Introduction and summary
Despite making up nearly half of school districts and enrolling roughly 1 in 5 public school students,1 rural schools are often overlooked in policy and research conversations. Rural elementary and secondary schools face unique challenges that require the support of state and federal policymakers. Amid efforts from the Trump administration to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education,2 privatize education,3 stop research projects that advance teaching and learning,4 and cut federal funding for public schools,5 it is crucial that policymakers understand the impact these decisions will have on rural schools, which are already at a disadvantage with inequitable funding and limited access to rigorous educational opportunities. Rural schools’ heavy reliance on state and federal funding means these attacks would create significant harm, leaving them without critical funding needed to keep their doors open and provide a quality education to the 9.8 million rural students nationwide.6
All levels of government must urgently support rural public education, particularly investments that prepare rural students for postsecondary success.
Rural schools tend to be smaller on average—often raising costs per student7—and face challenges recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers, accessing reliable broadband, and transporting students across farther distances.8 Funding gaps between rural and nonrural public schools exist in many states9 due to small student populations, inequitable state funding formulas, and challenges generating local revenue.10 On average, states allocate just more than 16 percent of state education funds to rural districts despite them making up more than 40 percent of districts nationwide.11 These challenges inhibit rural schools’ access to resources, affecting rural students’ educational outcomes and future opportunities.12 Rural students often lack access to core and advanced courses.13 This disparity limits rural students’ ability to compete with their peers from nonrural communities and creates barriers to preparation for and entrance to college and career pathways.
Addressing rural education disparities requires a strategic and collaborative effort from state and federal policymakers, educators, and communities to recruit and retain high-quality educators, create partnerships to expand access to coursework, support rural-serving institutions of higher education, and strengthen state and federal funding streams.
Defining the rural landscape
The National Center for Education Statistics categorizes rural territories into three distinct groups based on their proximity to urbanized areas and the size of those urban areas.14
In addressing the challenges rural communities face, it is crucial to understand the rural landscape. Rural poverty rates often exceed those in urban areas,15 and rural communities are diverse in terms of race and ethnicity. 16
Who attends rural public schools?
Nearly 1 in 3
Rural students are nonwhite.
National School Boards Association, “Growing Diversity of Rural Students” (2023).
330,000
English language learners and multilingual learners in rural public schools, an increase of roughly 80,000 students nationwide between 2013 and 2021.
Daniel Showalter and others, “Why rural matters” (2023).
1.7M
Rural students who attend high-poverty schools, with students of color representing a disproportionate share.
National Center for Education Statistics, “Table 216.60"; National Center for Education Statistics, “Public school students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.”
47%
Rural students eligible for free or reduced-price school meals, compared with 42 percent of nonrural students.
Save the Children, “Rural Child and Family Wellbeing Dashboard.”
In the fall of 2022, 1.7 million of the nation’s rural students—17 percent of all rural students—attended high-poverty schools, defined as those in which more than 75 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.17 This attendance occurs at higher rates among historically underserved racial and ethnic groups, with nearly 45 percent of rural American Indian/Alaska Native students, 41 percent of rural Black students, and 28 percent of rural Hispanic students attending high-poverty schools.18
Understanding rural students’ diverse and intersecting backgrounds and the barriers associated with these varied identities is key to better serving them.
Dismantling or abolishing the Department of Education would jeopardize rural districts across the country
The Trump administration’s plans to abolish the Department of Education and the department’s recent reduction in force pose a serious threat to public education across the nation and will harm rural students.19 Rural school districts rely on federal funding programs such as the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) to bridge the gap between state and local funding. The recent cut of more than 1,300 department employees threatens the efficiency of getting these vital funds to rural schools, as well as providing critical technical assistance and collecting and analyzing data to understand student performance and advance teaching and learning. For example, nearly all of the staff at the department’s National Center for Education Statistics—which uses U.S. Census Bureau data to assign districts as city, suburban, town, or rural to determine eligibility for federal funding programs such as REAP—were eliminated.20 These cuts could make it challenging to keep these designations up to date to ensure that rural districts get the funding they need. The Rural, Insular, and Native Achievement Programs (RINAP) team has also reportedly experienced significant cuts.21 RINAP supports rural districts who receive federal grants in their implementation.22 This technical assistance strengthens partnerships between the department and districts and is especially beneficial to small rural districts that have limited personnel. On May 22, a federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order to dismantle the department and ordered the thousands of employees who were fired to be reinstated.23 Yet the Trump administration has since tried to appeal the order all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.24
As noted in this report, due to a lack of local revenue and higher costs, rural districts rely heavily on state and federal funding. But even across state funding, many inequities in funding models exist, and state support varies dramatically across the country.25 Without the Department of Education providing these essential resources to rural districts, the achievement gap between rural and nonrural students will only widen, further harming rural communities.
