8

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Research Agenda

An effective K–12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education prepares students for high-quality, well-paying careers in the STEM workforce and develops the STEM literacy that improves decision making and contributes to a well-functioning democracy. But as we have shown in this report, rural students face systemic barriers to that education, such as lack of technology or access to high-speed internet connections as well as challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified STEM educators. On the other hand, rural areas have abundant assets and provide a rich context for learning science and engineering; with access to the outdoors or work in agricultural industries many rural students naturally develop STEM-related skills in their daily lives. Connecting to STEM content in these forms provides opportunities for place-based education in rural areas, and use of learning through place increases access, engagement, and achievement in science content for rural students.

The committee examined the assets for and challenges to K–12 STEM education and workforce development that are unique to rural areas. In reviewing research on effective programs and approaches, the committee determined that few studies focus specifically on rural communities or explore variation across different rural areas. For this reason, the committee drew on the broad research literature related to effective STEM education and workforce development to make inferences about potential approaches in rural areas.

The committee’s major conclusions and recommendations are summarized below, followed by recommendations for the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) in its programs, mentioned above, to support rural STEM

education and workforce development and online STEM education. The committee also created a research agenda; it is presented at the end of this chapter.

THE DIVERSITY OF RURAL AMERICA AND DEFINING RURALITY

The information gathered by the committee shows that rural communities are diverse in every way—geographically, economically, and racially; the notion that rural America is largely White, agriculturally based, and uneducated is outdated. The rural diversity makes it understandably difficult to develop and implement programs that will improve K–12 STEM education and workforce development across all rural contexts: while some rural areas experience similar challenges to K–12 STEM education and workforce development, other challenges are specific to particular areas. It is therefore imperative for all actors in this space—federal and state agencies, nonprofit organizations, nongovernmental organizations, philanthropies and other groups with rural education portfolios, and rural education researchers—to consider the local context of each rural area.

The committee found that multiple definitions of rural are used by researchers and across and within federal agencies, and those definitions often focus on a false dichotomy of rural versus not rural. Improved, clear, and consistent definitions are critical to better understand rural communities and help ensure that they have access to the resources they need. Confusing or misaligned definitions can be a barrier for rural communities attempting to access state, federal, or philanthropic funding. Efforts to build a cohesive evidence base focused on rural STEM education also suffer from the multiple definitions of rural used by researchers.

Conclusion 2-1: Multiple definitions of rural are used across and within federal agencies, making it difficult to both accurately identify the number of districts and schools served by federal programs and ensure that resources are equitably distributed.

Conclusion 2-2: Multiple definitions of rural are used by researchers, making it difficult to aggregate findings across studies in order to build a rigorous knowledge base about what works to improve rural STEM education and workforce development.

Conclusion 2-3: Most federal agencies base their definitions of rural on one of two sources, one developed by the U.S. Census Bureau and the other by the Office of Management and Budget. Both define rural mainly as nonurban. This approach fails to adequately capture important characteristics that vary across rural areas, such as population density and remoteness.

Recommendation 1: There is a need for a common measure of rurality that goes beyond a rural/nonrural dichotomy to capture dimensions such as population size, population density, extent of urban (built-up) area, and remoteness. This measure should be used both to monitor geographical disparities in STEM education and workforce development and to inform development and administration of programs for rural STEM education and workforce development.

• The federal government, through a statistical agency such as the National Center for Education Statistics or the Bureau of Labor Statistics, should develop this common measure.
• Federal agencies (including the U.S. National Science Foundation), state agencies, nonprofit organizations, nongovernmental organizations, philanthropies, and other groups with rural education portfolios should adopt and use this measure.

Recommendation 2: To monitor geographical disparities in STEM education and workforce development, federal statistical agencies (such as the National Center for Education Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics) and state education agencies should regularly report indicators of STEM education and employment disaggregated by rurality (using a nondichotomous measure of rurality) in addition to other common demographics (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, disability status, socioeconomic status).

Recommendation 3: When developing and administering programs for rural STEM education and workforce development, funders should use a nondichotomous measure of rurality to ensure that projects represent different dimensions of rurality and to enable them to target rural communities with specific characteristics when necessary.

