SAIL for Education

Living Up to Expectations: How High Standards Impact Student Achievement in Rural Ohio

BY TOM BAILEY, ED.D.

In 2017, after living for 48 years in the suburbs of a large US city, I accepted a job in rural Ohio to become a superintendent. So we packed up part of our family to head to a sparsely populated county to begin the next chapter of our lives. Even though I was still in the state I lived my whole life and we were only 90 miles from the suburbia that I was familiar with, I was intrigued by the differences that rural communities and rural education presented to me in those first few weeks.

When I arrived at my first superintendent assignment I had already completed all my coursework for my doctoral degree and I was well into chapter two of my dissertation. I loved researching and writing about school culture, however, I felt the need to take those cultural pieces of my research and start over again. This time to focus on rural education in Ohio.

The importance of education in rural America can be considered the backbone to the survival of those that live in these rural and small town areas. Of the 609 school districts in Ohio, 231 are considered rural and another 200 are small town districts, many of those in rural areas. While these rural and small town districts comprise 70% of the districts in Ohio, the enrollment at these schools accounts for only 40% of the student population state-wide (Ohio Department of Education, 2013). Ohio, along with the states of Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia, serve more than one-fourth of all rural students in the country (Johnson, Showalter, Klein, Lester, 2014). Success in high-performing, high-needs rural schools was studied by Barley and Beesley and the perceived factors that led to success included high expectations for all students (2007). In fact, having high expectations for students was reported by more principals in the study than any other factor.

With an ever-changing landscape in education and advancement of future-ready careers, the expectations are that rural education and student learning must also advance. Rural America cannot neglect the changes that are taking place in careers, job opportunities, and technology; thus, rural America cannot neglect the changes needed in education to meet these new needs. In order for rural students to compete in a global market, rural education must keep pace with urban and suburban students. Teacher expectations of student academic growth must be consistent with those of urban and suburban counterparts.

There are several implications that came to light based upon the research of Balfour, Mitchell, and Moletsane. The most significant is the concept of truly preparing educators with the knowledge they need to successfully teach in a rural environment. Gruenewald (2003) suggests place-conscious pedagogy enhances rural schools because learning becomes more relevant to the lived experience of students. This would allow programs for teacher preparation to provide placesensitive orientation for teachers specifically in rural areas. This also could provide opportunity for interdisciplinary dialogue within the context of rurality. This interdisciplinary dialogue could take place with people in the field of medicine, social services, government, or safety. These discussions could lead to more production by these very entities in rural areas. Factors that highly affect rural education to a high degree are poverty, rural “brain drain,” teacher expectation, and self-fulfilling prophecy.

Rural areas are more likely than metropolitan areas to experience higher rates of poverty, concentrated poverty, and generational poverty (Lichter & Graefe, 2011). Generational poverty is a major factor affecting the Appalachian, southeast region of Ohio. Ladd & Pascal state “many families face ongoing crises with housing, food insecurity, custody issues, and alcohol and drug addiction” (2019). They go on to state that “students facing these circumstances lack hope for the future, become disengaged, and feel discouraged. This leads still further to students becoming depressed, angry, and in some cases, suicidal” (2019).

Another unique problem that rural areas have, more so than urban centers, is “rural brain drain.” This phenomenon occurs when the highest achievers leave rural homes to attend higher education in the urban or suburban centers. Once there, many rural achievers do not return home, thereby decreasing the achievement potential of the rural area in which they left. However, urban centers and suburban areas experience the benefits of “rural brain drain.” These difficult economic circumstances found in many rural areas lead to “brain drain,” where those that have the ability to leave often do, which further handicaps the area from economic adaptation. Rural adolescents, more frequently than their urban or suburban counterparts, are more likely to experience the conflict of choice between the desire to live close to family and the necessity of moving away to achieve success (Homan, G., Hedrick, J., Dick, J, & Light, M. 2014).

There has been research dealing with expectancy in many forms as it relates to education and student learning. Some of the research has been based on student expectancy of themselves, while other research has dealt with expectations that teachers have for their students. When looking at the research of teacher expectations and students they teach, it really brings to light the concept of nature versus nurture. Environmental influences in education do not occur independently of factors inherited by students. Students who have been given a label that signifies difficulty learning typically do not receive, over time, as many intellectual opportunities as students who may be labeled gifted. Teacher expectations of student achievement that are systematically too high or too low compared with actual student achievement level are called biased expectations (Timmermans, Kuyper, & Van der Werf, 2015). In relation to risk factors that students face, it is even more critical that teachers have high expectations for their students.

