Rural students make up one out of every 10 students in California, but their needs are often underrepresented or overlooked in major policy decisions, according to a new report examining rural schools in the state.

“Rural (In)Equities: Building Understanding and Offering Solutions” was written by rural school leaders and produced by the Small School Districts’ Association and the education nonprofit Thrive. The report was released during SSDA’s Superintendents’ & High School Leaders’ Summit in July.

“Every day, rural schools and school districts throughout California face an uphill battle to provide a great education to students in their communities with the resources they possess,” the authors write in the abstract of the report. “At times, their geographic distance from the state’s urban centers seems to mean distance from decision-makers’ mindshare and the resources they need. As such, they remain overlooked and misunderstood, although they are resilient and adaptable community schools that provide a diverse population with innovative, hands-on, personalized education.” According to the report, rural schools have several strengths, including resiliency, personalized education, and the ability to serve a diverse group of students, sometimes in the same room. They are also true “community schools” — where “educators are not just teachers but neighbors, friends, and sometimes relatives, creating a strong, interconnected community.”

However, rural students also experience significant barriers that affect their ability to achieve, such as limited access to high-speed internet, higher likelihood of ACES (adverse childhood experiences), and reduced access to transportation and health care.

Using interviews with more than 75 superintendents, the report’s authors sought to understand these inequities and identify solutions that would better serve the unique needs of rural students. The report outlines 12 challenges faced by rural schools and districts, chief among them the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a “rural” school. According to the report, there are more than 12 different definitions of a rural school, which means anywhere from 11 percent to 30 percent of schools in California are rural schools, depending on whom you ask.

Other challenges include:

Proportionality: Rural schools are unfairly penalized based on small sample sizes of students and/or teachers.

Cost: Due to economies of scale and distance from vendors, rural districts often pay more for services.

Staffing: A smaller pool of applicants and the “brain drain” (where aspiring teachers leave the community to get their credential but never return) only exacerbate the existing staffing shortage experienced by schools.

The limited capacity of rural educators who often serve in multiple roles is also chronicled in this report.

“The single-school LEA administrator must also wear multiple hats and attempt to be the LEA expert on all programs, funding sources, and accountability measures,” the authors write. “By necessity, they lead curriculum and instruction, handle state and federal accountability, serve as the substitute bus driver and dishwasher, and act as the mental health coordinator, substitute teacher, human resources expert, and finance officer all in one.”

The report also asserts that funding systems are biased toward larger districts. For example, the authors point to a funding opportunity that required a five-staff-member team, which could mean half of a small district’s entire staff is devoted to the effort in addition to their regular roles.

While there are many intractable problems faced by rural schools, the report also offers several practical solutions that would allow rural schools to better serve their students.

One recommendation is to subsidize or offset the costs faced by remote schools: “One path forward that the authors see in this area is the creation of regional or state master contracts (or even joint power authorities) to lower existing costs for rural LEAs by leveraging collective purchasing power.”

The authors also suggest additional support in the form of CDE or COE “rural specialists,” who would be specially trained in helping rural schools with accountability and other reporting requirements.

Other changes, such as more inclusive criteria and rubrics for funding opportunities could make it easier for rural schools to apply for and receive needed funds. Title 1 loan forgiveness programs that include working in rural places could incentivize teachers to work in rural schools.

In the conclusion, the authors write that, “While education leaders around the nation have shown a growing interest in marginalized students and communities, the time has come to examine the one-of-a-kind requirements of this population as we work to guarantee that everyone in our society feels appreciated, is welcomed, and has access to a great public education.”