Limited access to core and advanced courses
Rural students have less access to both core and advanced courses than their nonrural counterparts, who typically enjoy a broader selection of class offerings.26 This disparity gives nonrural students advantages in their future educational opportunities and leaves rural students behind.27
Rural schools are more likely to lack qualified teachers,28 course access,29 and technology, resulting in rural students earning fewer academic credits than their nonrural counterparts.30 These issues are further aggravated in remote locations that lack broadband and proximity to higher education institutions that could provide programs that would help students obtain these core credits, particularly in STEM courses.31
For example, approximately one-fourth of all public school students take Algebra I before high school.32 However, disproportionately fewer students of color, impoverished students, and rural students are enrolled in Algebra I before high school.33 Algebra I lays a foundation for more advanced math and puts students on track to access higher-level math courses in high school and beyond.34 With less access to higher-level math courses, students in rural areas miss opportunities, creating barriers to their long-term academic success.
The financial and geographic constraints of rural schools also create barriers to offering advanced coursework such as advanced placement (AP) classes. Such coursework has been positively associated with high school graduation, college enrollment, persistence in postsecondary education, math achievement, and interest in STEM fields.35 However, only 50 percent of rural school districts offer AP courses, compared with 76 percent of urban districts and 85 percent of suburban districts.36 Having access to AP courses provides students with the opportunity to earn college credit in high school, giving them a head start when they begin college. Yet for many rural students, these courses are not an option. Even for rural students who do have access to AP courses, end of course exams—which students must pass to earn college credit for the course—can be costly.37
The availability of advanced math and science coursework shows similar disparities. Only 33 percent of rural high schools offer AP math courses, compared with 56 percent of urban schools and 75 percent of suburban schools.38 Additionally, in remote rural areas—those more than 10 miles from smaller urban areas or 25 miles from larger urban areas—only 30 percent of high schools offer calculus and just more than half offer physics.39 This is significantly lower than even the smallest suburban schools, where these classes are offered in 72 percent and 79 percent of schools, respectively.40
Implications for higher education enrollment and attainment
Geographic distance and resource disparities can create barriers to postsecondary access for rural students. Rural students enroll in college at lower rates than their nonrural counterparts: Only 55 percent of rural students enrolled in college directly out of high school in 2022, compared with 64 percent of suburban students and 59 percent of urban students.41 Even when accounting for socioeconomic status, rural students enrolled in college at lower rates than their suburban and urban peers.42 Furthermore, only 25 percent of adults ages 25 and older living in a rural area hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 37 percent living in both suburban and urban areas.43 Earning a college degree generally results in higher lifetime earnings and should be accessible to all students regardless of their background.44
However, limited access to core and advanced courses plays into both college enrollment and attainment for rural students. Students who lack access to foundational and advanced courses in high school may need to enroll in developmental, or remedial, courses in college to catch up to their peers.45 Students must often pass these courses to gain the prerequisites to enroll in college-level courses, meaning they are spending both time and money to catch up to peers who received this foundation in high school. The out-of-pocket costs for remedial courses in college can be significant: One study found that, across the United States, remedial courses cost students a total of nearly $1.3 billion every year.46 These costs disproportionately affect students of color, who are more likely to be enrolled in remedial courses. In addition to out-of-pocket costs, research finds that enrollment in remedial courses decreases the likelihood of degree attainment, with some studies estimating that less than 10 percent of students who take remedial classes complete their degree program on time.47 Accumulating debt to meet prerequisite requirements without the certainty of degree completion puts rural students in a difficult position.
Policy recommendations
All students deserve access to a high-quality public education regardless of the community in which they live. To live up to this promise and support rural students in their preparation for postsecondary opportunities, policymakers must prioritize policies that are comprehensive, sustainable, and scalable to create systemwide long-term change.
Improve support for rural educators
Strengthening educator support in rural schools can enhance access to courses and the quality of instruction, directly contributing to higher student achievement and postsecondary success.