Conclusion 2-4: Many rural areas are undergoing substantial demographic shifts and will continue to do so. While approximately 20 percent of those living in rural communities are people of color, almost a third of children under 18 in rural communities are people of color. K–12 STEM education and workforce development need to be responsive to these changes.

Recommendation 4: Education decision makers and leaders at all levels should monitor demographic and other changes in the rural communities they serve and take the changes into account when developing

programming and allocating funding. This might include adoption of culturally responsive and sustaining approaches to teaching, providing supports for multilingual learners, and diversifying the teacher workforce.

FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

K–12 STEM education and workforce development programs in schools, districts, and communities are shaped by multiple layers of policy and funding streams based on federal, state, and district policies. Policies and funding streams at these different levels and across different policy domains (assessment, curriculum, graduation requirements, etc.) interact to facilitate or constrain how programs are implemented at the local level. Rural K–12 schools contribute to the broader well-being of their community and are often its largest employer, offering stable, well-paying, middle-class jobs to local residents. Because rural schools have important social, cultural, political, and economic benefits for rural communities, policies and programs that support their vitality also help sustain their communities.

The committee identified various challenges facing rural educational institutions and noted that, while there has been some progress in addressing barriers related to funding, federal and state entities need to provide support while recognizing the strengths of these communities. The policies in place have led some educational leaders to generate creative programs, offerings, or initiatives to provide high-quality STEM content to rural students.

Conclusion 3-1: All states have a significant population of rural students, but federal and state policies do not always attend to the unique needs and strengths of rural communities. Policy decisions and processes often do not take into account potential unintended consequences for rural districts and schools.

Recommendation 5: When developing state-level policy for STEM education and workforce development, education policy- and decision makers should ensure that representatives of rural districts are involved in the policymaking process or are given the opportunity to provide feedback on the policies and how they might impact rural districts and schools.

Conclusion 3-2: Rural districts and schools in remote areas with low population density and limited access to affordable and reliable broadband face unique challenges for supporting K–12 STEM education

and workforce development initiatives, and these challenges are often not adequately addressed by federal and state programs. There is also limited research focused on these remote communities.

Conclusion 3-3: There are many federal programs in K–12 STEM education and workforce development that rural districts, schools, and out-of-school programs can apply to for funding, but few programs target rural districts and schools. In addition, rules for eligibility (including the definition of rurality), program requirements, and the demands of the application process can prevent rural schools, districts, and communities from applying for and receiving funding.

Conclusion 3-4: Some rural communities, districts, and schools lack the capacity (e.g., staffing, time, and expertise) to identify potential funding opportunities to advance STEM education and workforce development opportunities, complete the application process, and meet the reporting requirements if funding is awarded.

Recommendation 6: Because some rural communities (including youth-serving organizations), districts, and schools lack the capacity to identify potential funding opportunities, complete the application process, and meet the reporting requirements if funding is awarded, federal and state agencies, nonprofit organizations, nongovernmental organizations, philanthropies, and other groups with rural education portfolios should

• consider how timelines or burdens for preparing and submitting applications for funding might create barriers for applicants in rural areas,
• consider how requirements for receiving funding could create barriers for applicants in rural areas, and
• provide opportunities for rural communities, districts, schools, and teachers to build capacity to successfully respond to funding opportunities.

Recommendation 7: There is a need for coordinated attention to K–12 STEM education and workforce development in rural areas across existing federal agencies and initiatives. For example,

• the federal Rural Partners Network, led by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the White House Domestic Policy Council, should prioritize issues related to K–12 STEM education and workforce development in their work; and

• the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on STEM Education should prioritize K–12 STEM education and workforce development in rural areas in their work.

Conclusion 3-5: Out-of-school learning opportunities in STEM are an important complement to in-school learning. While many students in rural communities lack access to opportunities in museums or other out-of-school institutions, they often do have access to STEM learning opportunities at home or in nature.

