achievers, stayers, seekers and others: brain drain and the potential for rural return among rural...

Achievers, Stayers, Seekers and Others: Brain Drain and the Potential for Rural Return

Among Rural High School Students

Kai [email protected]

Department of Education Policy StudiesPenn State University

Robert PetrinDepartment of Statistics

Penn State University

Thomas FarmerDepartment of Educational and School Psychology and Special Education

Penn State University

A paper presented at the 73rd Annual Rural Sociological Society MeetingsBoise, Idaho

July 28-31, 2011

mailto:[email protected]

Young People

Rural America’s most valuable export?

Do rural schools inadvertently undermine rural community well being and sustainability by grooming the “best and brightest” students to leave the home community?

Carr & Kefalas’ Ethnographic Categories of Rural Youth and Mobility Trajectories

• ACHIEVERS – high achieving students from professional class backgrounds who are college bound and rarely return;

• SEEKERS – Like “Achievers” but without the financial and family resources. Determined to leave home, but may “boomerang” back if new life fails to take hold;

• STAYERS – Low achieving students from working class backgrounds who typically stay in the home community.

Carr & Kefalas’ Ethnographic Categories of Rural Youth and Mobility Trajectories

• ACHIEVERS – high achieving students from professional class backgrounds who are college bound and rarely return;

• SEEKERS – Like “Achievers” but without the financial and family resources. Determined to leave home, but may “boomerang” back if new life fails to take hold;

• STAYERS – Low achieving students from working class backgrounds who typically stay in the home community.

Ultimately may become RETURNERS

RHSA Study – Qualitative Data Suggest Slightly Different Conclusions

• Varying ambivalence about leaving home amongst all groups of students;

• Varying types of mobility aspirations across different types of communities (local economic conditions, employment options);

• Aspirations for and precedents of outmigration and rural return common, even amongst “Achievers.”

Data and Methods: Quantitative

• Survey of 9-12th graders in 73 rural schools;• 8.2% classified as small town;• 78.1% classified as rural, outside MSA;• 13.7% classified as rural inside MSA;• 36 schools with >50% low income students

(FRPL);• 15 schools with >50% self identifying as ethnic

minority.

Data and Methods: Qualitative

• Focus groups in 12 school survey sites, chosen to achieve regional variation;

• In each site focus groups with High School Students, Educators and Community Leaders

In all…

• What is the local community like as a place to live and grow up in?;

• What is the relationship between the school and the community?;

• What post-secondary residential, educational and career aspirations do High School Students have and what factors appear to influence how rural youth make plans for their futures?

Quantitative Analyses

Can Carr & Kefalas’ (2009) rural youth categories be replicated

using Latent Class Analysis?


Gendered Differences (Table 1):

Females:

↑ Grades↑ School Valuing↑ Extracurricular Participation↑ Contact with Adults↑ Perceived Interest by Teachers

Quantitative AnalysesLatent Class Solutions,

Males and Females(Tables 2&3):

• Latent class probabilities substantively similar across gender, roughly corresponding to “Achievers,” “Seekers” and “Stayers”;

• “Achievers” and “Stayers” differ qualitatively across gender, consistent with data in Table 1.


Predictors of Student Latent Types, (Table 4)

LATENT TYPE (LATENT CLASS)Achievers Seekers Stayers

H M L

MALES ONLY Minority Student -0.458 0.138 R/C

Long Lived in Community (> 8-10 Yrs vs. Other) 0.465 ** 0.178 R/CFarm Residence (Y vs. N) 0.269 0.134 R/C

High Parent Education (B.A. or B.S. vs. Other) 1.015 *** 0.409 * R/CRural Remote (vs. Other) 0.261 0.188 R/CGrade 12 (vs. Grades 11, 10, 9) 0.680 ** 0.622 * R/CSchool Poverty Level (% Free Lunch) -0.268 -0.059 R/CLn of school enrollment -0.190 -0.003 R/C

LATENT TYPE (LATENT CLASS)Achievers Seekers Stayers

H M L

FEMALES ONLY Minority Student -0.634 ** 0.276 R/C

Long Lived in Community (> 8-10 Yrs vs. Other) 0.726 ** 0.308 R/CFarm Residence (Y vs. N) 0.414 0.074 R/C

High Parent Education (B.A. or B.S. vs. Other) 1.011 *** 0.162 R/CRural Remote (vs. Other) 0.165 0.214 R/CGrade 12 (vs. Grades 11, 10, 9) 1.087 *** 0.731 *** R/CSchool Poverty Level (% Free Lunch) -0.442 1.628 R/CLn of school enrollment -0.334 * 0.051 R/C


Association Between Student Mobility Plans and Latent Types,

(Tables 5 & 6)

In thinking about your future, how important is each of the following to you?

VALID PERCENT (Somewhat to Very

Important)

Living close to my community where I grew up.