Given the isolation of rural communities, access to quality professional development can be hard to come by for many school districts.48 Without this valuable training, educators miss out on opportunities to further develop their skills, learn new teaching methods, and best understand how to use new technologies. This continuous professional development is important to ensure students are receiving a quality education from a highly qualified educator. State and local education agencies and third-party training organizations, including institutions of higher education, should collaborate to develop professional development programs that address the unique challenges of rural education and provide the skills needed to teach advanced courses.
In addition to professional development supports, rural educators also face challenges with low compensation49 and limited housing options.50 Rural districts often struggle to compete with the compensation offered by larger districts; rural educators are paid on average more than $5,000 less than nonrural educators, after adjusting for local wage differences.51 This leads to challenges in recruiting and retaining highly qualified educators. On top of this, a lack of housing options in remote communities creates additional barriers.52 These factors lead to challenges in teacher recruitment and retention for rural districts, ultimately restricting the quality of educators who teach rural students.53 To address these challenges and improve the recruitment and retainment of highly qualified educators, policymakers should increase funding for rural educator compensation packages, including housing assistance such as stipends or tax incentives, to better compete with nonrural school districts.
In addition to these changes, state and federal policymakers should invest in Grow Your Own teacher programs to improve both educator recruitment and student college enrollment and attainment in rural communities. These programs encourage local students and professionals to become licensed educators in their communities.54 Many programs include high school students and provide incentives to enroll in college early and finish an education degree program.55 Key components include dual credit courses in education offered to high school students; collaboration between school districts and colleges and universities to develop a career pathway for education; encouragement of small and proximate districts to collaborate in developing their own grant programs; and scholarships for students enrolled in teacher preparation programs.56 While there are many different types of Grow Your Own programs, policymakers should focus their efforts on evidence-based models that include clinical experience, involve partnerships with institutions of higher education, and ultimately lead to licensure and certification. With state-supported local programs targeting rural communities, districts can develop and recruit educators who are personally invested in the community and understand the unique needs of rural students.
How some states are supporting rural educators
Rural education collaboratives are one way districts are working together to increase access to professional development for school staff. For example, the Colorado Rural Education Collaborative (CREC), a network of 86 districts across the state, brings rural educators together to design solutions to advance education, including teacher access to educational resources and systems of support.57 The group has offered various programs aimed at improving rural educator access to professional development, including professional learning communities for math and special education teachers, training in computer coding, and assistance in securing state grants to observe instruction at high-performing schools and to work with school improvement coaches.58 Since its inception, CREC has raised more than $42 million, more than $9 million of which has directly supported teacher recruitment and retention and teacher and leader efficacy.59 This included funding for 11 teachers to earn their master’s degree or certificates that enable them to teach concurrent enrollment courses, which are dual enrollment courses taught by a high school teacher. This program ultimately led to a more than 50 percent increase in concurrent enrollment offerings across CREC districts.60 The collaborative receives funding from multiple state agencies, including the Colorado Department of Education, to support its work.61
In 2019, the Hawaii Board of Education approved a plan to provide pay differentials for teachers in hard-to-staff positions, including an additional $3,000 to $8,000 per year for those working in isolated or remote communities.62 The board’s arguments in support of the plan noted that low salaries were an exacerbated issue for educators in remote or rural areas given that “the cost of living is even greater, and housing options are scarce, resulting in long commute times and extra fuel expenses.”63 Pay differentials were implemented in 2020,64 and state funding for the program was secured in 2022.65
When it comes to recruiting educators, states can look to Wisconsin’s GROW Cooperative, a rural Grow Your Own consortium. The program identifies, trains, and supports potential candidates, targeting high school students, career changers, and paraprofessionals.66 High school students enrolled in the program can access college courses via a partnership with a nearby university, and scholarships are awarded to both high school and college students intending to major in education.67 Financial incentives to both students and career switchers help ease the financial burden of earning certification and promote return to the district upon degree completion.68
Create partnerships to expand access to coursework
While there are challenges to providing a variety of courses to rural students, policymakers can create and encourage partnerships to increase access to resources and to expand the range of courses offered to rural students. This access can lead to improved academic outcomes, greater college readiness, and increased access to postsecondary opportunities for rural students.
