Addressing the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Dilemma in Rural Settings: Preparing Teachers for Rural Poverty

Introduction

Consistently, schools in rural settings, which often comprise children and families from poverty, are the hardest environments to recruit and retain high-quality professional educators (Malkus, Hoyer, & Sparks, 2015). This is typically due to geographic isolation, limited resources, and scarce or no teacher preparation with focus on rural settings (REL Central, 2008). Specifically, teacher candidates are less likely to engage in clinical practice in rural environments, given the nature of their university’s proximity to access ample placements with eligible and willing mentor teachers (Paulsen, DaFonte, & Barton-Arwood, 2015).

Teacher candidates in traditional university settings are often placed in nearby schools to fulfill the requirements of clinical practice and to demonstrate application of their learning in real world settings. University cities, however, are often populated with people from multiple backgrounds who have migrated to the area because of the university itself (Tippett, 2014). This type of city prototype is not always indicative of the actual state’s demographic make-up. Even universities located in rural areas can often depict an urban feel. North Carolina, although fast-growing, is considered largely rural. Teachers produced by the state’s universities will more than likely teach in a school system classified as rural. Therefore, it is critical that teacher candidates effectively practice in the settings where they are most likely to teach (McDonald et al., 2014; Ronfeldt, 2012; Torrez & Krebs, 2012). This has implications for education preparation and reform.

The NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel (2011) recommended teacher preparation programs structure curriculum so that courses are centered on clinical practice, setting the stage for teacher education standards today (CAEP, 2015). Quality field experiences in teacher preparation are more meaningful than quantity, providing teacher candidates with greater self-efficacy and readiness to teach (Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012). Multiple experiences to practice teaching increases teacher candidate understanding of instruction (Hoffman, Mosley Wetzel, & DeJulio, 2018). While student teaching is the greatest high-leverage experience for teacher preparation (Ronfeldt, Reininger, & Kwok, 2013; Eller & Poe, 2016), early field experiences also yield greater self-efficacy and satisfaction of teaching (Van Schagen Johnson, LaParo, & Crosby, 2017).

Teacher candidates have long professed that in-classroom experiences are the most valued learning from their university-based teacher training (Ronfeldt, Reininger, & Kwok, 2013). As teacher preparation programs are charged with offering the most content for the least amount of credit hours, the challenge becomes what to keep and where to cut, while maximizing the in-field experiences. It is possible, however, for teacher education to sustain and include high-quality clinical practice at each stage of a teacher candidate’s progression (NCATE, 2010; Van Schagen Johnson et al., 2017).

The authors understand that children who live in poverty are often used to hearing words and phrases that stem from a deficit mindset, rather than hearing words of encouragement and hope (Dweck, 2007; Jensen, 2013). The authors also understand that children who live in poverty often face cyclical and chronic negative consequences (Jensen, 2009). Therefore, the approach to preparing teacher candidates in working with children in poverty is to provide high-quality and enriching experiences that result in affinity toward working in schools where they are needed the most and where the most distressed communities benefit from having the best education.