6

Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Professional Learning

Earlier chapters reviewed trends in rural science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development, and Chapter 5 discussed effective STEM learning experiences for rural students. Given the importance of a quality STEM education to individual, community, and national outcomes, the development and retention of a STEM educator workforce is critical. This chapter considers the challenges and assets associated with teaching in rural communities and presents some promising practices for recruitment, retention, and ongoing professional learning opportunities for rural educators.

CHALLENGES IN RECRUITING, HIRING, AND RETAINING RURAL EDUCATORS

Access to highly qualified educators is paramount to the development of rural youth and their outcomes. Teachers have a tremendous impact on student learning and achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Goe & Stickler, 2008) and the lack of qualified STEM educators will hinder the preparation of rural students for participating both in the STEM workforce and as engaged citizens. However, rural schools have difficulty hiring for STEM positions (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012), which often means that these positions are filled by educators without adequate training.

Teachers affect student achievement, high school graduation rates, college attendance, and employment earnings (Opper, 2019). They also impact their students’ exposure to and interest in STEM-related careers as well as their ability to engage with STEM ideas and make decisions about important

topics such as energy use and health care. Without access to knowledgeable, skilled educators, rural children are missing out on opportunities to engage with STEM concepts. And as noted in previous chapters, a lack of quality STEM education in elementary and secondary school can hamper students’ ability both to develop the STEM literacy skills to improve their decision making and everyday lives and to pursue STEM majors or careers.

One study found that female elementary teachers’ anxiety about mathematics education negatively affected their female students’ interest, confidence, and achievement in math (Beilock et al., 2011). Teachers who are not prepared in other STEM areas may similarly be more likely to display anxiety about teaching the subject. Yet, despite the importance of teachers to student outcomes, relatively little is known about teachers’ specific knowledge (Filgona et al., 2020) or attitudes about the subjects they teach.

Although much is known about designing effective teacher learning experiences generally (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2017) and in science (e.g., the Council of State Science Supervisors’ Science Professional Learning Standards¹), there are fewer well-developed theories related to the ways teachers incorporate and implement in their classrooms what they learn through professional development activities (Kennedy, 2016). There is also limited research examining the long-term effects on student achievement of teachers’ participation in professional learning: research often examines the impacts while the teachers are engaged in the professional learning intervention but do not follow them to see if they continue practicing program suggestions or revert to prior practices and curriculum (Kennedy, 2016).

Within the school walls, counselors are also some of the most important individuals that students interact with. In rural schools more than 50 percent of juniors and seniors who reported getting information about college and career options said they got it from their school counselor (Grimes et al., 2019). However, when disaggregating based on race, the same study found that rural students of color were much less likely than their White peers to get information from a counselor, and instead got their information from adults outside of the school setting (Grimes et al., 2019). This points to an important potentially compounding inequity. Although the study does not offer an explanation for this pattern, bias and perceptions—both self-perceptions and those of the counselors—about which students are likely to go to college may play a role. The study also found that, while rural school counselors are often told it is important to provide counseling specific to STEM, they are not provided with either training on how to do so or “concrete strategies, tools or interventions” (Grimes et al., 2019, p. 82) to implement such guidance.

Schools throughout the United States have for decades struggled to recruit and retain staff (Malkus et al., 2015; Monk, 2007; Showalter et al., 2019),

___________________

¹ https://cosss.wildapricot.org/Professional-Learning

and the pandemic exacerbated the problem (Schmitt & deCourcy, 2022). Several aspects of rurality and rural teaching make this challenge unique. Geographic isolation, onerous workload, limited access to professional development, and inadequate salaries are all potential deterrents for teachers. And for districts, a limited supply of candidates makes it difficult to fill vacancies (Goodpaster et al., 2012; Monk, 2007; Rhinesmith et al., 2023).

Teacher preparation programs generally do not incorporate rural-specific coursework or offer field placements in rural communities, limiting preservice teachers’ exposure to rural schools (Mitchell et al., 2019). For both these reasons rural schools frequently have fewer candidates to choose from, resulting in a reliance on less experienced or less qualified teachers (Hammer et al., 2005). Remote schools appear to have particular difficulty filling teaching vacancies (Player, 2015). Vacancies are especially challenging for small programs, which may be staffed by only one or two teachers; when a teacher leaves, the entire program might need to shut down. In some regions, these hiring struggles may reflect larger trends of rural out-migration; research in rural Appalachia, for example, indicates that teachers are much more likely to leave the region than transfer to it (Cowen et al., 2012).

Rural schools also struggle to hire school counselors (American School Counselor Association, 2023). The schools are disproportionately likely to have no counselor on staff (Gagnon & Mattingly, 2016) or to employ counselors with little training in guidance for STEM study and STEM careers (Grimes et al., 2019). Rural students have less access to school counselors and psychologists than their nonrural peers (Showalter et al., 2023).

Many rural Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs also face hiring challenges (Fischer, 2024). However, states can implement policies to provide avenues for teachers to gain a CTE teacher or license. Common pathways include completion of a high school diploma or equivalent, a postsecondary degree, postsecondary-level CTE coursework, a specified number of hours or years of work or apprenticeship experience in a CTE occupational area, an industry-recognized license or certification, teacher certification exams, and/or professional development or training required in the CTE field or a specific occupation area (Education Commission of the States, 2023). Perkins V funding has been used by several states to develop teacher preparation programs that address their needs, and it can also be used to provide professional development for CTE teachers and higher education faculty. Such development could be designed to enhance knowledge and skills related to different aspects of the industries represented in the CTE programs.²

Retention of teachers in rural schools is another critical issue. High turnover rates are common, driven by professional isolation, limited career

___________________

² https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/perkins-educator-prep.pdf

advancement opportunities, and the demanding nature of teaching in multigrade or multisubject settings (Kannapel & DeYoung, 1999). The challenges of recruiting and retaining high-quality rural teachers are even more pronounced in specialty fields, including STEM (Ingersoll & Tran, 2023; Monk, 2007; Yoon et al., 2019). The nature of rural STEM teaching may exacerbate the challenge of recruiting and retaining strong STEM teachers. Given the small size of many rural schools, rural STEM teachers might need to cover many different subjects (Marder et al., 2017); for example, a single high school science teacher may be responsible for teaching all the science classes (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physical science; Monk, 2007). Research also indicates that rural science teachers may be challenged to meet the needs of a classroom with a diverse range of abilities and may chafe under a reluctance to change among administrators (Goodpaster et al., 2012). These pressures reduce the pool of strong candidates and force districts to hire less qualified candidates—rural STEM teachers are less likely than their urban counterparts to have majored in science or earned a graduate degree (Marder et al., 2017).

While the turnover rate for rural teachers (15%) is the same as for suburban teachers and slightly less than for urban teachers (18%), the rate for rural high-poverty schools (28%) is 9 percentage points greater than for urban high-poverty schools (19%), and the difference widens to 12 percentage points for schools serving a high percentage of students of color (32% for rural and 28% for urban). Rural teacher retention rates vary from state to state and even within states. For example, in Alaska, teacher turnover rates average 14 percent in urban districts, 22 percent for rural hubs, and 31 percent for remote rural communities (DeFeo & Tran, 2019), and some rural Alaskan communities experience annual turnover rates as high as 85 percent (Adams & Woods, 2015).

