Rural school districts are more likely to be disadvantaged by one-size-fits-all  mandates from state legislatures and the Federal government. Yet rural districts, where resources are already spread thin and school are often important employers, are also more likely to be skeptical of school choice programs.

A new policy brief by Dan Fishman in Education Next, argues new schooling options and other education reforms could not only work in rural America but could also help revitalize its communities.

Fishman, a former high school teacher from rural New Mexico, says top-down mandates can stretch the resources of rural schools. While urban districts have the manpower to interpret rules or complete reports, rural districts must rely on a smaller central staff. Although qualified candidates may live in the community, state teaching certification and licensing requirements may leave classrooms unfilled as rural districts struggle to find certified teachers.

According to Fishman, the federal i3 (Investing in Innovation Fund) grant application takes 120 hours at a minimum to complete. Often districts have to pay outside consultants to handle paperwork that may reward the district with about $30 to $90 extra per pupil. Again, rural districts find themselves on the short end of the stick.

So why add more educational options like charter schools, if districts can barely stretch the resources for the existing schools? (more…)