1

Introduction

The disciplines and subfields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are critical to the global and national economy, and a quality STEM education not only prepares students for high-quality, well-paying careers in the STEM workforce but also develops the STEM literacy that improves decision making and contributes to a well-functioning democracy (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2021). There is a clear national interest in increasing the number of qualified candidates for the STEM workforce as this is a rapidly growing, typically well-compensated field, with many roles that have important implications for the country’s health, safety, and prosperity. Inherent to STEM education are lessons on understanding the world empirically, and research has shown that individuals who have a comprehensive understanding of science make more evidence-based decisions, leading to a healthier population and informed public, and that this understanding begins in K–12 education (Marksbury, 2017). STEM learning in preschool and early elementary school is critical, as it provides learning experiences that enable students to explore the world around them and pursue their own interests and curiosity (NASEM, 2022, 2024).

Throughout this report, we define STEM education as both the individual disciplines (e.g., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and the interdisciplinary learning experiences that emphasize their connections. These learning experiences help children understand their lives and engage in their communities. But when STEM education is seen exclusively

through the lens of advanced education or workforce skills, rural families and students may resist it, because pursuing advanced education in general and STEM workforce opportunities in particular are seen as contributing factors to rural brain drain (Short et al., 2020) and out-migration that will take students away from their families and their communities. The reality is that STEM is inherent in most if not all rural communities, including those closely tied to agriculture, coastal communities, and remote communities that rely on a subsistence economy. Thus, improving access to STEM knowledge can enhance rural communities and, if done well, provide additional options for rural students who choose to stay to apply their STEM knowledge for the benefit of their communities. For example, students could learn how to monitor water quality to help preserve a local wetlands ecosystem, acquire predictive modeling and simulation skills that help with monitoring weather patterns, learn how to diagnose problems and use technology to repair their family’s automobile or equipment, learn how technology can help emergency response teams in their communities, or learn which native plants will thrive in their garden.

Rural communities have many assets that can enrich and promote STEM learning, such as place-based learning and strong community ties. Identifying and describing the opportunities, supports, and general assets that exist in rural places may also assist in minimizing misconceptions and create a greater understanding of the communities and families. Opportunities in rural STEM education are varied, cover a breadth of subjects, and/or are rooted in the place where the school is centered. Just as there is no one-size-fits-all description of rural areas, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to STEM education in rural schools.

There are also numerous challenges to providing high-quality STEM education and workforce development in rural areas. Rural schools generally have less access to high-quality teachers and school counselors, fewer resources, higher levels of student poverty, and less emphasis on college readiness. Many rural schools, especially those in remote areas, operate with a small staff and low budget that limit advanced course offerings and extracurricular programs in STEM (Saw, 2024; Saw & Agger, 2021). Students in rural classrooms may not receive high-quality STEM instruction because of factors such as lack of technology, insufficient teacher training, and geographic distance from resources (De Mars et al., 2022; Grimes et al., 2019; Johnson & Zoellner, 2016; Marksbury, 2017). Finally, in many rural districts a third or more of students do not have internet connectivity at home, although many do have access at school or in the community library (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). These limitations, combined with a lack of consistent and agreed-upon definitions of rurality, may result in misalignment of resources meant to be allocated to rural and vulnerable communities.

SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THE REPORT

Recognizing both the assets inherent in rural communities and schools and the challenges to providing extensive, rigorous STEM education and workforce development opportunities in those areas, Congress directed the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) to establish a program to support work on rural STEM education activities as part of the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. In conjunction, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies), sponsored by NSF, was directed to undertake a consensus study to take stock of existing federal programs that support rural STEM education and workforce development and to develop recommendations for federal, state, and local action to improve rural STEM education and workforce development. The work was conducted under the auspices of the Board on Science Education in the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education in collaboration with the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Board on Higher Education and the Workforce, and Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Studies carried out by expert committees convened by the National Academies are guided by a statement of task, which defines the scope of the work and guides both the writing and the peer review of the final report. Committees are instructed to respond to the statement of task and not go beyond it. Reviewers are asked to assess whether the committee’s report has responded to the statement of task in an evidence-based way and has not gone beyond it. The statement of task for this study is presented in Box 1-1.