Although many factors likely contribute to the difficulty of rural schools in recruiting and retaining STEM educators, two in particular are geographic isolation and salaries.

Geographic Isolation

Rural schools often struggle to attract qualified candidates because of their remoteness and lack of amenities that urban or suburban settings offer (Monk, 2007). This cultural, social, and professional isolation is especially pronounced for teachers who are in more geographically isolated districts. In large western states, schools may be several hours’ drive to the next nearest population center, which can make it difficult for teachers to build social networks with near-age peers (Oyen & Schweinle, 2021). For young teachers just out of college, the importance of finding a romantic partner may be a primary barrier to living and working in a rural community (Rooks, 2018).

And many rural schools are in high-poverty areas with limited access to cultural activities such as theater and recreation (Tran et al., 2020).

Large geographic distances between schools and small populations can also lead to professional isolation—rural teachers may be the only person teaching their grade or discipline for many miles. This isolation can lead to dissatisfaction and prompt teachers to relocate to more urban districts (Goodpaster et al., 2012; Oyen & Schweinle, 2021). Indeed, teachers are twice as likely to leave rural schools to take jobs in nonrural locations as they are to leave nonrural jobs to take a rural position (Ingersoll & Tran, 2023).

Finally, cultural exchange barriers can be problematic for teachers who are not from the area or one similar to where the school is located. This can be especially challenging for teachers from the U.S. mainland who take positions in the Alaskan bush (DeFeo & Tran, 2019) or those recruited from foreign countries—a practice in hard-to-staff rural schools in multiple states (Tran et al., 2020; Versland et al., 2020).

Salaries

Geographic isolation is compounded by lower salaries compared to urban districts, which also make rural positions less attractive to potential candidates (Showalter et al., 2017). This issue is not limited to rural areas, but most rural districts struggle to pay teachers at the same rates as nonrural districts. According to the latest Why Rural Matters report (Showalter et al., 2023), the average adjusted salary for U.S. rural teachers was $5,271 less than for teachers at nonrural schools. Although these reported salaries are adjusted for the local area, it is important to address the assumed acceptability of lower salaries in areas with a lower cost of living. It is not true that the cost of living is lower in all rural areas than in nonrural areas—for example, it is higher in Alaska. And although the cost of housing in some rural areas may be less expensive than in urban or suburban areas, rural residents purchase goods and services in a global economy and may have to order and ship items because of a lack of local shopping options. Thus, lower salaries may not provide rural teachers with the financial capacity to live comfortably.

In addition to being paid less, rural teachers often have extended workloads that include responsibilities beyond student instruction, such as facilitating multiple extracurricular activities, monitoring students during nonclass times, even driving bus routes and serving in custodial roles. These fiscal and workload challenges prevent some qualified applicants from applying for rural teaching positions. Many of the preservice teachers in one study expressed a desire to work in rural South Dakota but financial barriers prevented them from doing so (Moeller et al., 2016).

Another study found that salary was a major factor influencing whether undergraduate students in South Carolina would consider teaching in a rural school; participants were willing to accept a lower salary to become teachers, when compared to the starting salaries for their majors, as long as the salary was not too much lower (Tran & Smith, 2019). This means that students majoring in fields that tend to pay higher salaries, such as STEM fields, were not willing to accept the rural teaching salaries because they were much lower than they could earn in industry. Low salaries have also led teachers to leave rural districts to work in higher-paying nonrural districts (Leech et al., 2022).

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

Teachers in rural areas generally have fewer opportunities for professional growth and collaboration, and this exacerbates challenges to rural educator retention (Glover et al., 2016). The lack of professional support and development can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction, prompting teachers to leave for more favorable conditions elsewhere.

Several metrics also suggest spatial inequities in preparation for a teaching career: rural teachers tend to come to the classroom with a weaker educational background than their urban and suburban peers. Information collected by the 2020–2021 National Teacher and Principal Survey indicates that rural teachers tend to have lower educational attainment than their counterparts in suburban areas and cities, and they graduate from less selective colleges than teachers in other areas (Player & Katz, 2016). Research in rural Appalachia found that rural districts tend to hire the least qualified new teachers (Fowles et al., 2014).

Professional development must be continuous and context specific, and for rural teachers it should be relevant to their particular teaching contexts and address the needs of their students (Barley & Beesley, 2007). But for rural teachers, accessing any kind of professional development is a challenge, as distance from universities and other outside providers creates significant barriers. In addition, the type or content of the professional development offered may not be relevant to the needs of rural school teachers, administrators, and other school staff (Johnson & Howley, 2015).

Compared to their urban counterparts, rural STEM teachers have traditionally had fewer opportunities for subject-related professional development (Hossain & Robinson, 2012). For example, results from the National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education in both 2012 and 2018 (Banilower et al., 2013, 2018) indicated that rural schools were generally less likely than suburban or urban schools to offer science- or mathematics-focused one-on-one coaching, although both surveys showed that study groups were similar across community settings (see Table 6-1). In addition,

the 2018 results showed that rural schools were less likely to offer professional learning workshops in science (37% compared to 53% of suburban and 59% of urban schools), mathematics (62% vs. 63% of suburban and 75% of urban schools), or computer science (24% compared to 33% of suburban and 39% of urban schools; Banilower et al., 2018). Rural schools are less likely to require teacher professional development in how students learn science or math concepts (Saw & Agger, 2021). Another challenge related to professional development is that rural schools often lack an adequate supply of substitute teachers to cover for teachers who wish to travel to and attend professional learning opportunities during the school day (Skyhar, 2020).

The availability of online professional learning experiences for teachers has increased in the last few years, with virtual summer institutes (e.g., Thompson et al., 2022) and other virtual professional learning experiences (Lo, 2024; Thiele & Bogdon, 2022); although the research base is limited, some have found online professional learning to be effective for teachers (Lo, 2024).³

ASSETS FOR RURAL EDUCATOR RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Despite the aforementioned challenges, rural contexts offer unique benefits for STEM teaching. A rural lifestyle characterized by relaxed pace, low crime, family-oriented culture, and proximity to the outdoors draws some teachers to rural schools (Tran et al., 2020). While not all rural areas

___________________

³ This paragraph was changed and a citation was added after release of the report to accurately reflect information that was presented to the committee.

are characterized by clean environments and beautiful landscapes, outdoor recreation opportunities are a great asset of many (Leech et al., 2022; Tran et al., 2020).

Informal learning plays a crucial role in rural science education, bridging gaps in formal education systems and fostering inquiry and lifelong learning. This form of education includes activities and experiences outside the traditional classroom setting, such as community science programs, museums, 4-H clubs, and environmental education centers, all of which are especially vital in rural areas with limited resources and access to advanced science facilities (Falk & Dierking, 2010).