ACCESS TO AND ENROLLMENT IN STEM COURSES IN RURAL SCHOOLS

Opportunities in rural STEM education are varied, cover a breadth of subjects, and may be rooted in the school’s location. Just as there is no one-size-fits-all definition of rural, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to STEM education in rural schools. The committee examined trends in student achievement, aspirations, course taking, and persistence in STEM career pathways as well as access to STEM learning opportunities including coursework, out-of-school programs, and work-related experiences. Because of opportunity gaps in rural K–12 STEM education, students in rural areas generally have lower achievement in STEM courses and fewer aspirations to pursue a STEM college major or career, and they are less likely to enroll and persist in STEM courses throughout their educational pathways. Importantly, however, leveraging the assets of rural communities can provide K–12 students with engaging and effective STEM education and workforce development experiences.

Conclusion 4-1: Many rural students lack access to STEM coursework (e.g., computer science classes, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses in math) and programs (e.g., Talented and Gifted and Career and Technical Education [CTE] programs, dual enrollment, and third- and fourth-year CTE courses) that can better prepare them to pursue diverse STEM-related education and careers. These disparities in STEM learning opportunities translate into STEM achievement and aspiration gaps between rural and nonrural students, and these gaps grow as students move through K–12 schooling.

Conclusion 5-1: Rural students’ competencies in STEM build over time beginning in the early grades (preK–2). Learning experiences in

the core STEM subjects throughout the elementary grades are essential for building the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that develop STEM literacy and lead to later success including in STEM and related careers.

Conclusion 5-2: STEM learning experiences that connect to and leverage rural students’ local experiences and knowledge are important components of effective K–12 STEM education in rural settings. Place-based learning experiences, often through local partnerships and the adaptation of instructional materials for local relevance, can be especially productive for building rural students’ competence and motivation (e.g., interest, identity) in STEM.

Conclusion 5-3: High-quality instructional materials with connected professional development that can be adapted for local relevance are important for supporting effective K–12 STEM education in rural areas.

Conclusion 5-4: Pathways to and through STEM education in rural communities are enriched by STEM learning opportunities through schools, afterschool programs, summer camps and programs, public libraries, museums, local businesses, and virtual platforms. But these learning opportunities are sometimes constrained by limited funding and availability in rural communities.

Recommendation 8: Federal and state agencies should recognize that many students in rural areas lack opportunities in STEM education and therefore are not able to and/or do not pursue STEM careers at the same rate as their suburban and urban peers. These agencies should direct funding, resources, and policymaking designed specifically for rural districts and schools to address these disparities in STEM education and workforce development.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING RURAL STEM EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Drawing on the review of evidence related to implementing effective K–12 STEM education and workforce development, the committee developed recommendations targeted primarily to state and local actors to guide improvements in rural areas. These recommendations focus on the major components of education and workforce development—STEM learning experiences, pathways to STEM careers, the STEM educator workforce, and

infrastructure and materials—where policymakers and education leaders can make impactful policy, programmatic, and funding decisions. In developing these recommendations, the committee took into account the unique assets and challenges of rural contexts and was attentive to the current and increasing diversity of rural communities.

Learning Experiences and Supportive Pathways

Given the geographic and economic diversity as well as the changing demographics of many rural areas, instructional approaches that connect to and leverage learners’ cultural knowledge and experiences are especially important. To support teachers in providing effective STEM learning experiences, high-quality instructional materials with connected professional development that can be adapted for local relevance are essential.

Recommendation 9: STEM curriculum developers should take into account the assets, resources, and constraints of rural districts and schools when developing instructional materials and accompanying professional learning resources and opportunities. These materials should be designed to allow for the adaptability of instructional methods to leverage local rural funds of knowledge and take place-based approaches.

Pathways to and through STEM education in rural communities are enriched by STEM learning opportunities in or available through schools, afterschool programs, summer camps and programs, public libraries, museums, local businesses, and virtual platforms. The committee notes that strategic partnerships between educational institutions at all levels, community-based organizations, and industry can strengthen these K–12 STEM education and workforce development pathways. Examples of successful partnership models, presented in Chapters 3 and 5, should be beneficial to all parties as well as to rural students, and should maintain open communication lines between all partners. Rural school districts can also develop formal interdistrict agreements (e.g., consortia) to pool and maximize limited resources.

Conclusion 5-5: Promising models for designing STEM enrichment education and workforce development programs in rural areas (i) involve partnerships between K–12, local higher education institutions, Tribal Nations and other tribal leaders, and local government and business; (ii) provide students with job-relevant experiences (i.e., internships, apprenticeships); and (iii) target flexible and transferable

knowledge and skills that are relevant to STEM education and local job opportunities.

