A Systems Approach to Self-Efficacy and Achievement in Rural Schools

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to review the unique qualities of rural communities and define the problems facing their students, such as poverty, achievement, and poor self-efficacy. A number of promising systemic interventions are summarized and reviewed. The role of the school psychologist as facilitator of these interventions is discussed. When developing strategies for addressing school problems, it is necessary to consider the type of population one is serving. Often the community values and needs are perceived to differ rural settings as compared to urban areas. But exactly what is a rural community? Do rural communities differ from urban areas their problems and needs? If so, what ways? And how may these needs best be addressed? The purpose of this article is to describe unique characteristics of rural schools, to discuss the role of school psychology services rural schools, and to discuss several systems level strategies developed to address problems rural areas. Further, implications for research and practice will be suggested. Communities But first, what is a rural community? A number of definitions have been proposed. One of the early definitions was presented by Helge (1981): A district is considered rural when the number of inhabitants is fewer than 150 per square mile or when located counties with 60% or more of the population living communities no larger than 5,000 inhabitants. Districts with more than 10,000 students and those within a standard metropolitan statistical area, as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau, are not considered rural (Helge, 1985a, p.3). A less precise, but perhaps more easily understood, definition was presented by Jacob-Timm (1995), which rural schools are described as existing in communities outside of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, distant/remote from a large city, and counties where the population density is low (p. 301). For the purposes of this article, this more general definition will be used. In reality, rural communities vary widely composition and reflect the diversity of our American culture (Hobbs, 1983), and any attempt to fit a particular community into a may be as likely to fail as not. Communities may vary on such variables as racial composition, religion, socioeconomic status (SES), and sources of livelihood, to name a few. For example, one community may have a balanced racial mixture with employment provided almost entirely by factories, while a nearby community of similar size may harbor a regional university along with its well-educated professors, have high unemployment among the local people, and little racial diversity. It is important, then, to meet the specific needs of a community rather than any particular typology which may or may not be an accurate reflection of that community. This was emphasized by Benson and Petty (1990), who stated that, Rural school initiatives must be diverse and must reflect the different values and socioeconomic characteristics of the rural community served (p. 640). What, then, do rural communities have common, other than simply being less densely populated? And how do they differ from urban communities? There are numerous popular conceptions about rural communities, some of which have validity, others do not. communities are reputed to have a lower crime rate, and have long been attractive to people seeking to raise their families a safe environment. Gangs and drugs are almost unheard of rural areas, according to popular notions. In the rural school setting, high staff turnover, lack of specialized services the school and community, the geography of the area, heavy caseload for school psychologists, and salaries have all been described (Helge, 1981, 1985). What is the reality? Indeed, rural communities do have a lower crime rate than urban communities. …