COMMITTEE’S INTERPRETATION OF THE STATEMENT OF TASK

To address the statement of task, the committee first needed to understand rurality and rural populations. Depending on the definition of rurality used (see Chapter 2), between 46 and 66 million U.S. residents live in rural counties, which is between 14 percent and 20 percent of the U.S. population (Davis et al., 2023). Although racial diversity is lower in rural areas than in suburban or urban areas, approximately 20 percent of those living in rural counties are Indigenous, Black, Latine, Asian, Pacific Islander, or multiracial (Parker et al., 2018). And that diversity is increasing; 32 percent of people under the age of 18 in rural America are Indigenous, Black, Hispanic/Latine, Asian, Pacific Islander, or multiracial (Kenneth Johnson, University of New Hampshire, presentation to committee, January 2024). Factors such as immigration and in-migration advance population growth and diversity in rural areas and influence social norms and values to create an array of perspectives and experiences. The funds of knowledge that result when diverse people are gathered in a rural setting where place greatly matters should be celebrated and recognized for the expertise and skill provided to the locale or region (Azano et al., 2021).

The committee also approached its task using asset-based framing. Yosso (2005) developed the concept of community cultural wealth to describe the assets that students of color bring to the classroom. She identified six forms: aspirational capital, the capacity for hope in spite of challenges; linguistic capital, the skills inherent in fluency in multiple languages or linguistic styles; familial capital, the knowledge embedded in family systems; social capital, the resources found in relationships and networks; navigational capital, the ability to navigate institutions and systems; and resistant capital, the knowledge and skills that come with challenging injustice. Given the diversity in economy, geography, and people in rural places, there are ample opportunities to grow, nurture, and employ the various forms of capital that constitute community cultural wealth. These forms of capital support rural students both in their preK–12 STEM education pathways (discussed in Chapter 5) and as they enter the workforce. Related, Moll et al. (1992) describe funds of knowledge—the knowledge of households, often undervalued by traditional educational systems, that reflect family members’ lived experiences and accumulated wisdom. These funds can include, for example, hands-on knowledge of occupations, historical understandings of a region or people, or expertise in languages, traditions, or cultural practices.

We also considered the role of schools, families, and community organizations in rural K–12 STEM education and workforce development. Rural K–12 schools are critical to the well-being and prosperity of their communities (Tieken, 2014). They are often a rural community’s largest employer, offering stable, well-paying, middle-class jobs to local residents. They shape the social fabric of rural communities, as a site for both youth and adults to gather, whether in classrooms, at Friday night basketball games, or for community suppers, and in these spaces relationships are nurtured and grown. In communities where schools pull together people across race and class, they can have a significant influence on integration. Schools can also help sustain cultural practices, such as maintaining home languages, or traditions, like homecoming events. They are also a source of political power, as schools are governed by locally elected school boards; this power may be especially important for historically marginalized populations. In all these ways rural schools can have important social, cultural, political, and economic benefits to their communities (Schafft, 2016), and thus policies and programs that support the vitality of rural schools also help sustain rural communities. Besides being the site of many social and recreational activities (Miller, 1995; Seal & Harmon, 1995), the rural school is one of the most visible uses of taxpayer dollars and investments in a rural community.

But some educational policies have resulted in disconnecting schools and communities (Schafft & Harmon, 2010). Although challenges with recruiting and retaining teachers exist nationally, rural schools, which devote a great deal of time to recruiting teachers for open positions but receive few,

if any, applicants, experience them more severely. Many positions go unfilled or are covered by long-term substitute teachers. In addition, there is often a lack of local STEM partners to support expansion of learning opportunities in these subjects. Urban areas are often home to many nonprofits and other organizations that provide programming and resources to support STEM learning in formal and informal settings. The dearth of local partners to support STEM education in rural communities means that rural educators and leaders have to think more strategically about who might be able to help them advance their teaching and learning goals, and how to collaborate when those partners are far away. Finally, the historical culture in some rural communities may lead families to devalue education that they think could encourage youth to leave their community or lead children to question whether they can succeed in STEM fields (Allen et al., 2019).

