retaries, Roderick Paige and Margaret
Spellings, both claimed the ultra-urban
Houston, Texas, school system as the
primary source of their experience.
The lack of representation of rural
education has led to some difficulties
for rural educators as solutions geared
toward urban issues are foisted on
schools of all demographics. The disastrous effort to standardize everything in
education—the laughable notion that
one size fits all—leaves rural schools
forced to implement policies that are
poorly suited for their communities.
There is no better example of this policy
disconnect than the issue of “choice”
and charter schools.
Berger of Rockingham was more direct:
“The purpose of this is mainly, quite
frankly, to draw down federal dollars”
(Robertson, 2010).
Perhaps removing the cap on charter
schools in exchange for an infusion
of federal funding seems reasonable,
but that may not be the point. The
real issue lies in the fact that Dun-
can’s reforms have not considered the
needs of rural schools (McNeil, 2009)
Timothy Collins (1999) notes that
many rural areas lack the capital and
facilities needed to establish a charter
school. And if founding and operating
Schools and Community Trust’s website
offers a “Consolidation Fight Back
Toolkit” ( www.ruraledu.org/articles
.php?id=2425).
Rural educators must not be forced
Unhelpful Reforms
Diane Ravitch (2010) has traced the
development of the choice movement
from its earliest days as a way around
desegregation to its growth into magnet
schools and its current fascination
with charter schools. “Every president
lauded charter schools,” she writes,
“from George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton
to George W. Bush to Barack Obama”
(pp. 132–133). This bipartisan consensus has culminated in President
Obama’s Race to the Top initiative,
which enjoins states to remove caps on
charter schools to have a better chance
of receiving a piece of the $4.3 billion
fund. Secretary Duncan has “repeatedly
said that states with limits on charter
schools will be at a ‘competitive disadvantage’ when it comes to getting the
money” (Niolet, 2009).
In the past, North Carolina had
placed a cap of 100 on the number of
charters that it would grant, but massive
budget shortfalls and the possibility
of draconian cuts to education and
social services money made Race to the
Top dollars look incredibly appealing.
The North Carolina legislature leapt
into action to remove the charter cap.
Although Governor Beverly Purdue
attempted to put a positive spin on
the move, Senate Minority Leader Phil
to swallow reforms that have
no relevance for their districts.
a brand-new school were not difficult
enough, attracting high-quality faculty
and administrators would also present a
challenge.
Low scores on proficiency tests in
math and reading make rural schools
highly vulnerable to sanctions, even
though closing schools and replacing
them with charters will do nothing
about the inadequate funding at the
root of many rural schools’ problems.
Even with NCLB success, rural schools
face the constant threat of being shut-
tered in cost-saving measures. In
Burke County, North Carolina, two
rural elementary schools—Hillcrest
and Mountain View—have been con-
solidated in an effort to stem a tide of
red ink in the county (Welker, 2010,
April 29). This move came one year
after Burke County teachers agreed to
a salary cut (Welker, 2010, May 11)
and despite both schools’ having met
their NCLB adequate yearly progress
targets (North Carolina Department
of Public Instruction, n. d.). Consoli-
dation has become such a pandemic
in rural school districts that the Rural
comes were distinctly negative. These
included sleep deprivation and a loss of
study time due to longer commutes and
bus rides, as well as social disruptions
“brought about by students living and
going to school in two separate environ-
ments” (p. 5). Money may be saved, but
it comes at a high cost.
