A couple education policy wonks have weighed in on whether rural charter schools help improve the education options in rural communities. Do they create welcome alternatives to district schools, or do they dilute already thinly spread resources?
Florida's experience suggests the answer is: It depends.
Matt Richmond recently wrote that while charter schools might provide students better options in urban school systems, the opposite may be true in rural communities, which "have a much harder time attracting the kind of resources necessary to benefit from increased 'choice.'”
Often times, a decreased government presence means fewer good choices and a decrease in quality of (affordable) options. In these cases, the market does not improve the situation; it only makes things worse. Consider rural school districts today: Many are faced with small (and shrinking) budgets, have a difficult time attracting and retaining quality staff, are burdened with large transportation costs, and have very little support from community organizations. Their largest challenges are tied to lack of connectedness to resources and economies of scale. Reducing the government’s role and introducing competition to that environment will only exacerbate current problems.
As Andrew Rotherham noted in a more recent response, the biggest challenges in rural districts tend to be issues of capacity.
One can argue that rather than more charters, what we have in rural education is too many charter-like schools now. Because of aspects of policy and benign neglect many rural schools enjoy a fairly high degree of flexibility, and by necessity autonomy, today. Bootstrapping is common because there is more work than personnel to do it. So while the best charter schools increasingly leverage the power of network – basically becoming high-performing but not geographically contiguous school districts – rural schools are left on their own. It’s the romantic ideal of American education and it doesn’t work very well in too many cases.
That’s why a theory of action that posits that what these schools and communities need is more autonomy and flexibility raises some questions.
He goes on to conclude that while chartering might benefit to some rural students, it might not be as applicable as it is in urban areas. That may be true.
But there are cases - including one we highlighted recently in Madison County- where rural parents have banded together to launch charter schools that supplement the capacity of their local school systems, by, in that case, creating a STEM-focused, college-preparatory program. Other rural charters have proven well-suited to specific cultural niches, catering to the needs of Indian tribes or migrant farmworkers (in Collier and Hillsborough Counties, RCMA charters operate in agricultural communities on the periphery of large or mid-sized school districts).
On the flip side, two of Florida's smallest rural school districts (Jefferson and Bradford) are home to charters that were forced to close. It's worth noting those two districts have higher-than-average private school enrollment, suggesting parents have still sought options outside the traditional school districts.
Virtual schools aren't a panacea, either, but they can allow more rural students to access courses that might not be available to them otherwise. Florida's three rural educational consortia have helped rural districts to band together to create local virtual schools, allowing them to retain more of the coveted state funding tied to their students.
Chartering might not work in every rural district, but can provide vital options in some of them. Private school choice and virtual education can help fill gaps for students who benefit from alternatives. The right mix of education providers might vary from one district to the next, but the hope for rural students is that many hands can make for lighter work.