The importance of informal education in rural science instruction extends to its role in professional development for educators. Informal education settings often serve as venues for teachers to gain new skills and knowledge, which they can then integrate into their classroom teaching (Bevan et al., 2010). By providing opportunities for collaboration and professional growth, informal education supports the broader educational ecosystem in rural areas.

Goodpaster et al. (2012) worked with rural high school teachers to identify what they considered benefits of teaching science in their schools. The teachers reported trust between school officials and community members, community members’ willingness to serve as guest science content experts, opportunities to connect classroom science content to local rural life, such as through agriculture, and autonomy over what is taught in the classroom.

Teachers in rural schools tend to have greater autonomy to make choices about their teaching than their peers in urban and suburban schools, though education policy is becoming increasingly restrictive in some rural districts, such that teachers in some schools have little control over curriculum choices (Inouye et al., 2024). But there is evidence that rural teachers have the control to customize their teaching to connect to their local contexts, and more choice in what to teach and when and how to teach it (Hammack et al., 2023; Tran et al., 2020). Greater autonomy means that rural teachers have the flexibility to abandon the traditional views of teaching STEM subjects as discrete disciplinary areas, and instead leverage local resources to implement a more interdisciplinary approach to STEM teaching (Hammack et al., 2023).

Box 6-1 highlights a rural teacher whose story exemplifies the assets of teaching STEM in rural schools (see Hammack et al., 2023, for additional details about this teacher).

The way Judy leveraged the assets of her rural community enabled her to sustain a rural teaching career that spanned more than three decades, suggesting that support for teachers to leverage local assets could help with rural teacher retention and career-long professional learning. Further, Judy

used her rural context to provide meaningful opportunities for students to engage in phenomenon-driven investigations that not only enhanced their STEM knowledge and skills but also engaged them as “active and authentic members of the local scientific community” (Hammack et al., 2023, p. 559). Because Judy was learning alongside her student scientists, she was also enriching her own professional growth and strengthening ties with the community.

PROMISING PRACTICES FOR RURAL STEM EDUCATOR RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Given the reported factors and negative stereotypes associated with rural places, it can be challenging to recruit potential STEM teachers, especially those with no experience living in rural areas, as well as retain them and provide adequate professional learning experiences. But programs exist to leverage the assets in rural areas to address the STEM teaching workforce needs of rural schools. Below we highlight examples of successful programs.

Preservice Teacher Training for Rural Areas

An individual’s experiences in rural places as well as their perceptions of rurality directly influence teacher preparation for rural places (Walker-Gibbs et al., 2015). While there can be a disconnect between rural community residents and people recruited from elsewhere (Corbett & Gereluk, 2020), teacher preparation programs can lessen the disconnect by purposefully preparing preservice teachers for rural settings (Vernikoff et al., 2019). Unfortunately, few teacher preparation programs offer rural-specific coursework or opportunities for placement in rural schools, and “there is relatively little known about intentional efforts to prepare teachers specifically for rural classrooms” (Azano & Stewart, 2016, p. 108). It is crucial for all teachers to learn about the contexts in which they teach, and providing preservice teachers with coursework that enables them to learn about the rural contexts where they will be placed is one way to prepare them for rural settings (Schulte, 2018).

Just discussing rurality in coursework is not enough. Moffa and McHenry-Sorber (2018) interviewed five first-year rural teachers who grew up in rural Appalachia and attended the same teacher preparation program. Although they were enrolled in the same program, they experienced the coursework differently: some felt that rurality was largely absent from the coursework; others felt that place-based discussions did occur in the coursework and that rurality was mentioned often because most graduates would take jobs in rural schools. Some participants felt that some of the

professors equated rurality with poverty and drug use and showed a very limited, homogeneous, and largely negative view of rurality, devoid of the rich diversity present in rural Appalachia. While rurality and place may have been a part of the curriculum, the authors noted that the program used a “stereotyped or generalist approach to teaching about rurality or Appalachia and a deficit-focused model of understanding rural peoples and social space,” resulting in tension while navigating complex relationships between the rural upbringing of the participants and their experiences in their teacher preparation program (Moffa & McHenry-Sorber, 2018, p. 36). This approach left some of the participants feeling the need to advocate for rural spaces by becoming representatives for rural ways of living and elevating their lived experiences as examples for their classmates to learn from. The study highlights the importance of how rural is framed in teacher preparation programs and not just whether it is represented in coursework.

Most teacher preparation programs are at universities in nonrural communities, which can limit the ability for preservice teachers to participate in rural field experiences. The Rural Schools Collaborative Rural Teacher Corps Network⁴ recruits students from rural areas and provides scholarships for education majors, and rural field-based experiences are beginning to surface in the literature.

Rural field-based experiences, though limited in number and diverse across locations, can help to reduce negative stereotypes and promote better understandings of rurality, with longer experiences offering the most benefit (Reagan et al., 2019). Mitchell et al. (2019) shared examples of field-based experiences of various lengths designed to introduce preservice teachers to rural schools in the United States and Australia. One example was a field trip program offered through the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS), in which preservice teachers participated in five four-hour visits in a rural school (within 40 miles of UCCS) where they observed two different classrooms and spent time with a school administrator learning about the school. The UCCS program is too young to know its long-term impacts on teacher recruitment and retention but many participants indicated that it helped them learn about rural schools and whether they would be interested in rural employment.

At Montana State University (MSU), students in the teacher education program can participate in a rural-intensive practicum program (Mitchell et al., 2019; Versland et al., 2020). They travel to and live in a remote rural community for a week, during which they are engaged at the school site for about nine hours each day. In the evenings, the preservice teachers meet with university faculty for debriefing sessions and plan their lessons for the following day. Exit interviews with the participating preservice teachers

___________________

⁴ https://ruralschoolscollaborative.org/programs/rural-teacher-corps

showed that the experiences positively changed their perceptions of teaching in rural communities, and many acknowledged that the experience had reversed their preconceived notions about the capabilities of rural students. Like the program at UCCS, the program at MSU has not been in place long enough to determine long-term benefits, but more than half of the participating preservice teachers have specifically requested student rural teaching placements. Teachers and administrators in these schools have responded positively to the practicum program and believe that the model holds promise for rural teacher recruitment and retention (Mitchell et al., 2019; Versland et al., 2020).

The rural field experience programs at UCCS and MSU show promise for rural teacher recruitment, but the numbers of students reached are small. There are costs such as transportation and housing associated with these types of programs. At the time Mitchell et al. (2019) wrote their article, the state of Colorado provided $4,000 stipends to up to 40 participants to complete the rural practicum experience. MSU covered the cost of transportation (practicum sites were 400 miles from campus), housing, and meals for its weeklong program and paid a small stipend for preservice teachers to offset the costs associated with missing a week of work, as many were paying their own way through college (Versland et al., 2020). The costs and capacity of partner schools limit the number of students who can participate in these programs each semester.