It matters even more for students that live in poverty. “The greater the risk factors in a student’s life, the more high expectations matter to the student’s life chances” (Wood et al., 2011). Rubie-Davies (2006) discovered that over a school year, elementary students’ selfperception in academic areas changed “in accordance with teachers’ expectations for their classes” (p. 550). Positive expectations of students lead to students having a self-fulfilling prophecy of greater achievement and engagement in the classroom. The reverse is also true. According to Schmader, Major, and Gramzow (2001), continued exposure to low and negative expectations leads to detachment from the task and consequently to devaluing of the academics by the student. Weinstein (2002) concludes that expectations of teachers directly impact students in the early grades and by the fifth grade teacher expectations are influenced by the children’s expectations of themselves. When out of school factors are controlled, teachers are the biggest predictor of a student’s success in school (Carey, 2004). This is critical as teacher expectations play a key role in the success of the student.

The purpose of the research I did was to explore the culture of expectations educators have for student academic growth in rural education in Ohio. It was to help ensure that programs are in place to create a culture of high achieving students and to create a professional mindset for teaching and learning. In addition, this research aimed to identify how educators in a rural school district in Ohio perceived their own level of expectations for student academic growth. From a broader perspective it will help teachers in rural education to reflect on their own level of expectations for their students and what practices they use in the classroom to promote student academic growth.

The research focused on three main areas: environment, instructional practices, and the influence of rural communities, in general, on expectations. In addition, the knowledge gained from this research allows for educators within rural schools to understand that there is a need for high expectations for their students in order to have the best outcome possible. The research findings really come down to several areas. The culture that the participants of this study work in is that of high expectations and the building of an environment that supports academic growth. The findings reveal that personal relationships and the emergence of instructional practices that involve the active engagement of students best created a culture of high expectations within the context of rural education. This is important for the future of rural education.

Overall, the participants believe that student engagement and relationship building is the best opportunity that teachers have to increase student academic growth. By also detailing this concept within the context of the relationship piece it is clear that the participants believe this is critical for the culture within the school, as well as a strength of the rural community. The outcome for this relationship piece is important along with the positivity that participants spoke about in the research. There was a general understanding that being positive toward students within the concept of relationships was important. This is supported by Schmader, Major, and Gramzow (2001), who stated that continued exposure to low and negative expectations leads to detachment from the task and consequently to devaluing of the academics by the student.

Faculty members are encouraged to use project-based lessons to help build these relationships and to lecture less while engaging with students more. The use of only lecture and paper-pencil learning is not how students and teachers engage, relate, expect and grow. Fyans and Maehr described culture as this “feeling of community” (1990). This community/close-knit feeling allowed for teachers to know their students on a level that most educators could not. It allowed educators to understand the nuances of students’ lives, and it also allowed for the ability to more closely build the environment that supports strong student-teacher relationships. Much like the research of Donovan (2016), the participants had supported the notion that schools may begin to become places of community renewal rather than factors in community disintegration. Schools and districts are encouraged to offer worldly experiences to the students. In many cases, worldly experiences are just a “click” away on a computer or smartphone. Gone are the days where students must board a bus to experience something in the nearest urban center. Even visiting places such as Washington D.C. can be accomplished through media and technology.

Rural communities and their leadership are encouraged to begin to refocus and come to the realization that mediocrity is not acceptable. Rural students must have high expectations cast upon them and likewise they must grow in all areas, but especially academically as

the careers, jobs, and, in some cases, community survival depends on it. Mediocrity cannot be seen as an acceptable expectation for anyone in rural communities. Not for teachers, not for students, and certainly not for teachers as it relates to their expectations for students. Teachers in rural districts must create an environment that fosters and supports student academic growth.

From this research it is clear that teachers must build relationships with the students if the students are to grow. This relationship must be authentic and must be respectful. The teacher is to be actively engaged with the learning that is taking place in the classroom. Teachers shared that modeling behavior and expectations for the students led to higher student growth and ultimately a higher sense of self-esteem on the part of the student. Rural education is the foundation for the viability and long term survival of many communities. Through academic growth, the students are able to perform at higher levels with the potential to compete with all students in the country and for that matter the world as we become a more digitized and therefore a shrinking global society. Rural students do not just have aspirations of farming. Rural students have and need to be contributing players in the entire engine of the global economy.

Dr. Tom Bailey is the Superintendent of Washington Court House City Schools. He also serves students of Concordia University Chicago through his work as dissertation committee member. Prior to becoming the Superintendent, he served as Assistant Superintendent, High School Principal, Elementary Principal and Director of Communications at Three Rivers Local School District in Hamilton County. He also served as a building principal in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.