Rural School Leadership for Collaborative Community Development

Rural Educator, The, Spring 2009 by Harmon, Hobarat L, Schafft, Kai

In this article we address the role of rural schools in community development. We first discuss the largely historical linkages between rural schools and the communities they serve, and what this means for both school and community well-being. We then consider the newly revised standards for preparing school administrators, developed by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium, and how these standards may align with community-building efforts. In sum, we argue that enlightened educational leadership that seriously takes into account the 21s' Century needs of students - as well as the communities in which they reside - cannot help but interpret academic and community improvement goals as mutually reinforcing priorities.

Can citizens of rural communities and the school board members they elect expect public schools to serve community development needs consistent with demands of the 21st Century? The answer by most taxpayers who live in rural America would likely be "Yes." After all, the rhetoric by those who are selected to lead the school district and local schools seldom fails to acknowledge the benefits of a good school system in preparing youth for success in a competitive global economy. But in today's environment of high stakes accountability that emphasizes student test scores, district and school leaders may demonstrate little concern for collaborating in local community development efforts. How then can school board and community leaders be expected to determine if future district and school leadership will serve the needs of students and the community well?

In this article we address the role of rural schools in community development. We first discuss the largely historical linkages between rural schools and the communities they serve, and what this means for both school and community well-being. We then consider the newly revised standards for preparing school administrators, developed by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2007), and how these standards may align with communitybuilding efforts. In sum, we argue that enlightened educational leadership that seriously takes into account the 21st Century needs of students - as well as the communities in which they reside - cannot help but interpret academic and community improvement goals as mutually reinforcing priorities.

School-Community Linkage

Advocating revitalization of rural areas by building and sustaining strong community linkages with local public schools is not a new idea. Many rural advocates have promoted the need for schools to "reform" in ways that build on the central role a school must play in the life of its community, as well as the individual student, if the school is to be a viable and highly valued local institution (Beaulieu & Israel, 2005; Beaulieu & Mulkey, 1995; Gibbs, 2005; Harmon, 1999, 2000; Hobbs, 1991; Howley, 1991; Miller, 1991, 1995; Sharratt, McClain, & Zehm, 1993; Schafft, Alter, & Bridger, 2006; Spears, Combs, and Bailey, 1990; Versteeg, 1993).

Numerous authors have reported on the importance of involving parents and/or the community in rural school improvement efforts, particularly in support of student academic achievement (Barley & Beesley, 2007; Batt, 2008; Bauch, 2001; Harmon & Dickens, 2004; Howley, Bickel, & McDonough, 1997; Markell, 2000; Phelps, 2000; Prater, Bermudez, & Owens, 1997; Wettersten et al., 2005). Additionally, researchers have reported district and school leaders may view parent and community interests or values primarily as barriers to improving student academic achievement (e.g., see Corbe�, 2007, and Larson & Howley, 2006). Budge (2006) reported that despite their portrayal of life in the rural area as a privilege, educational leaders viewed place (rurality) as presenting more problems than possibilities in the lives of most students.

Educational leaders may develop personal identities connected to a rural place, come to personally value the quality of rural life-ways, and build individual leadership characteristics consistent with the mentality of a small rural community. Yet, these leaders may still struggle with the tension between decisions of professional practice that prepare students for a prosperous future and decisions that address the community's need for the school to increase the viability of the rural place. Challenges from poverty and the continual loss of employment opportunities that pay a living wage may magnify this tension in many rural communities. Consequently, Budge (2006) maintained that a "critical leadership of place" may best address the strengths and challenges found in much of rural America:

A critical leadership of place is leadership that specifically aims to improve the quality of life in particular communities. Leaders with a critical leadership of place support community as a context for learning, understand that schools and their local communities are inextricably linked, and that the ability of each to thrive is dependent upon the other. They work to conserve what is beneficial to the well being of students, families, and communities, while actively leading efforts that address the challenges and/or contradictions found in the local context, (p. 8)