Montana’s Rural Schools Unappreciated, Need Help

Rural School and Community Trust’s Why Rural Matters 2005
Says Rural Schools are Threatened

Compared to rural schools in other states, Montana’s rural schools perform on average better than expected,
given the challenges they face. But the averages mask wide variations in funding levels and student
achievement. The funding disparities mean that even some of the better rural schools are unappreciated and
need help.

Those are among the findings of Why Rural Matters 2005, the third in a biannual series of studies by the
Rural School and Community Trust (Rural Trust). The report highlights and compares 22 statistical
indicators that define the condition of rural education in every state.

Montana’s rural schools serve communities with per capita income well below the national rural average, and
with poverty rates well above the national average, especially for rural households headed by women with preschool
age children. At the same time, these rural schools serve populations with above average percentages of
minority children, those requiring special education, and those who have moved recently.

Despite these challenges, Montana’s rural schools graduate 80% of their students within four years, a rate well
above the national rural average. But scores on the nationally standardized NAEP test are only about average
compared to rural schools in other states. These scores are lower than those for most states in the region,
including North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Jerry Johnson, lead author of the study, cautioned that many of the data in this report reflect averages for all
rural schools across the state, and that there are wide variations from school to school. That fact is
underscored by the study’s finding that there is a wide disparity in revenue among rural schools, and Montana
ranks fifth in the nation in the disparity between high and low-spending rural schools.

That funding disparity translates into sharp differences in spending for critical instructional services. While
Montana’s rural school average for instructional expenditures is above the national rural average, it varies
dramatically from rural school to rural school. “Some rural schools in Montana spend a thousand dollars less
than the average on instruction,” Johnson pointed out, while others spend more than double the average.
“Averages like the ones we publish in this report tend to mask these wide differences,” he cautioned.

The report also gives Montana high marks for small schools and districts (rank 2nd) and small classes (rank 7th),
all of which benefit student achievement among low-income children, according to other research.
“There is a constant rant” against small districts in many Northern Plains states, Johnson said. Yet many “do
exceptional work with limited resources and—in many cases—less than supportive policy environments.
Policy decisions that undermine these rural schools are clearly a case of starving the geese that if it were fed,
would lay golden eggs.”

For the first time, Why Rural Matters 2005 includes suggestions for policymakers based on the report’s data.
Among the recommendations: states should support small schools; provide more money for teaching students
from poor families and those learning English; buffer schools against loss of revenue due to declining
enrollment; emphasize distance learning; and help communities build multi-use facilities that can serve as
schools, health clinics, social services agencies, and more.
The report emphasizes that state policy should encourage multi-age classrooms, schools that enroll students of
many ages, and other measures that “fabricate the advantages of large scale without losing the intimacy,
accountability, and engagement that are the blessings of small schools.”

Other states are hiding and ignoring their “country cousins.”
The report contrasts states like Montana with several other, more urban states, that give their rural schools
and students far too little attention. Even though rural students in these other states face comparatively fewer
challenges than rural students in states like Montana, they suffer surprisingly weak student performance.
Some of the worst performance relative to the economic and demographic challenges they face comes from
rural schools in states that have large urban populations. Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are
among the top states with underachieving rural schools. These states have low levels of rural poverty and other
barriers to achievement, but their rural students do relatively poorly nonetheless. All four rank considerably
low on rural graduation rate or on their scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or on
both indicators.

The report suggests this low student achievement is related to a consistent pattern of public policies in these
states that result in larger schools, larger districts, larger class sizes, and higher transportation costs. “It appears
that these states have adopted an urban large-school model for their rural communities and that it is
producing mediocrity in outcomes for students who should do better,” the report notes.

Although these four are largely urban states, nearly 1.3 million students attend their rural schools, about 15%
of all U.S. rural students. But they constitute only one-fifth of the students in these states, and the report says,
they are largely invisible, like hidden country cousins.

Montana Report: http://www.ruraledu.org/whyruralmatters/WRM2005-Montana.pdf

Methodology

The report ranks states on the basis of four “gauges” measuring: the importance of rural schools to the state’s
educational performance, the level of poverty in the communities served by rural schools, other socioeconomic
challenges, and policy outcomes. Those outcomes include student test scores and graduation rates as
well as public policies that influence student achievement, such as school and class size, spending on
instruction, and equitable funding systems.
Twenty-two statistical indicators are used to rank the states. The higher a state ranks, the more important or
urgent the need for attention by policymakers. The rankings on the four gauges were averaged to determine
an overall “rural education priority” for the state.

The full text and supporting data tables, including a data sheet for each state, are available online at
http://www.ruraledu.org/whyruralmatters. A hard copy of the report is available by calling (703) 243-1487 ext. 22
or via email at [email protected].

http://www.ruraledu.org/whyruralmatters/MT_release.pdf

**********

Why Rural Matters 2005 Provides State-by-State Report on the Condition of Rural Education in America

In predominantly rural states, rural students are often the focus of concern, but in larger urban states—even where they are comparatively numerous—they are largely invisible, according to Why Rural Matters 2005. This report is the third in a biannual series by the Rural School and Community Trust, highlighting 22 indicators that define the condition of rural education in each state.

“Why Rural Matters 2005 is one of the most important resources on rural education for policymakers and community leaders because it organizes information in a practical way. These numbers tell a story, however, about the urgent need for states to address rural schools—and the recommendations made by the Rural Trust are concrete and proven," said Richard W. Riley, former U.S. Secretary of Education.

Full Report: http://www.ruraledu.org/whyruralmatters