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.

June is LGBTQ+ Pride Month, and NCES is proud to share some of the work we have undertaken to collect data on the characteristics and well-being of sexual and gender minority (SGM) people. Inclusion of questions about sexual orientation and gender identity on federal surveys allows for a better understanding of SGM people relative to the general population. These questions generate data to inform the development of resources and interventions to better serve the SGM community. Giving respondents the opportunity to describe themselves and bring their “whole self” to a questionnaire also helps them to be more fully seen and heard by researchers and policymakers.

Sometimes, we get asked why questions like this appear on education surveys. They can be sensitive questions for some people, after all. We ask these questions so we can better understand educational equity and outcomes for SGM people, just as we do for other demographic groups, such as those defined by race, ethnicity, household income, and region of the country. Just as is the case for other demographic groups, it is possible that SGM people have unique experiences compared with students and educators from other demographic groups.

Over the past 10 years, NCES has researched how to best ask respondents about their sexual orientation and gender identity, how respondents react to these questions, and what the quality of the data is that NCES has collected in questionnaires and datasets that include sexual orientation and gender identity information.

Several NCES studies include background questions for adults about their sexual orientation and gender identity, including the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) Second Follow-up in 2016, the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B) 08/18 and 16/21 collections, the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) in 2020, the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) 20/22 and 20/25 collections, and the 2023–24 National Teacher and Principal Survey. In addition, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and sponsored by NCES, asks students several questions pertinent to SGM experiences. For example, the SCS asks students whether they were bullied due to their gender or sexual orientation and whether they experienced hate speech related to their gender or sexual orientation. As participants in the NCVS, students ages 16 and older who respond to the SCS also report their gender identity and sexual orientation. Collectively, these data allow NCES to describe the experiences of students who identify as sexual and gender minorities.

• As of 2021, 2009 ninth-graders who were bisexual and questioning left postsecondary education without degrees or credentials at higher rates than other groups of students who were in ninth grade in 2009, and they earned bachelor’s or higher degrees at lower rates than other students.¹
   
• In 2020, some 9 percent of students who identified as genderqueer, gender nonconforming, or a different identity had difficulty finding safe and stable housing, which is the three times the rate of students who identified as male or female (3 percent each).²
   
• In 2018, about 10 years after completing a 2007–08 bachelor’s degree, graduates who were gender minorities³ described their financial situations. Graduates who were gender minorities were less likely to own a home (31 percent) or hold a retirement account (74 percent) than graduates who were not gender minorities (63 percent and 87 percent, respectively).⁴
   
• Among 2008 bachelor’s degree graduates with a full-time job in 2018, those who were straight people reported higher average salaries than those who were either lesbian/gay or bisexual.    
   
• In the 2017–18 school year, 18 percent of public schools had a recognized student group that promoted the acceptance of students’ sexual orientation and gender identity, such as a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA). This was an increase from the 2015–16 school year, in which 12 percent of schools reported having a GSA.^5|
   
• Among all students ages 12–18 in grades 6–12 who reported being bullied (19 percent), the percentage who reported being bullied due to their sexual orientation more than doubled from 2017 (4 percent) to 2022 (9 percent).⁶ That change was primarily driven by female students, for whom the percentage tripled from 2017 to 2022 (from 4 to 13 percent), while the percentage of bullied males who reported being bullied for their sexual orientation was not statistically significantly different across the period (3 percent in 2017 and 4 percent in 2022).

Figure 1. Among students ages 12–18 enrolled in grades 6–12 who reported being bullied, percentage who reported that they thought the bullying was related to their sexual orientation: 2017, 2019, and 2022

! Standard error for this estimate is 30 to 50 percent of the estimate’s value.

* Statistically significantly different (p < .05) from 2022. 

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.