Grow Your Own (GYO) and Rural Residency Programs

Research suggests that teachers who are “homegrown” have higher retention rates: those who grew up in rural communities are more likely to be recruited to and remain teaching in rural schools than those who did not grow up in rural environments (Ulferts, 2016). Numerous GYO programs are being implemented across all 50 states with great variability, with pathways for high school student dual enrollment, training and credentialing of paraeducators,⁵ and alternative certification pathways for college-educated career changers (Garcia, 2020). The mere creation of such pathways is not sufficient, though: they must be well designed and use effective recruitment strategies (Miller et al., 2019). For research on an alternative licensure program at Mississippi State University, Miller et al. (2019) had to invest significant time and effort in recruiting participants. They determined that the most effective efforts used effective communication strategies, built and maintained community relationships, and targeted appropriate audiences.

___________________

⁵ Individuals who provide support in schools and classrooms, such as teachers’ aides or instructional assistants (https://www.nea.org/about-nea/our-members/education-support-professionals/paraeducator).

The U.S. Department of Education Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program at California State University, Chico, was designed specifically to prepare preservice teachers for rural classrooms (Schulte, 2018). Participants engaged in place-based coursework with readings and assignments on rural education research and theories, were placed in a rural classroom for a full academic year and completed university coursework that required them to research the communities where they were placed. Through their research, participants were compelled to confront any preconceived notions they held about the rural communities in which they were placed and they had to identify community assets that could inform their teaching. Data collected after the program ended show that 25 percent of participants who committed to teaching in rural schools indicated that their experiences in the rural TQP program influenced their choice (Schulte, 2018).

The Carolina Transition to Teaching program, funded by a TQP grant, partnered with two school districts in rural South Carolina to implement a 14-month residency model to recruit local community members to the teaching profession (D’Amico et al., 2022). District representatives were directly involved in the program planning process. Program participants were required to have at least a bachelor’s degree and would earn a master’s of education in teaching as well as a state teaching credential upon successfully completing the program. Participants received a $15,000 living wage stipend during the program. At the start of the program, participants completed an intensive two-week summer institute, engaging with rural youth during the second week. They then completed a year-long residency in a local rural school, coteaching with a mentor teacher, while taking graduate courses (both virtually and in person at the school sites). After completion of the residency, participants were supported through the three-year Carolina Teacher Induction Program. Interviews with participants revealed that support from the residency program staff was essential to participant success, but some expressed concerns about their relationship with the mentor teachers, pointing to a need for program staff to carefully place participants in the right classrooms (D’Amico et al., 2022).

The Montana Rural Teacher Project (MRTP) is a TQP grant program designed to recruit college graduates living in rural Montana to a Master of Arts in Teaching program that would result in teacher licensure (Luebeck & Downey, 2024). Program participants complete three semesters of virtual coursework over a 12-month period that coincides with their field placement in a local community school. During fall semester, participants complete a 100-hour in-school practicum and transition to student teaching in the same school the following spring semester. They also complete a one-week campus-based summer residency. Coursework is designed to be place attentive, highlighting the value of local knowledge and helping participants deepen their understanding of rural education and how to thrive in a rural school.

Through the TQP grant, MRTP is able to offer participants a living stipend during the 12-month program and two years of support during an induction program that includes one-on-one content mentoring from a veteran teacher, virtual professional learning community membership, and professional learning resources (Luebeck & Downey, 2024).

The programs described highlight the importance of centering local community knowledge in coursework and of working with community partners in the development and implementation of program activities. This relationship building requires time and effort before, during, and after the program, and there are limits to the number of participants each program can support (depending on capacity and funding). All of the aforementioned programs required the support of federal funds (i.e., TQP) to provide living stipends to participants during the 12 to 14 months of their residency. These programs show promise, but because they have only been in place a short time their impact on rural teacher retention is yet to be determined.

Teacher Recruitment

As noted, teacher recruitment can be a challenge in rural districts, and some struggle to receive even a single applicant for open positions. When positions go unfilled the schools are left with limited choices: either to not offer the course or to fill it with an unqualified individual. Because highly qualified STEM teachers are often harder to recruit, finding ways to attract STEM talent to rural teaching is of paramount importance.

Students who attended rural schools are 5.5 times more likely to consider teaching in a rural school (Oyen & Schweinle, 2021), but recruiting individuals who grew up in a rural community is only one option. A statewide Washington study found that the location where one accepts their first teaching job is more closely related to the location where they completed their student teaching than the location of the teacher’s hometown, and that teachers are nearly 10 times more likely to take a teaching job within a 10-mile radius of their student teaching placement than within a 50-mile radius (Krieg et al., 2016). The same study also found that preservice teachers were more likely to accept employment at districts with student characteristics similar to those of the district where they did their student teaching. This points to the value of rural field placement experiences and coursework for teacher recruitment.

Numerous states have turned to alternative teaching certification pathways to meet teacher workforce needs. Some scholars have noted that alternative programs can be an effective way to increase the numbers of certified teachers (Barley, 2009; Donaldson, 2012). However, it is imperative to note that not all such programs are equally effective at preparing future teachers, and some may be structured in ways that actually promote teacher turnover in high-needs schools (defined in terms of percent of

students receiving free or reduced-price lunch). For example, Donaldson (2012) found that, on average, half of Teach for America (TFA) teachers placed in high-needs schools left after two years, and only 20–31 percent of TFA teachers (depending on their age) stayed at their school more than three years. Rooks (2018) found that the structure that TFA used to train and place new teachers in rural schools, especially the cohort model that encourages teachers to socialize with other TFA teachers rather than more permanent residents in the area, undermined long-term retention in those schools and communities.

Teacher Retention

Retention rates vary across contexts and so do the factors that influence them, indicating that there are unlikely to be uniform solutions to the rural teacher retention problem (Rhinesmith et al., 2023). The research literature points to a variety of financial incentives to support teacher retention, such as merit-based raises, pay for extended-day work, and transportation funds (Rosenburg et al., 2015), as well as housing assistance and loan forgiveness (Rooks, 2018). For example, in Alaska the provision of formal induction and mentoring through the Statewide Mentor Project increased retention rates by 10 percent for teachers in rural districts serving Alaska Native students.

The assets and challenges of teaching in rural communities can be perceived differently. While one individual may greatly appreciate a close-knit community where everyone knows each other, another may prefer the anonymity of more populous urban spaces. Some individuals prefer wide open spaces and proximity to nature while others prefer cityscapes and the convenience of nearby shopping venues. Thus recruiting teachers who are the correct fit for the rural school and community is important for retention (DeFeo & Tran, 2019; Tran et al., 2020). For example, teachers from the U.S. mainland who are recruited to the Alaskan bush regions have higher turnover rates than those who completed their teacher preparation program in Alaska,⁶ often because they did not understand what the living conditions would be like (DeFeo et al., 2018). Rural Alaskan superintendents therefore invest time and money in orienting potential teaching recruits to the Alaskan bush country and local cultures (DeFeo & Tran, 2019).

Professional Learning Opportunities

Rural teachers often teach multiple subjects to diverse students and may teach a discipline outside of their expertise or professional training.