On the other hand, rural schools can leverage place-specific resources, such as place-based learning in the natural world and local rural knowledge, for STEM learning (Smith & Sobel, 2014; Starrett et al., 2021). With small class sizes and increased interactions with families, rural teachers can develop close relationships with their students that result in more individualized instruction and improved student behavior (Tran et al., 2020). While rural teachers can be seen as the “faces” of the rural school (Hammack et al., 2023), school-community partnerships are often enhanced in rural areas (Schafft, 2016). Community-based programs can draw on local expertise and environmental features, such as farms, forests, and rivers, to create meaningful learning experiences (Avery, 2013). This local context helps students see the relevance of science and engineering to their own lives and futures, fostering a stronger connection to the subject matter.

Families, communities, and historical cultural factors also play a large role in determining student access and interest in STEM learning (Allen et al., 2019). Compared to urban parents, rural parents are more likely to volunteer at the school and attend school events (Schafft, 2016). Like parents in other communities, they also tend to engage with their children in family-oriented education activities outside the school, sometimes incorporating family history or ethnic heritage.¹ Using place to educate creates an informed citizenry ready to advocate for their rural home and its relationship in a global context (Eppley, 2017) and prepares rural youth for local STEM employment opportunities (Starrett et al., 2022). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (Cromartie et al., 2015) and Federal Reserve of St. Louis (Davis & Dumont, 2021) have also highlighted the importance of curbing out-migration and promoting rural community renewal. A study showed that a place-based educational unit on environmental science watershed

___________________

¹ Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program of 2023, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2024/2024113.pdf

changed the intended future behaviors (i.e., in favor of stewardship and conservation) of rural high school students (Zimmerman & Weible, 2017; Pam Buffington, EDC, presentation to the committee, November 2023).

As the committee gathered evidence from published reports as well as meetings with representatives from the Federal Communications Commission, we noted some inherent assumptions related to the second task, in particular the implied causality between lack of affordable broadband connectivity in rural areas and lower STEM and technical literacy for rural students compared to their urban or suburban peers. Related to this task, the committee stresses two points. First, although broadband is often thought of as connection to the internet via fiber-optic cable, it actually encompasses access to high-speed internet via any type of technology, including satellite, cable, and wireless (U.S. Department of Education, 2022), thus the report uses “internet connectivity” interchangeably with “broadband.” Furthermore, beyond accessing the internet and adoption of broadband, digital equity, inclusion, and literacy are critical and defined in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (see Box 1-2). Chapter 7 discusses broadband in more depth, including stated upload (20 megabits per second [Mbps]) and download (100 Mbps) speeds that count as broadband.

Second, although connectivity, in schools and homes as well as libraries and other community spaces, enables some STEM learning for preK–12 students and their teachers, STEM literacy develops in both physical and virtual spaces. For example, students might learn how to interact with large datasets or other STEM tools as part of an online-enabled lesson. Students and their families could use the internet to search for informal STEM experiences or higher education pathways. Teachers often participate in online professional learning activities. In-person STEM education and workforce development activities can be supplemented by online activities. Students who are unable to access the internet at home are at a disadvantage compared to their peers with home connectivity, and this disadvantage shows up as fewer completed homework assignments and in some cases lower SAT scores, although these effects may be mitigated somewhat by other activities (e.g., sports and other extracurricular activities; Hampton et al., 2021). However, the relationship between broadband access and STEM learning outcomes is complex and multifaceted, and the committee was unable to find evidence of how lack of affordable and reliable broadband connectivity in rural areas affects the STEM and technical literacy of students in those communities.

Another assumption addressed by the committee concerns the definitions of STEM and technical literacy as well as STEM education and workforce. STEM literacy includes “some combination of (a) awareness of the roles of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in modern

society, (b) familiarity with at least some of the fundamental concepts from each area, and (c) a basic level of application fluency (e.g., the ability to critically evaluate the science or engineering content in a news report, conduct basic troubleshooting of common technologies, and perform basic mathematical operations relevant to daily life)” (National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC], 2014, p. 34).

NAE and NRC (2002) defined technological literacy as “an understanding of the nature and history of technology, a basic hands-on capability related to technology, and an ability to think critically about technological development” (pp. 11–12), where technology is defined broadly as “not only the tangible artifacts of the human-designed world and the systems of which these artifacts are a part, but also the people, infrastructure, and processes required to design, manufacture, operate, and repair the artifacts” (p. vii).