41.6

Going away to a larger city or environment but returning later to a smaller community to raise a family

51.2

Where do you WANT to live when you are 30 years old?

VALID PERCENTSame area or town as now 14.8Another rural area or town in my state 6.3Smaller city in my state 6.1Large city in my state 7.9Small city in another state 6.7Large city in another state 17.0Rural area in another state 3.2Another country 3.8Don’t know 34.2

MALES Live Close to Community Where Grew Up

Student Covariates Minority 0.058 Lived in Community > 8-10 Yrs (vs. Other) 0.302 * Farm Residence (Y vs. N) 0.671 *** Number of Siblings -0.058 * High Parent Education B.A.+ or B.S.+ (vs. Other) 0.139 Student in Grade 12 (vs. Other) 0.020 Many Must Move to Get Jobs -0.026 Very Imp. To Get Away from Area -0.513 ***

School/Community Covariates Rural Remote Locale (vs. Other) -0.077 School Size (Ln Enrollment) 0.078 School Poverty Level (% Free Lunch) 0.650

Logistic Regression Intercepts, by Latent Type 1: Achievers 2.528 ** 2: Seekers 1.931 ** 3: Stayers 1.665

Statistically different intercepts (Classes found to differ from one another via pairwise tests)

(1 2) (1 3)

N 2,844

MALES Important to Go Away & Return Later to Small Town

Student Covariates Minority 0.370 *** Lived in Community > 8-10 Yrs (vs. Other) 0.074 Farm Residence (Y vs. N) -0.275 ** Number of Siblings 0.021 High Parent Education B.A.+ or B.S.+ (vs. Other) 0.148 * Student in Grade 12 (vs. Other) -0.120 Many Must Move to Get Jobs 0.274 ** Very Imp. To Get Away from Area 0.291 **

School/Community Covariates Rural Remote Locale (vs. Other) 0.192 School Size (Ln Enrollment) -0.106 School Poverty Level (% Free Lunch) -0.785 *

Logistic Regression Intercepts, by Latent Type 1: Achievers 0.696 2: Seekers 0.654 3: Stayers 1.190 *


(1 3) (2 3)

N 2,862

MALES (indicating Res. Pref.) Want to live in Same TownStudent Covariates

Minority -0.258 Lived in Community > 8-10 Yrs (vs. Other) 0.667 *** Farm Residence (Y vs. N) 1.047 *** Number of Siblings -0.033 High Parent Education B.A.+ or B.S.+ (vs. Other) -0.117 Student in Grade 12 (vs. Other) -0.012 Many Must Move to Get Jobs -0.498 *** Very Imp. To Get Away from Area -2.115 ***

School/Community Covariates Rural Remote Locale (vs. Other) 0.001 School Size (Ln Enrollment) 0.276 School Poverty Level (% Free Lunch) 1.263

Logistic Regression Intercepts, by Latent Type 1: Achievers 3.792 *** 2: Seekers 3.195 *** 3: Stayers 2.584 **


(1 2) (1 3)(2 3)

N 2,837

MALES (indicating Res. Pref.) Want to live in a Rural AreaStudent Covariates

Minority -0.381 * Lived in Community > 8-10 Yrs (vs. Other) 0.510 *** Farm Residence (Y vs. N) .969 *** Number of Siblings -0.037 High Parent Education B.A.+ or B.S.+ (vs. Other) -0.145 Student in Grade 12 (vs. Other) 0.165 Many Must Move to Get Jobs -0.519 *** Very Imp. To Get Away from Area -1.387 ***


Logistic Regression Intercepts, by Latent Type 1: Achievers 1.737 * 2: Seekers 1.211 3: Stayers 0.888


(1 2) (1 3)

N 2,883

FEMALES Live Close to Community Where Grew Up

Student Covariates Minority -0.275 * Lived in Community > 8-10 Yrs (vs. Other) 0.395 *** Farm Residence (Y vs. N) 0.296 * Number of Siblings -0.079 * High Parent Education B.A.+ or B.S.+ (vs. Other) -0.139 Student in Grade 12 (vs. Other) 0.051 Many Must Move to Get Jobs -0.158 Very Imp. To Get Away from Area -0.891 ***


Logistic Regression Intercepts, by Latent Type 1: Achievers 1.078 2: Seekers 0.669 3: Stayers 0.919


N 3,385

FEMALES Important to Go Away & Return Later to Small Town

Student Covariates Minority 0.162 Lived in Community > 8-10 Yrs (vs. Other) 0.092 Farm Residence (Y vs. N) -0.110 Number of Siblings 0.026 High Parent Education B.A.+ or B.S.+ (vs. Other) 0.145 Student in Grade 12 (vs. Other) -0.061 Many Must Move to Get Jobs 0.085 Very Imp. To Get Away from Area 0.081

School/Community Covariates Rural Remote Locale (vs. Other) 0.197 School Size (Ln Enrollment) -0.054 School Poverty Level (% Free Lunch) -0.073