Recommendation 10: Rural school districts should explore consortium models for STEM education and workforce development that pool resources to maximize opportunities across regions. Such consortia or other collaborative models could seek to provide

• opportunities for students to participate in advanced STEM coursework,
• job-embedded internships and apprenticeships for students,
• professional learning for preK–12 STEM educators, and
• improved access to out-of-school STEM learning experiences.

The 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act provided state education agencies more flexibility over measures of school accountability through their state accountability systems, and many state education agencies took advantage of the flexibility to develop innovative approaches to student learning pathways tailored to their state needs and goals. The innovative measures incentivize school districts to prioritize the state goals, including readiness for college and work and in STEM areas. Some states also provide funding to incentivize partnerships between districts and with higher education and industry to advance STEM readiness.

Recommendation 11: State education agencies should provide funding and other incentives, including in accountability systems, to encourage rural districts to partner with each other and with institutions of higher education, community organizations, out-of-school programs, and industry to advance K–12 STEM education and workforce development and better engage and support preK–12 students, parents, and educators in rural areas.

Recommendation 12: Rural districts should seek community and/or industry partners with whom they can develop a variety of STEM learning opportunities. These opportunities should include project- or placed-based learning experiences that build foundational knowledge in STEM disciplines for students across preK–12, exposure to STEM professions, access to rigorous courses in the core STEM disciplines, opportunities to develop job-related skills, and a requirement to complete a real-world internship, apprenticeship, or other work-based learning experience. Career-specific exploration and preparation could begin as early as middle school, should be based on an expanded definition of STEM that includes any job that requires proficiency

in STEM-related knowledge and skills, and should emphasize STEM fields that can contribute to the viability and sustainability of local areas.

Educators

Rural schools often receive few, if any, applicants for open teaching positions, despite devoting a great deal of time to recruiting. Many positions go unfilled or are covered by long-term substitute teachers. Recruiting, retaining, and developing STEM teachers in rural America requires a multifaceted approach that addresses the unique challenges of rural education. By offering competitive incentives, supportive professional environments, and continuous, context-specific professional development, rural districts can build a stable and effective teaching workforce. These efforts are essential for ensuring that all students, regardless of their geographic location, have access to high-quality education.

Conclusion 6-1: Teacher preparation programs often use a generalized approach for training and do not adequately prepare future educators for rural spaces. There are limited opportunities to do student teaching in rural areas, and some new educators may not be prepared to deal with issues such as how to identify and leverage local assets and knowledge related to STEM, isolation, lack of access to professional development opportunities, and how to enter and build relationships in tight-knit communities.

Conclusion 6-2: Rural schools, especially in remote locations and on reservations, greatly struggle to fill STEM teacher positions. As a result, a position may go unfilled and a specific course may not be taught or taught by a teacher who does not have the qualifications to teach it.

Conclusion 6-3: Many rural teachers lack local access to STEM-focused professional learning and mentorship opportunities. Promising strategies for addressing this lack include use of remote and online options (including repositories of resources and online opportunities to collaborate with other teachers), teacher-industry externships, consortia efforts among districts, and regional service centers.

Recommendation 13: Institutions that offer teacher preparation pathways should incorporate rural-focused coursework and opportunities for rural field placements in their licensure programs. These

rural-focused components should provide opportunities to learn about the diversity of rural communities and their assets, how to recognize those assets in different contexts, and ways to leverage the assets in STEM and STEM-based Career and Technical Education curriculum and instruction.

Recommendation 14: Institutions that offer school counselor preparation pathways should incorporate rural-focused coursework and rural internship opportunities for prospective counselors to learn about the diversity of rural communities and their assets, how to recognize those assets in different contexts, and ways to leverage the assets when advising students about STEM courses or career pathways.

Recommendation 15: Rural districts should work with regional teacher preparation programs to explore ways to address the shortage of STEM teachers in rural areas. Strategies to consider include

• housing assistance,
• transportation funds,
• “grow your own” programs in rural areas, and/or
• flexible and ongoing professional learning opportunities.