Many desirable jobs in rural communities do not require advanced education but do require STEM knowledge. Positions in agriculture and manufacturing, for example, call for much of the same advanced STEM knowledge and critical thinking as urban-located STEM professions. K–12 STEM education is therefore as important for students who choose to stay in their community and/or forgo postsecondary education as it is for those interested in pursuing postsecondary education in STEM or leaving their community. But a number of barriers prevent rural students from easily accessing STEM pathways, and useful assets that can support STEM education in rural communities remain unrecognized. Promoting these assets and removing barriers are critical to ensure that rural students are included in STEM education and the workforce.²

Rural areas provide a rich context for learning science and engineering. With access to the outdoors, or work in agricultural industries such as farming or fishing, many rural students naturally develop engineering and science skills in their daily lives (Avery, 2013). Thus, opportunities for place-based education in rural areas abound and such learning increases students’ access, engagement, and achievement in science content (Avery, 2013).

Because of the nature of STEM learning in rural areas, and as noted in previous National Academies reports, the committee considered STEM education as occurring in a variety of environments, from schoolrooms to museums, zoos, online, the home, and the natural world. Given the charge to examine preK–12 STEM education and workforce development as they relate to preK–12 education, the committee adopted an expansive definition of STEM education based on the fields classified in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which is used by NSF to analyze the U.S. population with STEM degrees.³ IPEDS data include the broad category of health sciences and breakout fields such as public or community health, veterinary-related sciences, and premedical sciences, all fields with strong relevance to rural communities. IPEDS also includes fields under the general heading of agricultural sciences, including agriculture economics, natural resources management, forestry, and management of land use or marine resources.

___________________

² The preceding text is based on a commissioned paper by Rachel Rush-Marlowe at ResearchEd. Full citation in references.

³ https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/sere/2018/html/sere18-dt-taba001.html

In conceptualizing the STEM workforce, the committee looked to the 2021 National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators report (2021). For years, this report focused on individuals who have at least a bachelor’s degree and work in one of five science and engineering (S&E) areas: mathematical and computer sciences, life sciences (e.g., agricultural, environmental, biological), physical sciences (e.g., chemistry, physics), social sciences, and engineering. It also includes workers with bachelor’s degrees in S&E-related occupations such as health care, technology fields, or management. But the 2021 report notes that recent discoveries and technological advances have led to questions about the traditional definitions of a STEM workforce, in particular whether STEM work requires a bachelor’s degree rather than an associate’s degree or certificate. While the previous narrow definition of the S&E workforce estimated 7 million workers, use of “another definition for scientists and engineers, which includes those who have an S&E or S&E-related degree or work in an S&E or S&E-related occupation” (National Science Board, 2021, p. 12), yields 29 million STEM workers in the United States. Because many of the jobs now classified as STEM are performed in rural areas, the committee adopted the newest definition of STEM worker, which “not only includes occupations that are historically known to require S&E skills and expertise (e.g., life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, mathematics and computer sciences, social sciences, and health care) but also occupations that require STEM skills but are not historically considered STEM occupations (e.g., installation, maintenance, and repair; construction trades; and production occupations)” (National Science Board, 2021, p. 16).

In conceptualizing U.S. rural areas and how the recommendations in this report could impact them, the committee includes the 50 states, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, four Insular Areas (the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), and the Freely Associated States of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia.⁴ However, much of the research and statistical information cited in the report focuses solely on the 50 states.

Finally, the original statement of task called on the committee to consider the preK–12 system in its entirety, but we found the literature base on preK STEM education challenging to analyze and integrate into the report. While the committee recognizes the importance of examining and supporting STEM education for students at the preK level, the research base for rural preK STEM education is insufficiently robust to support evidence-based conclusions and recommendations. This limitation prevented us from exploring the preK space as thoroughly as we were instructed in

___________________

⁴ https://www.doi.gov/library/internet/insular

our statement of task. Thus, much of the evidence discussed and our conclusions focus on K–12 STEM education; when evidence exists from the preK level it is included.

STUDY APPROACH

The committee met five times between November 2023 and July 2024. The meetings included three public information-gathering sessions with expert presentations on issues in rural STEM education, rural broadband and connectivity, definitions of rurality, examples of state systems, broadband connectivity and student outcomes, changing STEM workforce needs in rural communities, research on rural STEM education challenges, and online education in rural communities. In addition, the committee engaged with the sponsoring agency (NSF) and learned more about the development of the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act from congressional staffers.