Relevant state agencies, rural school districts, and institutions of higher education should partner to expand the delivery of core and advanced coursework to rural students. Given the isolation of rural communities, these partnerships can allow districts to pool resources to increase opportunity for students. These partnerships should include creating formal agreements between rural schools and institutions of higher education—both rural-serving institutions and beyond—to offer dual enrollment programs; developing networks among state agencies, local districts, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of higher education to share core and advanced curricula and related resources; dismantling financial barriers to student participation in AP courses; and closing the digital divide by providing rural districts with adequate technology and the educator training necessary for effective implementation of online and blended learning models.
See also
How some states are expanding access to coursework
In Vermont, where rural students make up more than half of the state’s student population,69 the Agency of Education implemented a dual enrollment program that partners with two-year and four-year colleges and universities.70 High school students can take up to two college courses on a college campus, online, or on-site at a participating high school.71 Outcomes of the program show that students who participate are at least 25 percent more likely to enroll in college within one year of graduating high school than students who do not participate.72
Rural students who do not have the option to participate in dual enrollment programs online or on-site at their high school may face additional barriers when it comes to transportation to and from the college campus where their course is offered. To combat this, Texas passed a bill in 2019 that allows school districts to use state funding to pay for transporting students to and from dual-credit opportunities.73 Since then, Texas has seen an 18 percent increase in student enrollment for dual-credit courses.74 Transportation funding is especially important for students who live in higher education deserts—areas with zero or one public broad-access institution (those with less selective admissions policies) within commuting range—and need to travel farther to access dual enrollment courses.75
Outside of dual enrollment programs, education collaboratives have been an effective tool in building networks that assist in sharing core and advanced curricula and related resources. The Southwest Colorado Education Collaborative, for example, brings together eight school districts and two colleges “to expand educational opportunities across the region.”76 The collaborative offers summer institutes, partners with local business leaders to secure student internships, and collectively fundraises for science equipment including a traveling science lab shared by the collaborative.77 In 2020, the collaborative received a $3.6 million grant from the governor, and proponents of the model are advocating for dedicated public funding for these partnerships or policy changes to reduce the barriers to sharing funds across school districts.78
Finally, to address financial barriers to participation in AP courses, North Carolina passed legislation in 2014 that appropriated funds to pay for AP end-of-course exams for all students, regardless of socioeconomic status.79 At the federal level, the Advanced Coursework Equity Act, introduced by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) in the 118th Congress, aimed to expand enrollment in advanced courses by covering course fees for low-income students, training educators to teach advanced courses, and covering costs associated with launching new courses.80 If reintroduced and passed during the current legislative session, this bill could increase access to advanced courses for rural students nationwide.
Supporting English learners in rural schools
As the number of English learners (ELs) increases in rural schools,81 it is important to recognize additional barriers multilingual learners face in accessing courses and the support needed to be successful. Rural schools often lack the resources necessary—including personnel—to adequately support English learners.82 Despite federal guidelines to provide specialized instruction for English learners, roughly 40 percent of rural ELs do not receive this necessary instruction.83 This can be especially challenging for rural districts experiencing a sudden influx of English learners.
To expand access to coursework for English learners, rural districts need additional staff certified to teach nonnative English speakers and additional professional development for current staff. To offset the higher per-pupil costs associated with smaller EL programs, states can provide additional funding to cover resources and staff. For example, Vermont districts serving fewer than 25 ELs receive an additional $25,000 to $50,000 on top of the base per-pupil amount to cover administrative costs.84 At the federal level, increases to funding for the English Language Acquisition State grants are needed.85 Despite an increase in the overall EL population by 35 percent between 2000 and 2019, funding for these grants has decreased by 24 percent since 2002 when adjusted for inflation.86 Congress must reject the Trump administration’s proposal in its fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget request to fully eliminate funding for these grants.87 Without quality English learner programs, rural English learners will be left even further behind when trying to access core and advanced coursework, limiting their postsecondary opportunities. On the other hand, multilingual learners who receive comprehensive support see better academic performance and are more likely to graduate on time, ultimately benefiting their communities and local economies as they can contribute more meaningfully.88
Invest in rural-serving institutions of higher education
While rural students graduate from high school, earn career and technical education (CTE) credits in high school, and attain degrees from two-year institutions at higher rates than their nonrural peers, they fall behind in four-year college enrollment and completion.89
