard et al. 40). In her peer-reviewed article, Rethinking the School Closure Research: School Closure as Spatial Injustice, Education Professor at Bates University, Mara Casey Tieken, argues that rural school closures are politically motivated and undemocratically determined despite parent and community opposition, and that research shows that in many cases there are negative effects on students’ grades and emotional well-being (Tieken and Auldridge-Reveles 936-940).

Proponents of school consolidation often state financial savings as a benefit and reason for consolidation. But Mara Casey Tieken argues that the savings amount to very little of the budget (Tieken and Auldridge-Reveles 936), and Doug Feldman, Northern Kentucky University, says that while consolidating rural schools may seem attractive or sound good in theory or on paper, it often does not result in the financial savings promised, and many times has unforeseen social consequences on the students, families, and the community (Feldman 2006). While there may be savings in some areas, transportation costs incurred from busing students greater distances offsets some of the savings (Bard et al. 43, Hyndman 131). Research on the comparisons of the cost per student between 1960 – 2004, reveal a slight decrease in the overall cost per pupil when schools are consolidated. However, when studies compare the cost per student that make it to graduation, small schools show less expense per pupil than medium-sized or large schools (Bard et al. 43).

When rural schools consolidate into a larger school located in another community, parent participation in their child’s education decreases, as well as student participation in extra-curricular school activities (Tieken and Auldridge-Reveles 936). Students’ academic performance and test grades also suffer from consolidation (Tieken and Auldridge-Reveles 937). Transportation to and from school events presents hardship for single and working parents who must plan for children to be picked up. In addition, the increase in fuel budget due to the greater distance for school travel places an even larger burden on families who are already struggling financially. As students transition from their hometown school to a larger consolidated school, students who are less outgoing sometimes have difficulty integrating. They begin to feel anonymous and get lost in the shuffle (Bard et al. 44). Absenteeism increases and often results in students falling behind and dropping out. Others feel anxious, lose confidence, fall behind academically, become discipline problems, give up on school, and end up dropping out (Tieken and Auldridge-Reveles 936, Bard et al. 44). According to Joe Bard, of the National Rural Education Task Force, “dropouts are three times more likely to be unemployed, 2-? times more likely to receive welfare benefits, and over three times more likely to be in prison than high school graduates” (Bard et al. 44). Considering these statistics, Bard concludes that "small schools help increase the number of economically productive adults and cut government costs" (Bard et al. 44).

Schools in rural communities are often referred to as the “heart of the community” and serve as a venue for events that even those without children attend (McShane and Smarick 4). When a rural school closes, it creates a sense of despair in the community, property values decline, and a deterioration of the entire community begins shortly after the closure (Tieken and Auldridge-Reveles 937). Rural businesses that have already suffered with the decline of agriculture in rural communities are hit even harder when their local community school closes (McShane and Smarick 4). Many shops, restaurants, and other businesses that rely on the patronage of teachers, administrators, parents, and children who frequent their businesses before or after school cannot withstand the loss. The economic impact from the loss of schools results in even fewer jobs available for adults in rural communities who remain after graduation. The loss of the school, along with manufacturing and agriculture, has created a vicious cycle that is hard to recover from (McShane and Smarick 4). As a result, rural communities have a high rate of unemployed and idle adults (McShane and Smarick 4), lower tax base and fiscal capacity (Bard 42-43), and higher poverty rates (Tieken and Auldridge-Reveles 937).

Despite the stereotype that people who live in rural communities are backward and unintelligent, rural schools tend to outperform urban schools in student achievement, produce a higher rate of high school graduates, and have an increased amount of hometown pride in the history, culture, and traditions of their community among students (McShane and Smarick 5). ?Lee Stewart conducted study in 2009, published in the Rural Educator, that compared test results from state-mandated Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) test, which students throughout the whole state use the same curriculum to prepare for, to compare achievement results between larger, more urban schools with mostly smaller, rural schools in Texas (Stewart 21). Test data showed that “smaller schools experienced higher percentages of students passing all four parts [reading, writing, math, and science] of the eleventh grade TAKS test in Texas than larger the schools” (Stewart 2009).?Test results also showed that students from lower economic backgrounds overall do better in a smaller school environment (Stewart 2009). These test results are consistent with other studies that showed increased academic achievement in smaller schools.

?A common argument that those who promote school consolidation use is that larger, consolidated schools can provide expanded curricular and extra-curricular activities. While this may be true, rural schools now have greater access to expanded curriculum with the use of technology. As for expanded extra-curricular activities, competition to “make the team” is also increased due to school consolidation in which good players from many smaller schools are forced to compete to fill the same number of positions on a team (Bard et al. 44). Many students do not make the team. In addition, students who participated in extra-curricular activities at smaller schools, when consolidated, often forgo those same activities at the new, larger school.

