Characteristics of Rural and Non-Rural Districts in Utah from 2012 to 2017

Autor/inn/en	Rice, John; Huang, Min; Derby, Kenwyn
Institution	Regional Educational Laboratory West (ED); WestEd
Titel	Characteristics of Rural and Non-Rural Districts in Utah from 2012 to 2017
Quelle	(2018), (36 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	School Districts; Rural Schools; Rural Urban Differences; Student Characteristics; Teacher Characteristics; Institutional Characteristics; Income; Educational Finance; Expenditure per Student; Expenditures; Teacher Salaries; Academic Achievement; Economic Factors; Small Schools; Taxes; Costs; Transportation; Class Size; Teacher Student Ratio; Teacher Qualifications; Faculty Mobility; Advanced Placement; Graduation Rate; Standardized Tests; Utah + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? School district; Schulbezirk; Rural area; Rural areas; School; Schools; Ländlicher Raum; Schule; Schulen; Stadt-Land-Beziehung; Einkommen; Bildungsfonds; Ausgaben; Lehrerbesoldung; Lehrervergütung; Schulleistung; Ökonomischer Faktor; Abgabe; Cost; Kosten; Verkehrswesen; Klassengröße; Lehrer-Schüler-Relation; Lehrqualifikation; Standadised tests; Standardisierter Test
Abstract	To help inform education stakeholders in Utah, this study examined the differences in characteristics between rural and non-rural districts in the state from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2017 using administrative data from the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah Education Association. All the findings are descriptive and do not address the causes of the differences between rural and non-rural districts. The study found that rural and non-rural school districts differed on a number of dimensions, some of which point to advantages for rural districts compared to non-rural districts. For example, compared to non-rural districts, average median class sizes were lower in rural districts and the average four-year graduation rate was slightly higher. In addition, the average inflation-adjusted per-pupil revenue and expenditure were larger, and the average inflation- and cost-of-living-adjusted starting annual teacher salary was slightly higher in rural districts compared to the non-rural districts. Other differences indicate disadvantages for rural districts compared to non-rural ones. For example, compared to non-rural districts, rural districts had a smaller percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers. Also, a smaller proportion of students in rural districts were proficient in English language arts and science compared to students in non-rural districts. Also, fewer unique advanced courses were available to students attending rural secondary schools that offered advanced courses compared to students attending non-rural secondary schools that offered such courses. Compared to non-rural districts there was a smaller proportion of high school graduates in rural districts that scored 18 or more on the ACT and a smaller proportion that had enrolled in at least one advanced course. In addition, non-rural districts spent a smaller proportion of their expenditures on administration and student transportation expenses compared to rural districts. At the same time, compared to rural districts, instructional expenses comprised a greater proportion of general fund expenditures in non-rural districts. Finally, the inflation-and cost-of-living-adjusted average annual scheduled teacher salary was slightly lower in rural districts compared to non-rural districts. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Regional Educational Laboratory West. Available from: WestEd. 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107-1242. Tel: 877-493-7833; Tel: 415-565-3000; Fax: 415-565-3012; Web site: https://relwest.wested.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01