To close gaps in access to four-year degrees and give rural students additional opportunities for upward economic mobility, state and federal interventions are needed to help rural students overcome the unique barriers they face. While strong CTE pathways, certificates, and associate degrees offer earnings premiums above those of the average high school graduate, bachelor’s degrees generally offer greater lifetime earnings and represent a pathway that should be open to all students regardless of their background.90
An estimated 35 million Americans live in higher education deserts.91 Geographic proximity to higher education institutions is an important aspect of college access. Nearly 70 percent of college students attend institutions that are within 50 miles of home, and this share rises to about 90 percent for students who attend community colleges.92 As the distance from the nearest institution of higher education increases, the likelihood of a student enrolling in postsecondary education decreases.93 Studies have even shown that distance to an institution may be even more important than price as a factor in determining enrollment.94
Investing in rural-serving institutions (RSIs) can also help to address racial disparities in college attainment for rural students. Research shows that geographic factors can exacerbate attainment gaps, as Black, Hispanic, and low-income students are more likely than their white, Asian, or higher-income peers to forgo a college education as a result of distance.95 Because about one-third of historically Black colleges and universities,18 percent of high Hispanic-enrolling institutions, 93 percent of Tribal colleges and universities, and 94 percent of high Native-enrolling (non-Tribal) institutions are RSIs, providing greater resources to these institutions will enable them to better reach and support rural students of color.96 This can be done by providing increasingly robust investments in programs funded by Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, including the Strengthening Institutions program and the institutional development programs that provide funding to minority-serving institutions.97 The Trump administration proposed eliminating the full budget for the Strengthening Institutions program in the fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget request, which would cut funding to institutions that serve high proportions of low-income students and have low institutional expenditures.98 These cuts would disproportionately hit community colleges and other broad-access institutions on which rural students rely. Congress should reject this proposal and protect these higher education institutions.
In order to help greater shares of rural students enroll and succeed in higher education, lawmakers should ensure that community colleges and regional public universities located in rural areas continue to operate. Demographic changes have led to plateauing college enrollment, and thus to more college closures and mergers in recent years.99 Ensuring there remain high-quality, public higher education options within commuting distance for rural students is essential to preserving access to higher education.
Offering bachelor’s degrees at community colleges is another important avenue to increase postsecondary access for rural students. Currently, 24 states offer such programs.100 While four out of five community college students intend to transfer to a four-year college, this becomes a reality for only about 1 in 6 students.101 States should increase investments in two-year RSIs to help them build bachelor’s degree programs, particularly in fields that align with local workforce needs. In addition, they should develop partnerships and facilitate articulation agreements with nearby rural districts to promote a college-going culture and facilitate pathways to postsecondary education.
How some states support partnerships between RSIs and rural schools
To increase access to dual enrollment programs, three rural Texas high schools partnered with colleges across the state through a five-year program launched in 2019 called Lone Star STEM.102 Using funding awarded by the federal Education Innovation and Research program, the rural schools and their college partners worked to address three common challenges: overcoming the distance between partners, supporting “students in navigating the college environment,” and building staff capacity to adequately implement programming.103 By offering multiple course delivery methods, providing student transportation, aligning coursework and schedules, creating staff positions specific to supporting dual enrollment, and credentialing current educators as dual enrollment instructors, these districts found success in overcoming many of the barriers rural districts face.104 By the end of the 2021-22 school year, nearly half of one school’s graduates earned their associate degree alongside their high school diploma, and another school noted that 200 students took at least two dual enrollment classes before graduation compared with only five students 20 years ago.105
On the federal level, increasing investments in grant programs that support college access and completion can also help close gaps for rural students. TRIO and GEAR UP are two examples of college access programs that help prepare students from low-income backgrounds to enroll and succeed in college.106 Because rural students are disproportionately low income, they are more likely to be served by these programs. One survey found that about 55 percent of students served by TRIO programs were from rural areas, despite the fact that about 20 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas.107 The Trump administration has proposed eliminating funding for the TRIO and GEAR UP programs in its fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget request, affecting 1.4 million students’ access to supportive services and college preparatory work that helps them attend college.108 Congress should reject this proposal and instead increase support for these programs; ensure rural students remain a competitive priority in the award process; and prioritize grants for rural schools that are geared toward their specific needs, such as access to advanced coursework, to help more rural students access the resources they need to enroll and succeed in college.