STEM Education Infrastructure and Materials

The committee’s analysis of the research literature on rural schools shows that many have infrastructure and other material resources that are less robust than schools in nonrural areas. In particular, broadband access remains a challenge in rural communities, although the committee notes that access alone is not sufficient to improve STEM education using online tools and resources.

Conclusion 7-1: Many rural districts and schools lack adequate infrastructure and materials to support high-quality STEM education and workforce development. Specifically, they often have old buildings with outdated systems; lack dedicated space, equipment, and materials for science investigations; lack access to fast and affordable broadband; and have insufficient funding. Strategies for addressing these challenges include

• research-practice partnerships;
• leveraging rural public libraries, government/business facilities, and outdoor spaces;

• online courses and resources; and
• initiatives to expand and enhance broadband access and speed.

Conclusion 7-2: Inequitable access to broadband in rural communities leads to challenges with STEM education and workforce development and digital literacy in preparation for work and life. However, broadband access alone will not solve or fix access to STEM education and workforce development opportunities and resources.

Conclusion 7-3: Recent legislation has led to large investments in broadband connectivity across the United States, and many federal and state agencies are working to improve broadband access and adoption. But it is difficult to determine the extent to which these efforts will address broadband-related challenges for K–12 STEM education in rural areas because

• the efforts are not well coordinated,
• some do not attend to affordability, and
• broadband access alone cannot address lack of or outdated computers, routers, or other hardware.

Recommendation 16: When making decisions about adoption of new technology, online services, or equipment, states and districts should take into account the “total cost of ownership,” including the initial investment, ongoing costs for access and maintenance, and professional development needed for teachers and administrators to use the technology, service, or equipment effectively. The total cost should explicitly account for challenges in rural areas that might affect costs (for example, costs of professional development for teachers who are spread out geographically, or of tech maintenance if schools are separated by long distances).

Leveraging Assets and Addressing Challenges in Rural K–12 STEM Education

Throughout the report, the committee describes the diversity of rural areas, assets embedded in those communities, and challenges they face. Two overarching conclusions arise from the evidence presented in the preceding chapters.

Overarching Conclusion 1: Rural communities vary tremendously across a variety of dimensions that shape their K–12 STEM education and workforce development landscape; these dimensions include remoteness; geography (i.e., mountainous, desert, island); racial, ethnic,

and socioeconomic make-up of the population; and the types of STEM-related resources and industries that are present. This variation leads to differences in the types of challenges a community may face in implementing K–12 STEM education and workforce development initiatives, the kinds of assets that are available to leverage, and the strategies for improving STEM education and workforce development that will be successful.

Overarching Conclusion 2: While rural communities vary widely across the United States (including territories and Freely Associated States), some challenges to and assets for K–12 STEM education and workforce development are common across many of them. Common challenges include out-migration, difficulties with recruitment and retention of teachers in STEM, absence or low density of STEM-related institutions/organizations (e.g., museums, colleges and universities, industries), and closure and consolidation of schools. Common assets include proximity to the natural world, close social ties, community resources, and local rural knowledge.

The committee recommends continued funding of programs that support teaching preparation and training, new technologies in STEM education, and improved internet connectivity in schools and homes. When possible, funders should evaluate their portfolios to assess successful programs across rural areas.

Recommendation 17: The federal government should continue to support and expand programs that enhance preK–12 STEM education and workforce development initiatives in rural areas, with an emphasis on programs that

• provide funding for training, placement, and continuing education (professional development) for STEM educators in rural schools;
• explore strategies for using technology, including improving internet access to online platforms and AI tools, expanding educators’ abilities to teach robust, integrated STEM subjects, and expanding student opportunities to learn and gain experience in STEM fields, rather than as a technique to reduce staff, teachers, or costs, or to close schools; and
• complete connection of all schools and students’ homes with internet access at minimal cost and using the technology (fiber optics, cable, satellite, mobile hotspots) available locally.