The goal of the first committee meeting in November 2023 was to clarify the statement of task as well as the kinds of recommendations that would be most useful to the entities identified in the charge. The committee also heard from experts on rural education and rural broadband access. The goal of the second committee meeting in January 2024 was to get a broad view of the landscape related to (a) state education policy particular to rural communities, (b) broadband connectivity and student outcomes, and (c) demographic trends within and across U.S. rural areas. The committee also met with representatives of the Federal Communications Commission to discuss broadband connectivity and affordability.

The virtual third committee meeting in March 2024 included panels on the needs of both in-service and preservice STEM teachers in rural areas and on existing rural initiatives to support STEM education and workforce development, including those related to online learning and digital literacy. In the entirely closed fourth committee meeting in May 2024 the committee heard from the authors of the three commissioned papers and continued writing the report. The goal for the final, entirely closed, committee meeting in July 2024 was to come to consensus and refine the report text.

Beyond the three information-gathering sessions, the committee reviewed literature pertaining to its charge, including peer-reviewed materials, book chapters, reports, working papers, government documents, white papers and evaluations, editorials, and previous reports of the National Academies. The committee also commissioned three papers to help address questions in the statement of task. One commissioned landscape scan evaluated the quantity and quality of federal programming and research in preK–12 STEM education (in both formal and informal settings) and workforce development in rural areas (Strategic Priorities or Distributed Choice? Federal Education and Workforce Development Investments in

Rural Areas by Dan Aladjem). A second commissioned paper examined the landscape of state policies and programs that can advance or hinder K–12 STEM education and workforce development in rural areas (State-Driven Rural STEM Education Policies and Programs by Doug Paulson). The third commissioned paper examined underrepresentation of the rural population in STEM education and the workforce (Rural Students as an Underserved Population in STEM Education and Workforce by Rachel Rush-Marlowe). The findings from the committee’s review of these evidence sources informed the members’ deliberations, conclusions, and recommendations (presented in Chapter 8).

STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE

The committee believes that “a wide variety of legitimate scientific designs are available for education research” (NRC, 2002, p. 6). From that standpoint, to be considered scientific (NASEM, 2015, p. 21),

the design must allow direct, empirical investigation of an important question, [use methods that permit direct investigation of the question], account for the context in which the study is carried out, align with a conceptual framework, reflect careful and thorough reasoning, and disclose results to encourage debate in the scientific community.

As in previous National Academies studies, the committee examined research articles that had been peer reviewed to help ensure the quality of design, methods, and conclusions. The articles spanned multiple disciplines and included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies related to rural STEM education and workforce development as well as rural education and communities more broadly. The committee took an expansive view of evidence in developing this report and drew on diverse methods and evidence types. While the committee’s conclusions rely primarily on peer-reviewed journals and books, the members also, as noted above, commissioned three papers and reviewed many other types of relevant resources. As appropriate, throughout the report, the committee articulates the type of research being reviewed and its strength. The committee is also careful to qualify the conclusions and resulting recommendations based on the type and strength of evidence.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

In developing recommendations for improving K–12 STEM education and workforce development in rural areas the committee considered the major components of education and workforce development where

policymakers and education leaders can make impactful policy, programmatic, and funding decisions. These include STEM learning experiences, pathways to STEM careers, the STEM educator workforce, and infrastructure and materials (including school buildings, equipment, internet access, and technology). The chapters in this report are organized to first provide background information about rurality, education policy, and current trends in rural STEM education before describing these major components and how the evidence related to them builds support for the committee’s conclusions and recommendations.

Chapter 2 explains why rural is difficult to define and easy to misunderstand. It also addresses the implications of the multiple definitions and assumptions about rural areas, including the demographic and geographic characteristics of rural communities as well as the many definitions used to define rural areas. This chapter provides foundational knowledge needed to address the statement of task.

Chapter 3 describes the education system in rural settings, highlighting similarities and differences between rural and nonrural settings, and describing unique policy and funding structures that support or hinder STEM learning in rural areas. It includes formal, informal, and nonformal education systems and how they are structured (federal constructs, local control, collaboration outside the classroom). The chapter includes portions of the commissioned landscape scan of federal programming (task 1) and provides evidence for tasks 3, 4, and 5.