___________________

⁶ https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northwest/pdf/ak-educator-retention-infographic-update.pdf

For example, a rural high school STEM teacher may teach courses in Earth science, biology, chemistry, physics, algebra, and/or geometry all in the same day. Graduating from a teacher preparation program with deep expertise in all of these disciplines would be challenging. Further, STEM fields are changing so rapidly that staying abreast of the most recent knowledge and practices in a STEM discipline requires continual professional learning.

Opportunities for professional learning can occur through peer mentorship, professional conferences, or formal learning programming offered by professional development hubs and institutions of higher education. Research shows that participating in STEM-focused professional learning programs can enhance rural teachers’ teaching efficacy (Durr et al., 2020; Hammack et al., 2020, 2024) and content knowledge (Maina et al., 2021; Prusaczyk & Baker, 2011), resulting in enhanced student learning of STEM concepts (Barrett et al., 2015). Unfortunately, access to high-quality STEM-focused professional learning opportunities and the costs associated with these opportunities are barriers for rural teachers (Goodpaster et al., 2012; Thiele & Bogdon, 2022).

Because rural school districts may serve students in a large geographical area, their teachers may lack access to nearby peers. A rural high school science teacher might be the only one for dozens of miles and more than an hour’s drive (sometimes across rough terrain) from the closest peer, which can lead to professional isolation. Limited opportunities for professional collaboration with colleagues contribute to increased teacher turnover in rural districts (Goodpaster et al., 2012), although more recently virtual and hybrid professional learning opportunities can help rural teachers find professional colleagues for collaborations (Thiele & Bogdon, 2022; Thompson et al., 2022).

Creating professional development opportunities and spaces for rural teachers to collaborate with and receive mentorship from others looks very different in rural districts than in urban or suburban districts. Given the diversity across rural contexts, professional development opportunities and programs targeting rural teacher retention need to be tailored to fit the unique needs of the teachers and communities (Rhinesmith et al., 2023).

Importantly, not all professional development programs are equally effective. A 2016 metasynthesis of literature found that the most effective ones were offered by those who were very familiar with the problems faced by teachers, had much experience working with teachers, and based the programs on their personal experience and expertise (Kennedy, 2016). In contrast, large-scale programs that relied on intermediaries who were less familiar with teachers’ experiences were not as effective. Given this finding, providers of professional learning programs for rural teachers should be knowledgeable of rural contexts.

Face-to-Face Professional Learning

Professional learning providers, such as institutions of higher education, are not often located near rural schools (Reagan et al., 2019; Schafft, 2016), and this can make it more challenging for rural teachers to access quality professional learning opportunities (Reagan et al., 2019). Teachers in remote regions may have to drive six or more hours to reach a professional learning hub, requiring days of travel in addition to the time required to attend the events. Programs can be made more accessible to rural teachers by offering financial support to offset travel costs. For teachers in rural Canada, for example, geographic challenges were mitigated by holding professional learning meetings in regions that were centrally located and sending the providers to those locations, and by providing teachers with mileage reimbursement to help offset the costs of attending (Skyhar, 2020).

Providing professional learning opportunities during weekends and summers can also make them more accessible for rural teachers. For example, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and Computer Science program “supports summer research experiences for K-14 educators that foster long-term collaborations between universities, community colleges, school districts and industry partners”⁷ and provides extended-duration content-focused learning experiences for teachers. But although RET programs recruit widely and accept rural teachers, few have focused specifically on rural teachers. Three that have done so are described below.

The MSU Western Transportation Institute engaged high school teachers in research projects covering a variety of rural transportation challenges and solutions (Gallagher & Woolard, 2022). These RET participants also engaged in weekly professional development workshops on inquiry-based learning, Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Science and Engineering Practices, curriculum development, and assessment. The program provided opportunities to focus on content-specific professional learning, which was not available in the participants’ home schools. After completing the six-week summer program, the teachers reported increased knowledge of science and engineering (S&E) content as well as greater confidence and willingness to implement the NGSS in their classrooms. They also commented on the importance of being able to network with other rural teachers during the program as a way to combat professional isolation in their home communities. Gallagher and Woolard recommend identifying ways to support peer-to-peer networks after RET participants leave campus.

In one unnamed upper Midwest rural state, preservice teachers were paired with rural “solitary” middle and high school teachers for a RET

___________________

⁷ https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/research-experiences-teachers-engineering-computer

program (Shume et al., 2022). Teachers were considered solitary if they were the only mathematics, science, or technology education teacher in their school who served grades 6–8, 9–12, or 7–12. The research experiences were designed using an agricultural framework that aligned with the large agriculture industry in the rural areas where participants lived (Bowen et al., 2021). Participants developed lesson plans based on their research experiences and received follow-up support during the next academic year when they taught the lessons. Teachers who participated in the RET program reported a more sophisticated understanding of what is involved in conducting engineering research, appreciation for the importance of engaging students in authentic problem solving through engineering design, and greater awareness of the value of student metacognition when engaging in engineering design. They also appreciated being able to network with other rural teachers (Bowen et al., 2021).

A third RET program supported pre- and in-service elementary teachers from rural and American Indian reservation communities in a six-week residential program (Lux et al., 2024). On-campus family housing and travel expenses were provided to reduce barriers for participants from remote areas. In addition to spending time engaged in engineering research laboratories, the participants had weekly cultural and curriculum-specific professional development activities. Topics included Montana’s Indian Education for All framework, NGSS, the BSCS Science Learning 5E instructional model, the Universal Design for Learning framework, and Indigenous science knowledge. Participants also made field trips to industry facilities and Indigenous cultural sites connected to the RET theme of energy. Explicit time for community and relationship building was built into the program through communal lunches, talking circles, and evening recreational and cultural activities such as hiking and beading circles. After the program, participants exhibited significant gains in their efficacy for teaching science, mathematics, and engineering, and reported that having time to focus on Indigenous science learning and making cultural connections between the lab and their lesson planning was critical to their professional growth. Like the participants in the RET programs described above, these teachers expressed the importance of interacting with their peers, referring to “hallway” talk in the dorms and in the cafeteria as one of the most influential features of their professional growth. While they appreciated the time built into the formal program activities for reflection, being able to talk informally with other educators was an added benefit that they were not used to having as rural educators.

Remote Professional Learning

Remote learning through virtual platforms can offer rural teachers access to professional learning opportunities not available nearby if they are used effectively (Thiele & Bogdon, 2022). Several organizations have

developed resources and information for both teachers and educators in out-of-school-time settings to provide STEM learning for youth. For example, the STAR Net library⁸ system supports library staff with networking opportunities and learning materials. Click2Science⁹ has offered video-based professional learning opportunities and resources for STEM programs since 2013 and expanded to Click2ComputerScience in 2021 and Click2Engineering in 2022. The Million Girls Moonshot Toolkit¹⁰ also provides resources to help educators engage girls in STEM learning.

