Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for Rural Schools and Districts
Financial Characteristics of Rural Schools and Districts
Numerous studies have documented the disparities in educational funding. Widespread agreement exists that funding disparities among urban, suburban, and rural districts are largely the result of a dependence on local property tax revenues. School districts with high-priced residential or commercial property have substantially greater resources available to support education (Hadderman, 1999). Therefore, states' reliance on property taxes as the primary source of funding for public schools put rural districts at a disadvantage. For example, in North Carolina in 2000, the state's ten most affluent counties had $877,807 in taxable real estate available for every public school student compared to $208,853 for the ten least affluent counties (North Carolina Public School Forum, 2001). The wealthiest counties average effective tax rate is .444, whereas the poorest counties tax rate is .729. The poorest counties tax themselves at a 61 percent higher rate than the wealthiest counties. The dependence on local property taxes leaves poorer rural districts with few alternatives for increasing revenue.
In addition, many federal programs' funding formulas place small school districts at a disadvantage through preferences for schools and districts with large numbers of low-income residents. Oftentimes, the costs of applying for federal funds outweigh the benefits. Because the formulas allocate funds on a per-pupil basis, the amounts received by small districts are often so small that little or nothing can be done with the money. Whereas many urban districts employ a professional grant writer, small rural districts must rely on district staff to complete the grant applications on top of their other educational and administrative duties. In many cases, collecting the formula allocation is not worth the paperwork and effort for such a small sum of money. In the past, to address this problem, small schools have been allowed to join consortia and share resources with other schools. However, rural schools are frequently too far apart geographically for a consortium to be a viable solution.
Also, the small student population in many rural schools and districts does not allow these schools to derive the benefits of economies of scale. All school districts must maintain a certain set of services—facilities, staff, transportation, food service, etc. The cost to provide these services is greater for a small school. The smaller the school district, the more it costs per-pupil to provide transportation or staff. For example, it is less cost effective to run a school bus for ten students than for 50 students. As a result, small districts spend a greater proportion of their budget on transportation than do urban districts. The same applies to resource personnel and education specialists. It does not matter whether a school has 1,000 students or 50 students, a reading specialist costs about the same. In a large school, the salary for the specialist is absorbed by hundreds or even thousands of students. In a small school, the salary would be absorbed by only 50 students or less. The Rural Education Achievement Program was designed to address these issues.