Recommendation 18: Agencies that fund programs in STEM education and workforce development should conduct evaluations at the portfolio level that examine and document what makes a program or approach successful for rural populations and/or in rural settings. This could include assessing

• how a program overcomes challenges that are unique to rural settings;
• how programs leverage assets of rural communities, including local rural knowledge;
• the capacity of rural organizations to apply for and manage grants (e.g., reporting requirements); and
• effective practices to increase the capacity of rural organizations.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO NSF FOR IMPLEMENTING RURAL STEM EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

In addition to the broad recommendations above for all federal agencies, as stipulated in the statement of task for this study the committee makes specific recommendations to NSF to inform the funding and implementation of programs under sections 10512 (National Science Foundation Rural STEM Activities) and 10513 (Opportunities for Online Education) of the CHIPS and Science Act, including rural STEM activities and online STEM education and mentoring in rural communities. We first provide general guidance for implementing the programs called out in the legislation, followed by more specific guidance related to each section of the legislation.

The committee recommends embedding a rural focus in existing programs in order to move forward more quickly and achieve results by 2027. Relevant programs are in the Directorate for STEM Education, such as the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Programs, the Eddie Bernice Johnson Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science Initiative (INCLUDES), Improving Undergraduate STEM Education, Discovery Research PreK-12, and Advancing Informal STEM Learning, Advanced Technological Education, or Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers. There are also opportunities to elevate rural STEM education and workforce development in other NSF directorates and programs, such as the Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships Directorate (TIP) program on Regional Innovation Engines (NSF Engines), and the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).

To qualify for this rural focus, an initiative needs to do more than just take place in a rural setting. It must clearly show how the questions asked, the programs implicated, and the knowledge generated are relevant to rural communities, schools, students, and families. If the results of the initial investments to existing programs indicate that a separate program dedicated to rural STEM education and workforce development is needed, NSF could explore developing and implementing such a program.

With longer-term investments, NSF could consider creating a center or centers for rural and rural Indigenous STEM education and workforce development to support relevant research through grants programs, curation of publications, professional development for researchers, and evaluation work to determine rural communities’ needs. Such a center might be supported with funding across multiple existing programs.

Throughout its strategies and programs, NSF should attend to the different dimensions of rurality—population size and density, extent of urban (built-up) area, remoteness, and demographic diversity. This includes ensuring that the portfolio of funded rural projects reflects this diversity and reflects geographic diversity across the United States and its territories and Freely Associated States. Further, in describing their projects and in reporting, proposers and grantees should be required to describe the settings where the project takes place and the populations and communities involved in ways that will enable NSF to document different dimensions of rural diversity.

NSF should develop a strategy to encourage development and funding of projects that focus on rural Indigenous communities, including work on reservations and with Tribal Nations, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders. NSF should also develop a strategy to encourage development of projects focusing on rural migrant, Black, and Latine communities, and individuals with intersecting marginalized identities in rural communities.

In building programs focused on rural STEM education and workforce development, NSF will need to include individuals with expertise specific to rural STEM education throughout the process. Review panels for programs where rural STEM education has been highlighted should have at least two reviewers with specific expertise in rural STEM education and workforce development. It is NOT sufficient for these individuals to be from an institution in a rural setting. If possible, NSF should hire program officers who have specific expertise in rural STEM education and workforce development and make it possible for them to work across programs with a rural focus. To kick off development of the strategy for focusing on rural STEM education, it may be useful to convene experts in rural STEM education and workforce development to provide input on the needs and areas for research, building on this report.

As more grants are funded for rural preK–12 STEM education and workforce development, NSF should hold a meeting of the project principal investigators (PIs) to share insights and ideas (in addition to PI meetings for individual programs). This will allow for information exchange and deepening of a professional community around rural STEM education and workforce development.

To accomplish the goals outlined in the legislation, projects will need to include partnerships between institutions of higher education, nonprofits, preK–12 education, local industries, and communities. Building genuine, trusting, mutually beneficial relationships between different sectors and organizations requires time and resources. Applicants will need to demonstrate with documentation a functional partnership. Or the awards will need to build in time for partners to build these kinds of relationships. In addition, consideration should be given to how funding is shared with districts, schools, and communities to support their work. NSF may also need to consider the additional costs incurred for partnership with more remote rural communities, by, for example, providing funding for traveling longer distances or for enhancing technology to allow for virtual engagements.

As noted in this report, rural communities have many assets related to STEM education and workforce development that are often not leveraged sufficiently. In developing priorities focused on rural STEM education and evaluating proposals, NSF should explicitly call out the need to clearly describe how a program or project will identify and leverage community resources and be designed to connect to local community priorities and needs.