Research shows that online professional learning can increase teacher efficacy (Durr et al., 2020; Hammack et al., 2024). In one study, rural STEM teachers engaged in online professional learning communities (PLCs) through which they uploaded videos of themselves teaching (Durr et al., 2020) and the PLC facilitators and peer teachers provided feedback on the videos. The study authors found that online PLCs could be a powerful way to connect rural STEM teachers to one another but reported concerns with technology challenges related to both device and broadband availability. A separate study also engaged rural teachers in online PLCs as well as additional professional learning (PL) activities through an NSF-funded project that the research team refers to as STEM STRONG (Hammack et al., 2024). The program targeted elementary teachers in four western states and began with an intensive five-day online summer PL on NGSS-aligned S&E instruction. The PL team shipped materials to the participants ahead of time so they would have everything needed to engage in hands-on activities from their own locations.¹¹ Afterward, the research team provided teachers with a menu of electronic supports during the academic year, including access to a shared Google Classroom site, shared resources, and monthly PLC meetings. During PLC meetings teachers worked together in grade-level groups to plan how to implement community-connected engineering tasks as well as NGSS-aligned assessment tasks with their students. The teachers showed significant gains in their teaching efficacy after participation in the online PL program. The team will continue offering fully online modest supports for two years after the initial summer PL to monitor whether teachers retain their initial efficacy gains and to identify which types of supports were most impactful.

Learning to Use Place-Based and Other Rural-Specific Approaches

Using place-based teaching approaches and leveraging funds of knowledge (FoK) and local rural knowledge for classroom instruction can enhance

___________________

⁸ https://www.starnetlibraries.org/

⁹ https://click2sciencepd.org/

¹⁰ https://www.milliongirlsmoonshot.org/toolkit

¹¹ https://www.wested.org/wested-bulletin/insights-impact/demystifying-science-and-engineering-rural-classrooms/

student learning (see Chapter 5), but doing so requires focused teacher training. A scoping literature review focused on FoK use in STEM education research returned few publications (nine studies) on preparing pre- and in-service teachers to leverage students’ funds of knowledge (Denton and Borrego, 2021). Of those nine, seven focused on preservice teachers’ learning of FoK in coursework (Aguirre et al., 2012; Ciechanowski et al., 2015; Diaz & Bussert-Webb, 2017; Gallivan, 2017; Graue et al., 2015; McLaughlin & Calabrese-Barton, 2013; Stoehr & Civil, 2019), one on middle school STEM teachers (Kier & Khalil, 2018), and one on STEM camp instructors (Mejia et al., 2019). Only one of these studies described the context as rural (Diaz & Bussert-Webb, 2017): in a Texas-Mexico unincorporated border town with limited services, preservice teachers acted as tutors for youth in the community, designing and implementing math and science lessons that connected youth FoK to geometry, ecology, botany, and entomology. Diaz and Bussert-Webb reported that the preservice teachers, none of whom had heard of FoK before the project, recognized the value of designing math and science lessons connected to students’ FoK and planned to use this approach in their future classrooms.

NSF has funded projects that focus on professional development for teachers connecting local knowledge and Indigenous culture to classroom engineering instruction. Hammack et al. (2021) conducted summer online professional development workshops with pre- and in-service teachers in rural and Indigenous serving communities, to help teachers identify students’ local knowledge. Teachers learned how to use ethnographic methods to learn about their students and communities, and later used that knowledge in classroom instruction. Over the course of the program, participating teachers developed identities as engineering teachers, showed significant gains in teaching efficacy, and increased the amount of time they spent on inquiry- and design-based classroom instruction (Boz et al., 2023; Lux et al., 2022).

Bowman et al. (2024) developed the Culturally Relevant Engineering Design (CRED) framework as a way for teachers in rural school districts in North Dakota to connect local Indigenous knowledge to classroom S&E instruction. At a summer professional development workshop teachers learned how to work with local community members and elders to identify and apply local knowledge to classroom engineering design tasks; three cohort meetings throughout the academic year provided additional support on implementing lessons in the classroom. Bowman et al. found significant improvements in participants’ engineering teaching efficacy and cultural and community understanding. The CRED is also being used by the STEM STRONG team (mentioned above) in their ongoing work. Preliminary findings indicate that when rural elementary teachers implement CRED-aligned engineering lessons, student engagement increases.

A collaboration between the Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance and BSCS Science Learning provides professional learning experiences to support teachers as they incorporate locally or culturally relevant phenomena in curricular units aligned to the NGSS and design their own instructional plans for those units. Teachers are also learning to incorporate their own knowledge and place-based phenomena in existing curricula, allowing them to connect with students.¹²

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Recruiting, retaining, and professionally developing rural teachers requires a multifaceted approach that addresses the unique challenges of rural education. Competitive incentives, supportive professional environments, and continuous, context-specific professional development are needed for rural districts to build a stable and effective teaching workforce and to ensure that all students have access to high-quality education. But large research gaps exist related to best practices for developing and sustaining the rural STEM education workforce. Research is needed on best practices for rural STEM educator recruitment, retention, and professional learning.

Technologies and new programs hold significant promise for enhancing education in rural K–12 schools, but substantial challenges must be overcome. Addressing infrastructure deficits, financial limitations, and the need for professional development are essential steps toward ensuring that all students, regardless of geographic location, have equal access to high-quality educational opportunities.

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.

___________________

¹² https://sites.google.com/mmsa.org/pebles2/research

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.

REFERENCES

Bowman, F., Klemetsrud, B., Ozturk, E., Robinson, J., & Lacina, E. (2024). Impact of professional development in culturally relevant engineering design for elementary and middle school teachers [Conference session]. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Portland, OR, US.

Boz, T., Hammack, R., Lux, N., & Gannon, P. (2023). Empowering elementary students with community-based engineering: A teacher’s experience in a rural school district. Education Sciences, 13(5), 434. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/5/434/pdf

Ciechanowski, K., Bottoms, S., Fonseca, A. L., & St Clair, T. (2015). Should Rey Mysterio drink Gatorade? Cultural competence in afterschool STEM programming. Afterschool Matters, 21, 29–37. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1063856

Corbett, M., & Gereluk, D. (2020). Rural teacher education: Connecting land and people. Springer.

