Rural Utah districts had smaller average class sizes and student-to-teacher ratios, but far fewer unique advanced courses per secondary school, than non-rural districts from 2012 to 2017¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In elementary and secondary schools, rural districts had smaller average class sizes compared to non-rural districts. → Rice 2018 q2 i? Each year, the average number of unique advanced courses offered in non-rural secondary schools offering any was greater than in rural ones (4.4 vs. 16.2 in 2015). → Rice 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Rice 2018¶

Rice, J., Huang, M., & Derby, K. (2018). Characteristics of rural and non-rural districts in Utah from 2012 to 2017. San Francisco, CA: REL West @ WestEd. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/west

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive analysis of USBE data (table 2) for 18 rural and 23 non-rural districts. For example, average median elementary class size was 20.5 in rural versus 24.4 in non-rural districts in 2012; the report states "rural districts had smaller average class sizes compared to non-rural districts."

"In elementary and secondary schools, rural districts had smaller average class sizes compared to non-rural districts (table 2)."

Rice 2018 (2)¶

Rice, J., Huang, M., & Derby, K. (2018). Characteristics of rural and non-rural districts in Utah from 2012 to 2017. San Francisco, CA: REL West @ WestEd. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/west

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive analysis of advanced course offerings (Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, concurrent/dual enrollment) from USBE data. In 2015 rural schools offering any advanced courses averaged 4.4 unique courses versus 16.2 in non-rural districts.

"For example, in 2015 ( the most recent year that data were available), across rural districts there was an average of 4.4 unique advanced courses available at each secondary school that offered any advanced courses. In contrast, in the same year, across non-rural districts there was an average of 16.2 unique advanced courses available at each secondary school that offered any such courses."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• From 2012 to 2017, average inflation-adjusted per-pupil revenue and expenditure were greater in rural Utah districts than in non-rural districts — related
• Rural Utah districts had a higher proportion of economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities, while non-rural districts had a higher proportion of English learners, from 2012 to 2017 — related
• Early implementer districts were smaller, less urban, and had fewer students per teacher in required content areas than non-early implementers — related
• A smaller percentage of classes in rural Utah districts were taught by highly qualified teachers than in non-rural districts, and rural teacher transfer-out rates were lower, from 2012 to 2017 — related
• From 2012 to 2017, non-rural Utah districts had higher proficiency in English language arts and science and more graduates scoring 18+ on the ACT, while rural districts had higher four-year graduation rates — related
• In 2017, the cost-of-living-adjusted starting teacher salary was higher in rural Utah districts, but the average scheduled teacher salary was lower in rural than non-rural districts — related
• Rural Nebraska districts' middle school CTE offerings are limited by teacher availability, with one CTE teacher often covering both middle grade and high school courses — related