See also
The Rural Postsecondary & Economic Development Grant Program, Postsecondary Student Success Grant program, and the Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students program are three programs that can help provide funding for wraparound support services to address rural students’ needs.109 All of these programs fund evidence-backed practices to help students complete college. For rural students, funding that improves access to student supports such as academic tutoring, advising, and career guidance can all help to increase completion rates. In addition, scaling up programs that support basic needs such as food, housing, transportation, and child care are essential to helping rural students succeed.110 Despite this, the Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget request also proposes to eliminate these grant programs, which would reduce access to programs and services that help rural students enroll, persist in, and complete college.111
Strengthen state and federal funding for rural public schools
To adequately implement the policies recommended in this report and strengthen the quality of education that rural students receive, schools need both state and federal support. Rural schools often have a harder time generating local revenue and must rely more heavily on state and federal funding.112 Additionally, their geographic isolation leads to higher costs for resources, such as transportation, further straining their limited finances.113
State funding recommendations
State funding formulas vary widely across the United States.114 These complex formulas often provide base amounts to districts either based on the resources needed or the number of students a district serves.115 In addition to these base amounts, states often provide additional funding through adjustments for specific student populations.116 In 2024, 36 states provided additional funding for small size or rural districts.117 Even within these adjustments, state funding strategies vary widely: Some provide a blanket percentage increase to all eligible districts, others provide a range of percentage increase dependent on the characteristics of the district, and some allocate funds to pay for specific resources.118 Regardless of the method, state policies often do not take into account the actual cost differences for providing rural students with a quality education.119 Rural districts often have lower enrollment rates yet still have many of the same fixed costs as other districts, leading to higher per-pupil costs.120 While allocating additional funding to rural schools is helpful, doing so without understanding these cost differences fails to adequately address disparities.
One example of these differences in costs is transportation. Since rural districts often cover larger areas and must transport students farther distances, transportation costs take up a larger portion of rural districts’ budgets, shifting money away from academic resources.121 But state funding formulas often fail to account for these differences, leaving the responsibility to local districts that are often financially strained.122 This translates to course access as well; for many districts, it does not financially make sense to offer a larger variety of courses or advanced courses for just a few students.123
To address the disparities within each state, state policymakers should first conduct funding evaluations to better understand the amount of funding rural districts truly need to provide a quality education to their students. These evaluations should be conducted by a wide range of professionals including lawmakers and appropriate government staff, as well as educators, principals, superintendents, and other stakeholders. Evaluations should consider the differences in cost for all the resources necessary to provide a child with a quality education within the state, including building infrastructure, administrative staff, high-quality educators and educators certified to teach advanced courses, technology and other classroom materials, transportation, and school counselors and psychologists. State policymakers should then use this information to readjust state funding formulas to more strategically support rural districts. While not directly related to rural schools, states can look to examples such as Delaware’s Public Education Funding Commission.124 The commission was formed in 2024 and is conducting a comprehensive review of public education funding and developing recommendations for the state based on its findings.125
Federal funding recommendations
The U.S. Department of Education offers two formula grants to rural districts through REAP:126 the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program and the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program.127 SRSA funds go to rural districts that serve a small number of students, while RLIS funds are administered to rural districts that serve a high concentration of low-income students.128 Districts that qualify for both grant programs must choose which program they would like to receive funds from and may not receive funding from both.129 These grants are intended to make up for inequities in funding due to rural districts frequently lacking “the personnel and resources needed to compete effectively for Federal competitive grants” and receiving “formula grant allocations in amounts too small to be effective in meeting their intended purposes.”130 Grant funds can be used for many purposes including those that fall under Titles I, II, III, and IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.131 However, in fiscal year 2024, the average per-pupil grant amount was only approximately $100 for SRSA and $38 for RLIS.132
Still, federal investments can break financial barriers for rural districts. A 2023 survey from The School Superintendents Association found that the more REAP funding a district received, the more likely it was to expand course offerings as opposed to expand learning time through summer or before- or after-school programs, in which some students may not be able to participate.133 In fact, the top four most common REAP investments—technology, professional development, staff compensation, and expanded curricular offerings—can all increase access to both core and advanced coursework for rural students.134 While REAP has received increases to funding in recent years, the most recent increases for fiscal year 2024 fall short of adjusting for inflation, let alone adding meaningful funds to further the work of the program.135
Looking ahead, the Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget request proposes lumping the funding into a block grant alongside 17 other programs and allowing states to decide how funding is used.136 The block grant would be funded at roughly $4.5 million less than total current funding for these programs.137 Implementing this block grant would put rural funding at risk as states would receive less federal funding and would have no requirement to direct funds to rural schools and districts. To bridge the funding gap between rural and nonrural districts, Congress should maintain the existence of REAP as an individual funding stream, increase overall funding, and ensure that annual increases to appropriations will—at a minimum—match inflation. In addition to increased funding, Congress should consider making REAP grants multiyear programs rather than annual. Currently, local and state education agencies must apply for REAP grants every year.138 For rural districts, where lack of personnel is a common issue, annual applications can be a large burden. Adjusting these grant programs to multiyear would offset this burden and allow rural schools to make better long-term plans and investments that support their students in the long run. While this may be challenging in the current political landscape, these actions are critical to improving rural students’ educational outcomes.
