NCES Blog

In Education Across America, we explore the condition of education across four main geographic locales: cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas. In this blog post, we use select findings from Education Across America to focus on the experiences of elementary and secondary school students in distant and remote rural areas (find the definitions of these locales and sublocales).

This blog post provides a snapshot of these students’ experiences and includes data—which were collected at various points during the 2019–20 school year—on family characteristics, characteristics of student populations, characteristics of schools, school choice, coursetaking, and educational outcomes.

Family Characteristics

The percentage of children ages 5 to 17 who were living in poverty in remote rural areas was higher than the national average. Similarly, a higher percentage of students in remote rural areas lived in homes without internet access compared with all other sublocales.

• In 2019, the percentage of related children¹ ages 5 to 17 who were living in poverty was 21 percent in remote rural areas, which was higher than the national average of 16 percent.
• In 2019, among the 43 states for which data were available, the percentages of children in remote rural areas living in poverty ranged from 6 percent in Vermont to 42 percent in Arizona. The states with the highest percentages of children in poverty in remote rural areas were concentrated in the West (e.g., Arizona, New Mexico) and the South (e.g., South Carolina, Georgia).
• In 2019, the percentage of students who lived in homes without internet access or with access only through dial-up was higher in remote rural areas (11 percent) than in all other sublocales (ranging from 3 percent in large suburban areas to 9 percent in distant rural areas).
• In 2019, the percentage of students who had fixed broadband internet access² was lower in remote rural areas (69 percent) than in in all other sublocales except distant rural areas (ranging from 77 percent in remote towns to 88 percent in large suburban areas).

Explore more data on Children in Rural Areas and Their Family Characteristics and Rural Students’ Access to the Internet.

Characteristics of Student Populations

Public schools in remote and distant rural areas had smaller populations of Black, Hispanic, and English learner students compared with those in other sublocales. However, public schools in remote rural areas had a larger populations of students with disabilities.

• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students who were Black was lower in remote (6 percent) and distant (7 percent) rural areas than in all other sublocales (ranging from 7 percent in fringe towns to 24 percent each in large and midsize cities).³
• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students who were Hispanic was lower in distant and remote rural areas (each 10 percent) than in all other locales (ranging from 19 percent in fringe rural areas to 43 percent in large cities).
• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students identified as English learners (EL) was lower for school districts in distant and remote rural areas (3 and 4 percent, respectively) than for school districts in all other sublocales (ranging from 5 percent in fringe rural areas to 17 percent in large cities).
• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students who were students with disabilities was higher for school districts in remote rural areas (16 percent) than for districts in all other sublocales, which ranged from 13 percent in midsized cities to 15 percent each in fringe and distant rural areas, all three town sublocales, and midsized suburban areas.

Explore more data on Children in Rural Areas and Their Family Characteristics and English Learners and Students with Disabilities in Rural Public Schools.

Characteristics of Schools

When compared with public schools in other sublocales, public schools in distant and remote rural areas had smaller school enrollment sizes and lower ratios of students to staff and teachers—meaning the average staff member or teacher was responsible for fewer students.

• In fall 2019, a lower percentage of public schools were located in remote rural areas than in other types of rural areas. Six percent of all public schools were located in remote rural areas, 10 percent were located in distant rural areas, and 11 percent were located in fringe rural areas. In comparison, 26 percent were located in large suburban areas and 15 percent were located in large cities.

• In fall 2019, average public school enrollment sizes in distant rural areas (285 students) and remote rural areas (165 students) were smaller than those of all other sublocales (ranging from 402 students in schools in remote towns to 671 students in schools in large suburban areas).
• In fall 2019, the average public school pupil/teacher ratios and pupil/staff ratios in distant rural areas and remote rural areas were lower than the ratios in all other sublocales.
  • For example, the average pupil/teacher ratios in distant rural areas (14.0) and remote rural areas (12.5) were lower than the ratios in all other sublocales (ranging from 15.4 to 16.9).

Explore more data on Enrollment and School Choice in Rural Areas and Staff in Rural Public Elementary and Secondary School Systems

School Choice

Enrollment in both charter schools and private schools was lower in remote rural areas than in larger towns and cities, reflecting limited access to alternative educational institutions in remote rural areas.

• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students enrolled in charter schools was lower in remote rural areas (2 percent) than in all other sublocales, which ranged from 2 percent each in distant towns and distant rural areas to 17 percent in large cities.⁴
• In fall 2019, the percentage of students enrolled in private schools was lower in remote rural areas (3 percent) than in the other sublocales, which ranged from 5 percent in distant rural areas and fringe towns to 14 percent in large cities.

Explore more data on Enrollment and School Choice in Rural Areas.