Cowen, J. M., Butler, J. S., Fowles, J., Streams, M. E., & Toma, E. F. (2012). Teacher retention in Appalachian schools: Evidence from Kentucky. Economics of Education Review, 31(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.12.005

D’Amico, L. K., West, H. S., Baker, M. A., Roy, G., Curcio, R., Harbour, K. E., Thompson, S. L., Guest, J., Compton-Lilly, C., & Adgerson, A. (2022). Using improvement science to implement and evaluate a teacher residency program in rural school districts. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 12(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2022.v12n1p83-104

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

DeFeo, D., Hirshberg, D., & Hill, A. (2018). It’s more than just dollars: Problematizing salary as the sole mechanism for recruiting and retaining teachers in rural Alaska. Alaska Native Studies Journal, 4(1). https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/8323/Defeo%20et%20al.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

DeFeo, D. J., & Tran, T. C. (2019). Recruiting, hiring, and training Alaska’s rural teachers: How superintendents practice place-conscious leadership. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 35(2). https://jrre.psu.edu/sites/default/files/2019-06/35-2.pdf

Denton, M., & Borrego, M. (2021). Funds of knowledge in STEM education: A scoping review. Studies in Engineering Education, 1(2), 71–92. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8df8/d15afb00e2dba4aa6b2151821216eff9af56.pdf

Diaz, M. E., & Bussert-Webb, K. (2017). Latino youth’s out-of-school math and science experiences: Impact on teacher candidates. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 3(2), 624–635. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1148427.pdf

Donaldson, M. L. (2012). The promise of older novices: Teach for America teachers’ age of entry and subsequent retention in teaching and schools. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211401008

Durr, T., Kampmann, J., Hales, P., & Browning, L. (2020). Lessons learned from online PLCs of rural STEM teachers. The Rural Educator, 41(1), 20–26. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=ruraleducator

Education Commission of the States. (2023). 50-State comparison: Secondary career and technical education. https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-secondary-career-and-technicaleducation-2023/

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution. American Scientist, 98(6), 486–493. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25766726

Filgona, J., John, S., & Gwany, D. M. (2020). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and students’ academic achievement: A theoretical overview. Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science, 14(2), 14–44.

Fischer, L. W. (2024). Repairing the pipeline for rural career and technical educators in Wyoming. The Daily Yonder. https://dailyyonder.com/repairing-the-pipeline-for-ruralcareer-and-technical-educators-in-wyoming/2024/04/15/

Fowles, J., Butler, J. S., Cowen, J. M., Streams, M. E., & Toma, E. F. (2014). Public employee quality in a geographic context: A study of rural teachers. American Review of Public Administration, 44(5), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012474714

Gagnon, D. J., & Mattingly, M. J. (2016). Advanced Placement and rural schools: Access, success, and exploring alternatives. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(4), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16656390

Gallagher, S., & Woolard, C. (2022). Professional development outcomes for rural teachers participating in a Research Experience for Teachers program in innovative transportation systems (evaluation). 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://sftp.asee.org/40562.pdf

Gallivan, H. R. (2017). Supporting prospective middle school teachers’ learning to revise a high-level mathematics task to be culturally relevant. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 5(2), 94–121. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.5.2.0094

Garcia, A. (2020). Grow your own teachers: A 50-state scan of policies and programs. New America. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED609132.pdf

Glover, T. A., Nugent, G. C., Chumney, F. L., Ihlo, T. M., Guard, K., & Koziol, N. (2016). Investigating rural teachers’ professional development, instructional knowledge, and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 31(3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1101917.pdf

Goe, L., & Stickler, L. M. (2008). Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of recent research (TQ Research & Policy Brief). National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520769.pdf

Goodpaster, K. P. S., Adedokun, O. A., & Weaver, G. C. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of rural STEM teaching: Implications for rural teacher retention. The Rural Educator, 33(3), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v33i3.408

Graue, E., Karabon, A., Delaney, K. K., Whyte, K., Kim, J., & Wager, A. (2015). Imagining a future in PreK: How professional identity shapes notions of early mathematics. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 46(1), 37–54. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/110548/aeq12086.pdf?sequence=1

Grimes, L. E., Arrastía-Chisholm, M. A., & Bright, S. B. (2019). How can they know what they don’t know? The beliefs and experiences of rural school counselors about STEM career advising. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 9(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2019.v9n1p74-90

Hammack, R., Gannon, P., Foreman, C., & Meyer, E. (2020). Impacts of professional development focused on teaching engineering applications of mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 120(7), 413–424. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10285118

Hammack, R., Lux, N., Gannon, P., & LaMeres, B. (2021). Using ethnography to enhance elementary teachers’ readiness to teach engineering. Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

Hammack, R., Robinson, J., Boz-Togu, T., Lee, M. J., Summers, R., Iveland, A., Inouye, M., Macias, M., Zaman, M., Galisky, J., & Ringstaff, C. (2024). Board 298: Supporting elementary engineering instruction in rural contexts through online professional learning and modest supports [Conference session]. 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, OR, US. https://peer.asee.org/46874

Hammack, R., Stanton, C. R., & Boyle, J. (2023). “Step Outside”: A portrait of an exemplary rural K–8 science educator. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(3), 544–567. https://scholarworks.montana.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/69125d4c-f310471b-a133-e0b39438ea02/content

Hammer, P. C., Hughes, G., McClure, C. T., Reeves, C. A., & Salgado, D. (2005). Rural teacher recruitment and retention practices: A review of the research literature, national survey of rural superintendents, and case studies of programs in Virginia. Appalachia Educational Laboratory at Edvantia. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED489143.pdf

Hossain, M., & Robinson, M. G. (2012). How to motivate US students to pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers. US-China Education Review, A(4), 442–451. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533548.pdf

Ingersoll, R. M., & Tran, H. (2023). Teacher shortages and turnover in rural schools in the US: An organizational analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(2), 396–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231159922

Inouye, M., Macias, M., Boz, T., Lee, M. J., Hammack, R., Iveland, A., & Johansen, N. (2024). Defining rural: Rural teachers’ perspectives and experiences. Education Sciences, 14, 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060645

Johnson, J., & Howley, C. B. (2015). Contemporary federal education policy and rural schools: A critical policy analysis. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1022112

Kannapel, P. J., & DeYoung, A. J. (1999). The rural school problem in 1999: A review and critique of the literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15(2), 67–79.

Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800

Kier, M. W., & Khalil, D. (2018). Exploring how digital technologies can support coconstruction of equitable curricular resources in STEM. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.408932

Krieg, J. M., Theobald, R., & Goldhaber, D. (2016). A foot in the door: Exploring the role of student teaching assignments in teachers’ initial job placements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(2), 364–388. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716630739

Leech, N. L., Haug, C. A., Rodriguez, E., & Gold, M. (2022). Why teachers remain teaching in rural districts: Listening to the voices from the field. The Rural Educator, 43(3), 1–9. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1340&context=ruraleducator

Lo, A. (2024, March). Lessons learned: Preparing rural teachers to design framework-aligned assessment tasks [Committee presentation]. Meeting 3, K–12 Rural STEM Education and Workforce Development (virtual). https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/42056_03-2024_k-12-stem-education-and-workforce-development-in-rural-areas-committee-meeting-3

Luebeck, J., & Downey, J. (2024). Cultivating rural mathematics teachers through place-attentive preparation. In B. Benken (Ed.), AMTE handbook of mathematics teacher education: Reflection on past, present, future - paving the way for future of mathematics teacher education, Vol. 5.