To jump-start work specific to STEM, NSF should consider using the Dear Colleague Letter mechanism, Early Concept Grants for Exploratory Research, and Ideas Labs; the latter could surface new ways to build connections across diverse rural environments. These opportunities would bring together research and development workers in K–12 STEM education to figure out the kind of connecting network rural education research communities need in order to advance.¹

Recommendation 19: When implementing the suite of programs outlined in articles 10512 and 10513 of the CHIPS and Science Act, NSF should employ the following strategies:

• Build on existing NSF programs when possible.
• Capture the diversity of rural settings and populations.

___________________

¹ For an example: https://new.nsf.gov/events/life-leveraging-innovations-evolution-town-hall

• Elevate expertise related to rural STEM education and workforce development.
• Support mutually beneficial partnerships between institutions of higher education, nonprofits, preK–12 education, local industries, and communities.
• Emphasize an asset framing of rural communities.
• Create quick-turnaround, short-term funding opportunities to allow for pilot work and strategy development.
• Connect to existing rural STEM education and workforce development programs across other federal agencies.

Recommendation 20: As relates to Section 10512(a), Preparing Rural STEM Educators, NSF should expand the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Tracks 1 and 2 to intentionally recruit STEM majors and professionals from rural areas; prepare them to leverage local, natural, and community assets in their STEM teaching; place them in rural areas for their teaching commitments; and support them after placement. In addition, NSF should expand the definition of eligible “STEM major” for the Noyce scholarships to include agricultural and health sciences, given their high relevance to rural areas.

Recommendation 21: As relates to Section 10512(a2B), Rural STEM Collaborative, NSF should leverage regional collaborative structures both within NSF (e.g., INCLUDES, TIP programs) and in higher education or nonprofit organizations (e.g., Regional Hubs in the Rural Schools Collaborative). The new regional structures should include preK–12 formal schooling institutions, organizations that provide informal or out-of-school STEM learning experiences, higher education institutions, and local industries.

Recommendation 22: As relates to Section 10512(b), Broadening Participation of Rural Students in STEM, the U.S. National Science Foundation should

• leverage existing programs like EPSCoR, Advanced Technological Education and other community college–focused programs, and the Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings;
• be clear, nuanced, and inclusive when defining rural, by requiring use of either the Index of Relative Rurality or the definitional base for rural categorization in applications for funding;
• support longitudinal research in rural STEM education;

• fund participatory research that engages rural students in research methods or includes educators or educational leaders (e.g., research-practice partnerships); and
• consider a variety of partnership models, including fully virtual collaboration, to ensure that all rural areas, including remote areas with few colocated partners, can apply for funding.

Recommendation 23: As relates to Section 10513, Opportunities for Online Education, NSF should attend to the existing technological infrastructure in rural communities and fund research that examines

• the impact of differential connectivity on student and teacher STEM learning outcomes, and
• how online tools (including artificial intelligence) and communities can support students and educators in formal and informal settings.

DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

The committee reviewed and analyzed current efforts to bring high-quality STEM education to rural schools. While reviewing the literature, it became clear that gaps need to be addressed to better understand who rural students are and how unique assets and challenges in their communities affect students’ STEM participation and achievement. These assets and barriers present a complex narrative of rural STEM education and workforce participation. While it may be tempting to infer what rural STEM participation looks like based on certain characteristics of rural communities—such as higher poverty rates and lower adult educational attainment—these assumptions would be a disservice to rural students and may not accurately capture their lived experiences and outcomes.

There is an urgent need for more comprehensive, evidence-based, and broad-scale national research focused specifically on rural students in STEM. When developing research programs or priorities focused on rural STEM education, funders (federal agencies, foundations, and state agencies) should require applicants to describe how the research team will ensure that the needs and priorities of rural communities, districts, and schools are centered. Funders should also consider calling for research models that require equal partnership and collaboration between researchers and practitioners, such as research-practice partnerships.