High School Coursetaking

Compared with those from cities, a lower percentage of public and private high school graduates from remote rural areas had taken advanced math but a higher percentage had taken career and technical education (CTE) courses.

• In 2019, the percentage of graduates in remote rural areas who had earned any advanced mathematics credits was lower than the percentage in large cities (85 vs. 93 percent).
• In 2019, the percentage of graduates who had completed any CTE course was higher in remote rural areas (97 percent) than in most other sublocales (ranging from 75 percent in large cities to 92 percent in fringe towns).⁵
• In 2019, a higher percentage of graduates in remote rural areas than in most other sublocales had taken courses in the following six CTE subject areas: agriculture, food, and natural resources; architecture and construction; human services; information technology; manufacturing; and transportation, distribution, and logistics.
  • For example, 47 percent of graduates in remote rural areas had taken a course in agriculture, food, and natural resources, while this percentage ranged from 3 percent for graduates in large cities to 24 percent in distant towns.
• Conversely, the percentage of graduates who had taken a course in engineering and technology was lower for those in remote rural areas (5 percent) than for those in most other sublocales (ranging from 12 to 16 percent).

Explore more data on College Preparatory Coursework in Rural High Schools and Career and Technical Education Programs in Rural High Schools.

Educational Outcomes

Public high school graduation rates were higher in remote rural areas than in cities. Despite this relatively high graduation rate, the percentage of adults age 25 and over with at least a bachelor's degree in remote rural areas was lower than in all other sublocales.  

• In 2019–20, the adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) in remote rural areas (88 percent) was higher than the ACGRs in cities (ranging from 79 percent in large cities to 86 percent in small cities) and in remote towns (85 percent) but lower than the ACGRs in large and midsized suburban areas (89 percent each) and in fringe and distant rural areas (91 and 90 percent, respectively).
• In 2019, the percentage of adults age 25 and over who had not completed high school in remote rural areas (13 percent) was higher than the percentages in 8 of the 11 other sublocales, not including large cities, distant towns, and remote towns.
• In 2019, the percentage of adults age 25 and over who had earned a bachelor’s or higher degree in remote rural areas (19 percent) was lower than the percentages in all other sublocales, which were as high as 38 percent in large cities and large suburban areas.

Explore more data on Public High School Graduation Rates in Rural Areas and Educational Attainment in Rural Areas.

Check out the Education Across America hub and the indicators linked throughout this blog post to learn more about how the landscape of education varies by locale/sublocale. Be sure to follow NCES on X, Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube and subscribe to the NCES NewsFlash to stay informed when new locale-focused resources are released.

Understanding the racial/ethnic equity of educational experiences is a vital objective. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) High School Transcript Study (HSTS) collects and analyzes transcripts from a nationally representative sample of America’s public and private high school graduates, including information about the coursetaking of students by race/ethnicity.

In 2019, NCES collected and coded high school transcript data from graduates who participated in the grade 12 NAEP assessments. The participants included American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students as well as students from other racial/ethnic groups. The main HSTS 2019 results do not include AI/AN findings because the sample sizes for AI/AN students in earlier collection periods were too small to report NAEP performance linked to coursetaking measures. Therefore, this blog post serves to highlight available AI/AN data. Find more information about NAEP's race/ethnicity categories and trends.
 

About HSTS 2019

The 2019 collection is the eighth wave of the study, which was last conducted in 2009 and first conducted in 1987. Data from 1990, 2000, 2009, and 2019—representing approximately decade-long spans—are discussed here. Data from HSTS cover prepandemic school years.
 

How many credits did AI/AN graduates earn?

For all racial/ethnic groups, the average number of Carnegie credits AI/AN graduates earned in 2019 was higher than in 2009 and earlier decades (figure 1). AI/AN graduates earned 27.4 credits on average in 2019, an increase from 23.0 credits in 1990. However, AI/AN graduates earned fewer overall credits in 2019 than did Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, and White graduates, a pattern consistent with prior decades.

Figure 1. Average total Carnegie credits earned by high school graduates, by student race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990 through 2019 

[click to enlarge image]

* Significantly different (p < .05) from American Indian/Alaska Native group in the given year.                                                              
+ Significantly different (p < .05) from 2019 within racial/ethnic group.                                                   
NOTE: Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian.                                                               
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) High School Transcript Study, various years, 1990 to 2019.

In 2019, the smaller number of total credits earned by AI/AN graduates—compared with graduates in other racial/ethnic groups—was driven by the smaller number of academic credits earned. On average, AI/AN graduates earned about 1 to 3 academic credits less (19.3 credits) than graduates in other racial/ethnic groups (e.g., 22.2 for Asian/Pacific Islander graduates and 20.6 for Hispanic graduates) (figure 2). In contrast, AI/AN graduates earned more or a similar number of credits in career and technical education (CTE) (3.6 credits) and other courses (4.5 credits) compared with graduates in other racial/ethnic groups.