Bussing students creates additional stress and affects school performance. Achievement scores are reduced 2.6 points for 4th graders for every hour on the bus (Bard et al. 44). Many students endure long bus rides, sometimes getting on the bus in the morning while is still dark and not returning home until after dark, especially during winter (Ramage and Howley 26). Students suffer from physical exhaustion as a result of long bus rides (Ramage and Howley 26). Participating in extra-curricular activities means even more time on the bus for students. Parents often cite concerns of bullying and exposure to inappropriate language and behavior due to older students riding the same bus with younger children on rural routes (Ramage and Howley 26).

Other than in specialized journals, little research has been done on the effects of rural school consolidation. Most of the research on consolidation has been done by consolidation advocates (Bard et al. 42). Because of lack of studies and research, education researchers and citizens do not know what is going on with 20% of US students. (McShane and Smarick 1). Most of the authors who have written about or conducted studies on rural school closings agree that smaller schools benefit students more than larger schools and that short-term savings do not justify the negative long-term effects that rural school closure and consolidation have on students and communities.

As a resident of a rural community, who attended a rural school and later sent my child to both urban and rural schools, I agree with these findings. Prior to reviewing the literature, I had not considered the effects that closing and consolidating rural schools has on students or communities. But throughout my research, I could identify with many of the challenges that students face, as well as the effects on rural communities where I have lived.

Of the three rural communities I have lived in during my lifetime, only one, my current community, does not have a school. It feels less like of a community than any place else I have ever lived. Neighbors do not know each other like in the other communities I have lived in where there was a local school that brought people together and gave pride to the community. Local businesses in those communities benefited from children meeting for ice cream, subs, and pizza after school and after baseball, basketball, and football games. The revenue brought in from those events are a direct economic benefit of community schools.

There is a stark difference between the rural communities I previously lived in that had a local community school versus where I live now that does not. There was a school here at one time, but it was closed and consolidated, and students are now bussed to a neighboring community. As the school, grocery store, and other local businesses have closed, the gas station, Dollar General, and “adult arcade” centers, known to host illegal gambling and are associated with criminal activities, have become the community centers where people meet. Drug problems, lack of education, and poverty plague what was at one time a thriving rural agriculture community with pride and a community-based rural school. It is my opinion, based on research and personal observations, that if this is what happens when a community closes its school, then rural schools should remain open and the community should figure out a way to make it work. If that mean hosting greens and beans fundraiser suppers with donated turnip greens grown by a local farmer like in Vanleer, Tennessee, then so be it. Year after year, community members came out in droves to support their school and fight off the threat of consolidation (Tieken 2). There is value in rural schools, and we must fight to keep them open. Communities need their schools and schools need their communities. Healthy communities have healthy schools and healthy businesses, and as a result, students do better, residents remain happier, and adults are more productive.

Works Cited:

Bard, Joe, et al. “National Rural Education Association Report.” Rural Educator, vol. 27, no. 2, Winter 2006, p. 40. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edo&AN=21046013&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Bryant, James A., Jr. “Killing Mayberry: The Crisis in Rural American Education.” Rural Educator, vol. 29, no. 1, Fall 2007, pp. 7–11. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=508007141&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Feldmann, Doug1. “Curriculum and Community Involvement.” Mid-Western Educational Researcher, vol. 19, no. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 33–34. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=19719836&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Hyndman, June1, [email protected]., et al. “Consolidation of Small, Rural Schools in One Southeastern Kentucky District.” American Educational History Journal, vol. 37, no. 1/2, Spring 2010, pp. 129–148. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=53921022&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

McShane, Michael Q., and Andy Smarick. “No Longer Forgotten: The Triumphs and Struggles of Rural Education in America.” School Administrator, vol. 76, no. 5, May 2019, p. 42. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=136196885&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Ramage, Rob, and Aimee Howley. “Parents’ Perceptions of the Rural School Bus Ride.” Rural Educator, vol. 29, no. 1, Fall 2007, pp. 25–30. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=508007192&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Stewart, Lee. “Achievement Differences between Large and Small Schools in Texas.” Rural Educator, vol. 30, no. 2, Jan. 2009, pp. 20–28. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ869305&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Tieken, Mara Casey. Why Rural Schools Matter. University of North Carolina Press, 2014. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469618494_tieken. Accessed 31 Jan. 2020.

Tieken, Mara Casey, and Trevor Ray Auldridge-Reveles. “Rethinking the School Closure Research: School Closure as Spatial Injustice.” Review of Educational Research, vol. 89, no. 6, Dec. 2019, pp. 917–953. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3102/0034654319877151.