Logistic Regression Intercepts, by Latent Type 1: Achievers 0.874 2: Seekers 1.129 * 3: Stayers 0.704


(1 3) (2 3)

N 3,400

FEMALES (indicating Res. Pref.) Want to live in Same TownStudent Covariates

Minority -0.277 Lived in Community > 8-10 Yrs (vs. Other) 0.498 *** Farm Residence (Y vs. N) 0.504 ** Number of Siblings -0.045 High Parent Education B.A.+ or B.S.+ (vs. Other) 0.033 Student in Grade 12 (vs. Other) 0.017 Many Must Move to Get Jobs -0.621 *** Very Imp. To Get Away from Area -2.716 ***

School/Community Covariates Rural Remote Locale (vs. Other) -0.042 School Size (Ln Enrollment) 0.279 School Poverty Level (% Free Lunch) 1.330 *

Logistic Regression Intercepts, by Latent Type 1: Achievers 3.448 ** 2: Seekers 3.039 ** 3: Stayers 2.952 **

Statistically different intercepts (Classes found to differ from one another via pairwise tests) (1 2)

N 3,400

FEMALES (indicating Res. Pref.) Want to live in a Rural AreaStudent Covariates

Minority -0.475 ** Lived in Community > 8-10 Yrs (vs. Other) 0.434 *** Farm Residence (Y vs. N) .734 *** Number of Siblings -0.031 High Parent Education B.A.+ or B.S.+ (vs. Other) -0.029 Student in Grade 12 (vs. Other) 0.052 Many Must Move to Get Jobs -0.546 *** Very Imp. To Get Away from Area -1.346 ***

School/Community Covariates Rural Remote Locale (vs. Other) -0.273 School Size (Ln Enrollment) 0.043 School Poverty Level (% Free Lunch) 1.306 **

Logistic Regression Intercepts, by Latent Type 1: Achievers 1.277 2: Seekers 1.005 3: Stayers 0.978


N 2,985

FEMALES (indicating Res. Pref.)Important to Go Away and Return Later to Small Town

Student Covariates Minority 0.193 Lived in Community > 8-10 Yrs (vs. Other) 0.108 Farm Residence (Y vs. N) -0.091 Number of Siblings 0.029 High Parent Education B.A.+ or B.S.+ (vs. Other) 0.037 Student in Grade 12 (vs. Other) -0.067 Many Must Move to Get Jobs 0.056 Very Imp. To Get Away from Area 0.045

School/Community Covariates Rural Remote Locale (vs. Other) 0.111 School Size (Ln Enrollment) -0.026 School Poverty Level (% Free Lunch) -0.022

Logistic Regression Intercepts, by Latent Type 1: Achievers 1.039 *

2: Seekers 0.838 3: Stayers 1.200 *


N 2,972

Qualitative Data Suggests Rural Attachment & Norms of Rural Return

Female FG Member 1: I think some of them are ready to spread their wings and get the heck out of here. [GROUP LAUGHTER] They would say. To go to something bigger and better. But a lot of times I think this type of community is somewhat bred into those kids. And I'm just speaking from experience in that you want to sometimes come back to where your roots were and raise your kids how you were raised. So even though they want to get away and go to college or go wherever. I think, long-term, some of those kids usually end up back in this community. Or in another one like it. Like in my case. Female FG Member 2: I was telling [TEACHER] yesterday-I didn't see it myself, my daughter shared it with me, but my middle son-there is a new thing on Facebook, you know "25 random facts about me." [GROUP LAUGHTER]. I don't know if you've heard about this or not. Anyway, one of the facts that my middle son put down was that he was raised on dirt roads and that's where he wants to raise his kids.

Conclusions• We were able to use latent class analyses

attempting to replicate Carr & Kefalas’ student types;

• However, contrary to Carr & Kefalas’ findings, we find that Achievers tend to be least likely to aspire to leave rural areas;

• Some gendered differences;• Qualitative data suggest youth rural attachment

AND examples of rural return, including return of “Achievers”

Conclusions• RHSA data suggests the importance of

understanding the relationship between community context and student aspirations;

• Longitudinal and mixed methods work valuable (e.g. McLaughlin & Snyder’s RYE data; Michael Corbett)

• Implications for rural community development?

Other Collaborators

• Tom Farmer, Penn State University• Judith Meece, University of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill• Soo-yong Byun, University of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill• Bryan Hutchins, University of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill• Matt Irvin, University of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill

This research is supported by a Research and Development Center grant (R305A04056) from the Institute of Education Sciences to the National Research Center on Rural

Education Support at the University of North Carolina-CH. The views expressed in this article are ours and do not represent the granting agency.

achievers, stayers, seekers and others: brain drain and the potential for rural return among rural...

Documents

rural community

rural schools

rural youth categories

groups of students

home community

rural return common

brightest students

local community