Rural, Small, and Sparse School Districts: Definitions for K-12 Funding

Abstract

Rural districts face different obstacles than their urban counterparts, such as higher transportation and education costs and a frequent lack of resources. Policymakers and researchers often rely on National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) definitions of rurality to identify, understand, and support the needs of rural districts, but some states define rural districts using unique definitions based on enrollment sizes and student density.

The NCES definition of rurality fails to directly account for enrollment and sparsity characteristics, two factors that greatly affect district needs. Including these types of characteristics can help policymakers more effectively assess need, and states should examine their current definitions and policies for information on the actual differences in the costs of educating students who attend small and geographically remote districts.

Accounting for local district characteristics can better direct dollars to districts in need. Our analysis comparing definitions, characteristics, revenues, and expenditures point to the following recommendations: States should consider incorporating a “small” school district component into support systems, either for the first time or in addition to other components, states should reevaluate (or evaluate for the first time) which definitions determine eligibility for funding, and researchers should consider the geographic context of their research and which definitions of rurality are most appropriate.