In addition to REAP, the federal government provides support to rural districts through the Secure Rural Schools Program. Created in 2000, this program provides funding to counties from the U.S. Forest Service to maintain local roads and schools to help address another unique barrier some rural districts face: a limited amount of taxable property to generate local revenue due to large amounts of national forest land.139 The program, however, must be reauthorized every few years, creating instability for the more than 700 counties relying on this funding.140 In its last round of funding, dispersed in fiscal year 2023, the program provided nearly $253 million across 42 states and territories.141 In 2024, Congress did not reauthorize the program,142 which could result in staff layoffs and other cuts in upcoming budget decisions.143 To ensure these counties are financially able to provide a quality education for their students, Congress should reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act during the current legislative session and consider establishing permanent funding to avoid risks associated with the need for frequent reauthorizations.
Alongside these federal funding programs, it is critical that the federal government does not take actions that would divert public funds to private schools. The House Republicans’ tax and budget bill included a program that would provide a 100 percent federal tax credit for donors who contribute to private school voucher funds, diverting $20 billion in taxpayer dollars over four years to private schools and families who homeschool.144 The program would also create a tax shelter for wealthy donors, leading to massive losses in federal and state revenues and ultimately jeopardizing funding for public education.145 The Senate Republicans’ tax and budget bill would include a similar program, if passed as is, that would permanently divert $4 billion in taxpayer money annually.146 Rural students are disproportionately affected by private school choice programs;147 the proposed programs would set rural students back further in their preparation for postsecondary success.
See also
Finally, the federal government should continue its efforts to increase access to reliable high-speed internet in rural communities. In a recent survey from the education nonprofit organization Project Tomorrow, more than one-third of teachers reported that internet access in their classroom was insufficient to support their needs, and nearly 60 percent of high school students reported that the internet connectivity in classrooms was too slow or inconsistent to support online tools and resources.148 It is crucial that programs under the federal Internet for All Initiative continue to receive adequate funding and target rural districts that lack reliable high-speed internet necessary to promote digital literacy, virtual professional development opportunities, dual enrollment programs, and more.149 Yet, the Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget request proposes canceling one program under this initiative a year early, cutting $550 million of funding already appropriated to states to close barriers to internet access and use for rural communities and other populations facing inequitable access.150
The federal government plays an important role in ensuring rural districts have the resources necessary to prepare their students for postsecondary success. It is vital that the responsibility to close these gaps and ensure access to a quality education for all students is recognized at the federal level.
Conclusion
The future of rural education depends on the collective commitment of districts, states, and the federal government to make strategic changes and improvements to ensure all students—regardless of their geographical location—have access to a high-quality public education that equips them for success.
To ensure rural students have access to the coursework needed for postsecondary success, state and federal policymakers must work together to improve support for rural educators, create partnerships to expand access to coursework, invest in rural-serving institutions of higher education, and strengthen state and federal funding for rural public schools. Each of these issues is an important piece of the puzzle to improve academic achievement and educational attainment for rural students.
The disparities rural students face in accessing core and advanced coursework highlight deeply rooted issues of locational, economical, and educational inequities. Despite these challenges, the resilience of rural communities coupled with strategic and innovative solutions can create a more equitable education landscape that better equips rural students for postsecondary success.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Madison Weiss, Veronica Goodman, Alex Cogan, Weadé James, Madeline Shepherd, and Jared Bass at the Center for American Progress for their valuable contributions to this report. The authors would also like to thank Sophia Applegate for her thorough fact-checking and support throughout this report’s development.