Education researchers should engage in longitudinal research that examines the impacts of rural STEM and STEM-based CTE programs, including online learning programs, afterschool programs, teacher recruitment and retention, professional learning, industry internships and externships, and teacher mentorship or coaching efforts. Researchers should also

examine how broadband infrastructure and affordability affects preK–12 STEM education and literacy in rural areas. Funders (federal agencies and philanthropic organizations) should develop programs that support longitudinal research in these areas.

The committee identifies the following three areas where more research is particularly needed. Only through rigorous, nuanced, and inclusive research can we hope to understand and ultimately improve STEM participation for rural students.

Intersecting Research on PreK–12 STEM Education and Workforce Development in Rural Areas

One of the major challenges in writing this report was the lack of studies examining preK–12 STEM education, especially in earlier grades, across the diversity of rural schools and communities. At times, rurality was a variable but not the study focus. There were no analyses of whether programs or partnerships were effective in ways that matter for the rural space. What may be effective in a school in rural Louisiana may not work in rural Appalachia or rural Washington state and it is imperative that researchers conduct studies that recognize these differences.

Research is needed to explore the challenges rural students face, how they impact students’ outcomes, and what strategies might alleviate these challenges. This inquiry could uncover actionable insights and potential “low-hanging fruit” for improving outcomes for rural students. Such research must be conducted by scholars who have a deep understanding of rural contexts, who apply asset-based frameworks, and who recognize the diversity in rural communities as well as the important elements that distinguish rural from nonrural communities. It is crucial that any proposed solutions that emerge from this research incorporate and value local rural knowledge and the voices of rural people and avoid the pitfalls of standardization, which often reflect interventions designed for urban or suburban environments.

Robust research is needed to better understand the experiences and outcomes of rural students with intersectional identities, and the ways that the experiences and outcomes of Indigenous student populations differ from those of rural students or other populations. The barriers to this research are not insurmountable.

As research identifies best practices for teaching and learning in rural areas and leads to improvement in and development of STEM-specific programs, it is imperative to understand and anticipate the desired long-term outcomes for rural students and schools. Researchers should be encouraged to develop strategic plans that map to the outcomes they hope to see while studying online STEM learning programs, school-industry partnerships,

STEM teacher recruitment, retention, professional learning, and mentorship programs in rural areas.

Better Availability and Usability of Datasets

Work is needed to improve definitions of rurality to recognize that rural communities are not monolithic and that rurality exists on a continuum. Definitional improvements will help facilitate research on populations of interest, as well as make funding opportunities more accessible to rural communities. Some creative methods may also be needed to understand students with intersecting identities while protecting small cell size. Much of the data necessary to conduct further research are already available through federal data collections, and though the data are not without drawbacks, they offer a valuable starting point for further research.

New types of datasets are needed that are specific to rural students, teachers, and schools and that leverage the diversity of rural settings and STEM learning. For example, National Center for Education Statistics data are available for overall enrollment rates in rural spaces compared to suburban and urban spaces nationally, but not data on these differences at state and district levels or data disaggregated by other demographic characteristics.

Informal and Nonformal STEM Learning and Workforce Development in Rural Areas

Research is needed to enhance understanding of the impacts of informal and nonformal STEM learning and workforce development in rural areas. Informal and nonformal STEM learning is an underused pathway for rural students that may offset the lack of resources in their schools and provide access to other opportunities to sustain their interest in STEM or further their ability to enter a STEM career. Informal and nonformal STEM learning can also help show the variety of STEM jobs and help industry partners see the benefits of basing some STEM jobs in rural areas.

SUMMARY

As we have stated throughout the report, the diversity of rural areas and their assets and challenges can affect the development and implementation of programs that will improve rural preK–12 STEM education and workforce development. Agencies and other actors must therefore consider the localized context of each rural area when taking the actions recommended in this report.

In addition, multiple definitions of rural are used across agencies and other groups, and many focus on a false dichotomy of rural or not rural. This lack of consistency and clarity contributes to misunderstandings of rural students, teachers, schools, and districts; can result in lack of access to funding that creates opportunity gaps for rural students; and inhibits the development of a broad and consistent evidence base on rural K–12 STEM education and workforce development.

Finally, leveraging rural assets and knowledge, existing programs in this space, and partnerships and networks across education, industry, state and federal agencies, and community organizations will help support and strengthen K–12 STEM education and workforce development in rural areas.

This page intentionally left blank.