Figure 2. Average Carnegie credits earned by high school graduates in academic, career and technical education (CTE), and other courses, by student race/ethnicity: 2019

[click to enlarge image]

* Significantly different (p < .05) from American Indian/Alaska Native group.                                                                            
NOTE: Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian.                                                                                                                                                            
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) High School Transcript Study, 2019.            

What was the grade point average (GPA) of AI/AN graduates?

As with credits earned, GPA has been generally trending upward since 1990. AI/AN graduates had an average GPA of 2.54 in 1990 and an average GPA of 3.02 in 2019 (figure 3). Unlike with credits earned, however, the average GPA for AI/AN graduates was between the GPA of graduates in other racial/ethnic groups in 2019: it was lower than the GPAs for Asian/Pacific Islander and White graduates and higher than the GPAs for Black and Hispanic graduates.

Figure 3. Average overall grade point average (GPA) earned by high school graduates, by student race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990 through 2019

[click to enlarge image]

* Significantly different (p < .05) from American Indian/Alaska Native group in the given year.                                            
+ Significantly different (p < .05) from 2019 within racial/ethnic group.                                                                                       
NOTE: Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian.                                                                                                                                                            
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) High School Transcript Study, various years, 1990 to 2019.

What curriculum level did AI/AN graduates reach?

HSTS uses curriculum levels to measure the rigor of high school graduates’ coursework as a potential indicator of college preparedness. There are three curriculum levels: standard, midlevel, and rigorous. Students who did not meet the requirements for a standard curriculum are considered to have a “below standard” curriculum.

Reflecting the smaller numbers of academic credits earned by AI/AN graduates, as described above, a lower percentage of AI/AN graduates reached the rigorous level (the highest level): only 5 percent of AI/AN graduates had completed a rigorous curriculum in 2019, compared with 10 percent of Hispanic, 13 percent of White, and 28 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander graduates (table 1). Similarly, a lower percentage of AI/AN graduates completed a midlevel curriculum than did White, Black, or Hispanic graduates. At the standard and below-standard levels, therefore, AI/AN graduates were overrepresented relative to most other groups.

Table 1. Percentage distribution of high school graduates across earned curriculum levels, by student race/ethnicity: 2019

* Significantly different (p < .05) from American Indian/Alaska Native group.
NOTE: Details may not sum to total due to rounding. A graduate who achieves the standard curriculum earned at least four Carnegie credits of English and three Carnegie credits each of social studies, mathematics, and science. A graduate who achieves a midlevel curriculum earned at least four Carnegie credits in English, three Carnegie credits in mathematics (including credits in algebra and geometry), three Carnegie credits in science (including credits in two among the subjects of biology, chemistry, and physics), three Carnegie credits in social studies, and one Carnegie credit in world languages. A graduate who achieves a rigorous curriculum earned at least four Carnegie credits in English, four Carnegie credits in mathematics (including credits in precalculus or calculus), three Carnegie credits in science (including credits in all three subjects of biology, chemistry, and physics), three Carnegie credits in social studies, and three Carnegie credits in world languages. Graduates with curriculum that do not meet the requirements for the standard level are considered as “Below standard.” Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) High School Transcript Study, 2019.

Explore the HSTS 2019 website to learn more about the study, including how courses are classified, grade point average is calculated, and race/ethnicity categories have changed over time. Be sure to follow NCES on X, Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube and subscribe to the NCES News Flash to stay informed about future HSTS data and resources.

By Ben Dalton, RTI International, and Robert Perkins, Westat

NCES is committed to providing reliable and up-to-date national-level estimates of bullying. As such, a new set of web tables focusing on bullying victimization at school was just released.  

These tables use data from the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which collects data on bullying by asking a nationally representative sample of students ages 12–18 who were enrolled in grades 6–12 in public and private schools if they had been bullied at school. This blog post highlights data from these newly released web tables.

Some 19 percent of students reported being bullied during the 2021–22 school year. More specifically, bullying was reported by 17 percent of males and 22 percent of females and by 26 percent of middle school students and 16 percent of high school students. Moreover, among students who reported being bullied, 14 percent of males and 28 percent of females reported being bullied online or by text.

Students were also asked about the recurrence and perpetrators of bullying and about the effects bullying has on them. During the 2021–22 school year, 12 percent of students reported that they were bullied repeatedly or expected the bullying to be repeated and that the bullying was perpetrated by someone who was physically or socially more powerful than them and who was not a sibling or dating partner. When these students were asked about the effects this bullying had on them,

• 38 percent reported negative feelings about themselves;
• 27 percent reported negative effects on their schoolwork;
• 24 percent reported negative effects on their relationships with family and friends; and
• 19 percent reported negative effects on their physical health.