Chapter 4 gives an overview of national trends in rural STEM education, including statistics on STEM achievement, aspirations, enrollment, and persistence. This addresses task 3 and sets up the recommendations called for in tasks 4 and 5.

The next three chapters present the evidence and committee deliberations to address tasks 3, 4, and 5. Chapter 5 discusses the research base on effective learning for K–12 STEM education in rural settings, considering instructional and experiential learning constructs and their benefits and challenges, including online learning. It also provides an overview of how STEM pathways in rural settings serve as mechanisms to integrate K–12 education and workforce development skills to help students transition to higher education or the workplace.

Chapter 6 explores the needs for educator recruitment, retention, and professional learning in rural settings and describes some promising new methods to increase these for rural STEM teachers.

Chapter 7 examines the physical and fiscal requirements for effective STEM education and the challenges of providing them (including internet connectivity) in rural settings.

Chapter 8 presents the committee’s conclusions and recommendations as well as a research agenda.

REFERENCES

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. National Academies Press.

———. (2021). Call to action for science education: Building opportunity for the future. National Academies Press.

———. (2022). Science and engineering in preschool through elementary grades: The brilliance of children and the strengths of educators. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26215

———. (2024). A new vision for high-quality preschool curriculum. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27429

National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council (NAE & NRC). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. National Academies Press.

———. (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Rural students’ access to the internet: Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/lfc

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (2021, August 31). The STEM labor force of today: Scientists, engineers, and skilled technical workers (NSB-2021-2). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212

Parker, K., Horowitz, J., Brown, A., Fry, R., Cohn, D. V., & Igielnik, R. (2018). What unites and divides urban, suburban and rural communities. Policy Commons. https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/6q6tkh

Paulson, D. (2024). [State-Driven Rural STEM Education Policies and Programs]. Paper commissioned for the Committee on K-12 STEM Education and Workforce Development in Rural Areas.

Rush-Marlowe, R. (2024). [Rural students as an underserved population in STEM education and workforce]. Paper commissioned for the Committee on K-12 STEM Education and Workforce Development in Rural Areas.

Saw, G. K. (2024). STEM education and pathways of rural and small-town students: Disparities by geographical remoteness [Presentation]. 2024 National Forum to Advance Rural Education, Savannah, GA.

Saw, G. K., & Agger, C. A. (2021). STEM pathways of rural and small-town students: Opportunities to learn, aspirations, preparation, and college enrollment. Educational Researcher, 50(9), 595–606.

Schafft, K. A. (2016). Rural education as rural development: Understanding the rural school–community well-being linkage in a 21st-century policy context. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1151734

Schafft, K. A., & Harmon, H. L. (2010). Schools and community development. In J. W. Robinson & G. P. Green (Eds.), Introduction to community development: Theory, practice, and service-learning. Sage.

Seal, K. R., & Harmon, H. L. (1995). Realities of rural school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 119–124. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ513379

Short, R. A., Struminger, R., Zarestky, J., Pippin, J., Wong, M., Vilen, L., & Lawing, A. M. (2020). Spatial inequalities leave micropolitan areas and Indigenous populations underserved by informal STEM learning institutions. Science Advances, 6(41), eabb3819.

Smith, G. A., & Sobel, D. (2014). Place- and community-based education in schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203858530

Starrett, A., Irvin, M. J., Lotter, C., & Yow, J. A. (2022). Understanding the relationship of science and mathematics place-based workforce development on adolescents’ motivation and rural aspirations. American Educational Research Journal, 59(6), 1090–1121. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221099009

Starrett, A., Yow, J., Lotter, C., Irvin, M. J., & Adams, P. (2021). Teachers connecting with rural students and places: A mixed methods analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103231

Tieken, M. C. (2014). Why rural schools matter. University of North Carolina Press.

Tran, H., Hardie, S., Gause, S., Moyi, P., & Ylimaki, R. (2020). Leveraging the perspectives of rural educators to develop realistic job previews for rural teacher recruitment and retention. The Rural Educator, 41(2), 31–46. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1277657.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2022). Advancing digital equity for all. https://tech.ed.gov/advancing-digital-equity-for-all/

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

Zimmerman, H. T., & Weible, J. L. (2017). Learning in and about rural places: Connections and tensions between students’ everyday experiences and environmental quality issues in their community. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12, 7–31.