Lux, N., Hammack, R., Gannon, P., Windchief, S., Taylor, S., Richards, A., & Hacker, D. J. (2024). Culturally responsive energy engineering education: Campus-based research experience for reservation and rural elementary educators. Journal of STEM Outreach, 7(2), n2. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1415459.pdf

Lux, N., Hammack, R., Wiehe, B., & Gannon, P. (2022). Building primary preservice teachers’ identity as engineering educators. Education Sciences, 12(10), 637. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100637

Maina, F., Smit, J., & Serwadda, A. (2021). Professional development for rural STEM teachers on data science and cybersecurity: A university and school districts’ partnership. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 31(1), 30–41. https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.799074990568698

Malkus, N., Hoyer, K. M., & Sparks, D. (2015). Teaching vacancies and difficult-to-staff teaching positions in public schools (NCES No. 2015-065). U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015065.pdf

Marder, M., Brown, R. C., & Plisch, M. (2017). Recruiting teachers in high-needs STEM fields: A survey of current majors and recent STEM graduates. American Physical Society.

McLaughlin, D. S., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2013). Preservice teachers’ uptake and understanding of funds of knowledge in elementary science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9284-1

Mejia, J., Popov, V., Rodriguez, V., Ruiz, D., Myers, P., & Spencer, J. (2019). Connecting to the physical space through funds of knowledge: Lessons learned from a STEM summer enrichment program. 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, FL, US. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-32539

Miller, N. C., Elder, A. D., Seymour, D., Cheatham, D. A., & Brenner, D. (2019). Best practices article: Teacher recruitment for an alternate route program in a rural area—Methods and lessons. Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification, 14(1), n1. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1218143.pdf

Mitchell, R., Wynhoff Olsen, A., Hampton, P., Hicks, J., Long, D., & Olsen, K. (2019). Rural exposures: An examination of three initiatives to introduce and immerse preservice teachers into rural communities and rural schools in the US and Australia. The Rural Educator, 40(2), 12–22. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1225138.pdf

Moeller, M. R., Moeller, L. L., & Schmidt, D. (2016). Examining the teacher pipeline: Will they stay or will they go? The Rural Educator, 37(1), 25–38. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=ruraleducator

Moffa, E., & McHenry-Sorber, E. (2018). Learning to be rural: Lessons about being rural in teacher education programs. The Rural Educator, 39(1), 26–40. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=ruraleducator

Monk, D. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children, 17(1), 155–174. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795884.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). The status of rural education. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Opper, I. M. (2019). Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student achievement. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4312.html

Oyen, K., & Schweinle, A. (2021). Addressing teacher shortages in rural America: What factors encourage teachers to consider teaching in rural settings? The Rural Educator, 41(3), 12–25. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1303960.pdf

Player, D. (2015). The supply and demand for rural teachers. Rural Opportunities Consortium of Idaho.

Player, D., & Katz, V. (2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 675–698.

Prusaczyk, J., & Baker, P. J. (2011). Improving teacher quality in southern Illinois: Rural Access to Mathematics Professional Development (RAMPD). Planning and Changing, 42, 101–119. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ952395.pdf

Reagan, E. M., Hambacher, E., Schram, T., McCurdy, K., Lord, D., Higginbotham, T., & Fornauf, B. S. (2019). Place matters: Review of the literature on rural teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.005

Rhinesmith, E., Anglum, J. C., Parl, A., & Burrola, A. (2023). Recruiting and retaining teachers in rural schools: A systematic review of the literature. Peabody Journal of Education, 98(4), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2023.2238491

Rooks, D. (2018). The unintended consequences of cohorts: How social relationships can influence the retention of rural teachers recruited by cohort-based alternative pathway programs. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 33(9). https://jrre.psu.edu/sites/default/files/2019-08/33-9.pdf

Rosenberg, L., Christianson, M. D., & Hague Angus, M. (2015). Improvement efforts in rural schools: Experiences of nine schools receiving school improvement grants. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1022109

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211027528

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

Schmitt, J., & deCourcy, K. (2022). The pandemic has exacerbated a long-standing national shortage of teachers. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/shortage-of-teachers/

Schulte, A. K. (2018). Connecting to students through place. The Rural Educator, 39(2), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v39i2.201

Showalter, D., Hartman, S. L., Eppley, K., Johnson, J., & Klein, R. (2023). Why rural matters 2023: Centering equity and opportunity. National Rural Education Association. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1441&context=ruraleducator

Showalter, D., Hartman, S. L., Johnson, J., & Klein, B. (2019). Why rural matters 2018-2019: The time is now. Rural School and Community Trust. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604580.pdf

Showalter, D., Klein, R., Johnson, J., & Hartman, S. (2017). Why rural matters 2015-2016: Understanding the changing landscape. Rural School and Community Trust. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590169.pdf

Shume, T., Bowen, B. D., Altimus, J., & Kallmeyer, A. (2022). Rural secondary STEM teachers’ understanding of the engineering design process: Impacts of participation in a Research Experiences for Teachers program. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 12(2), 89–103. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstreams/4cc29f38-1627-4f51-ad9b-aa1b64b6af88/download

Skyhar, C. L. (2020). Thinking outside the box: Providing effective professional development for rural teachers. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 10(1), 42–72. https://tpre.ecu.edu/index.php/tpre/article/download/42/49

Stoehr, K. J., & Civil, M. (2019). Conversations between preservice teachers and Latina mothers: An avenue to transformative mathematics teaching. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2019.1653300

Thiele, J., & Bogdon, O. (2022). Building a virtual STEM professional learning network for rural teachers. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 12(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2022.v12n2p129-151

Thompson, S. L., Curcio, R., Adgerson, A., Harbour, K. E., D’Amico, L. K., West, H. S., Roy, G. J., Baker, M. A., Guest, J., & Compton-Lilly, C. (2022). Virtual summer institutes as a method of rural science teacher development. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 12(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2022.v12n2p153-178

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. Rural Educator, 41(2), 31–46. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1277657.pdf

Tran, H., & Smith, D. (2019). Insufficient money and inadequate respect: What obstructs the recruitment of college students to teach in hard-to-staff schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(2), 152–166.

Ulferts, J. D. (2016). A brief summary of teacher recruitment and retention in the smallest Illinois rural schools. The Rural Educator, 37(1), 14–24. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1225312.pdf

Vernikoff, L., Schram, T., Reagan, E. M., Horn, C., Goodwin, A. L., & Couse, L. J. (2019). Beyond urban or rural: Field-based experiences for teaching residencies in diverse contexts. In T. E. Hodges, & A. C. Baum (Eds.), Handbook of research on field-based teacher education (pp. 256–279). IGI Global.

Versland, T., Will, K., Lux, N., & Hicks, J. (2020). Envisioning the rural practicum: A means to positively affect recruitment and retention in rural schools. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 10(1), 103–118. https://scholarworks.montana.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/37609a4b-7380-466c-9fad-dcaf688c248f/content

Walker-Gibbs, B., Ludecke, M., & Kline, J. (2015). Pedagogy of the rural: Implications of size on conceptualisations of rural. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 10(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/22040552.2015.1086292

Yoon, S. Y., Mihaley, K., & Moore, A. (2019). A snapshot of educator mobility in Montana: Understanding issues of educator shortages and turnover. Regional Laboratory Northwest. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED598943.pdf