Explore the web tables for more data on how bullying victimization varies by student characteristics (e.g., sex, race/ethnicity, grade, household income) and school characteristics (e.g., region, locale, enrollment size, poverty level) and how rates of bullying victimization vary by crime-related variables such as the presence of gangs, guns, drugs, alcohol, and hate-related graffiti at school; selected school security measures; student criminal victimization; personal fear of attack or harm; avoidance behaviors; fighting; and the carrying of weapons.

Find additional information on this topic in the Condition of Education indicator Bullying at School and Electronic Bullying. Plus, explore more School Crime and Safety data and browse the Report on Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2022.

There are many factors that can affect students’ decisions to apply to college, such as income, school engagement, and coursework.¹ Similarly, previous research has reported that students whose parents did not hold a college degree (i.e., first-generation college students) enrolled in college at a lower rate than did peers whose parents held a college degree.² However, high school counselors may help students choose colleges and apply to them, meaning that students who meet with a counselor about college could be more likely to attend college.³ Counselors may help potential first-generation college students plan for college by providing information that continuing-generation students already have access to via their parents who had attained college degrees themselves. Despite the potential benefits of meeting with a counselor, a school's counselor caseloads may affect its students' counseling opportunities.⁴

What percentage of high school students met with a counselor about college? How did this percentage vary by parental education and counselor caseload?

Around 47 percent of 2009 ninth-graders were potential first-generation college students whose parents did not hold a college degree (table U1). These students met with a counselor at a lower rate than did students whose parents held a college degree. Figure 1 shows that 72 percent of students whose parents did not hold a college degree met with a counselor, compared with 76 and 82 percent of students whose parents held an associate’s degree and a bachelor’s degree or higher, respectively.

In NCES’s recently released Strategic Plan, Goal 3 identifies our commitment to foster and leverage beneficial partnerships. To fulfill that goal, NCES participates in multiple conferences and meetings throughout the year. Recently, NCES participated in the National Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Week Conference. NCES’s presentation at this conference helps us to establish a dialogue with HBCUs and develop partnerships to address critical issues in education.

NCES Commissioner Peggy G. Carr kicked off the presentation with an overview of HBCU data—such as student characteristics, enrollment, and financial aid. Then, NCES experts explored how data from various NCES surveys can help researchers, educators, and policymakers better understand the condition and progress of HBCUs. Read on to learn about these surveys.

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)

Data from IPEDS can be explored using various data tools—such as Data Explorer, Trend Generator, and College Navigator—that cater to users with varying levels of data knowledge and varying data needs.

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is a nationally representative study that examines the characteristics of students in postsecondary institutions—including HBCUs—with a special focus on how they finance their education. NPSAS collects data on the percentage of HBCU students receiving financial aid and the average amounts received from various sources (i.e., federal, state, and institution) by gender and race/ethnicity.

Conducted every 3 or 4 years, this study combines data from student surveys, student-level school records, and other administrative sources and is designed to describe the federal government’s investment in financing students’ postsecondary education.

Data from NPSAS can be explored using DataLab and PowerStats.

National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS)

The National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) is the U.S. Department of Education’s primary source of information on K–12 public and private schools from the perspectives of teachers and administrators. NTPS consists of coordinated surveys of schools, principals, and teachers and includes follow-up surveys to study principal and teacher attrition.

Among many other topics, NTPS collects data on the race/ethnicity of teachers and principals. These data—which show that Black teachers and principals make up a relatively small portion of the K–12 workforce—can be used to explore the demographics and experiences of teachers and principals. NTPS provides postsecondary institutions, like HBCUs, a snapshot of the preK–12 experiences of students and staff.

Data from NTPS can be explored using DataLab and PowerStats.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—also known as the Nation’s Report Card—is the the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what students in public and private schools in the United States know and are able to do in various subjects.

Main NAEP assesses students in grades 4, 8, and 12 in subjects like reading, mathematics, science, and civics, while NAEP Long-Term Trend assesses 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds in reading and mathematics.

Among many other topics, NAEP collects data on students by race/ethnicity. These data can help to shed light on students’ experiences, academic performance, and level of preparedness before they enroll in HBCUs.

Data from NAEP can be explored using the NAEP Data Explorer.

To explore more HBCU data from these and other NCES surveys—including enrollment trends from 1976 to 2021—check out this annually updated Fast Fact. Be sure to follow NCES on X, Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube and subscribe to the NCES News Flash to stay up to date on the latest from NCES.

By Megan Barnett, AIR