7

STEM Education and Workforce Development Infrastructure and Materials

We turn now to a discussion of infrastructure and materials as important factors for driving change in rural science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development. Specifically, we examine material resources, facilities and spaces, and technology. Material resources include lab equipment and other dedicated space and materials for science investigations, purchased curricula for in-school and out-of-school learning, and learning resources (e.g., books, programs, supplies). Facilities and spaces include school STEM learning spaces (e.g., science labs, computer labs); museums; public libraries; parks and recreational spaces; local farms; and businesses and hospitals that may collaborate on experiential learning and workforce training opportunities with rural schools and districts. Technology includes broadband access, classroom and workplace technologies, virtual and remote learning technologies, and digital devices.

Infrastructure, material resources, and technology contribute to the academic and future success of students (Barrett et al., 2019; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018). But access to and quality of these resources vary significantly among rural schools, districts, and communities because of inequitable funding and opportunities (Showalter et al., 2023). We explore rural challenges related to policy, funding, and larger structural challenges (e.g., rural housing crisis, school and hospital consolidations and closures, economic and workforce changes). We then consider rural assets, resources, and opportunities—such as natural resources, tight-knit networks and communities, and community-employer-school partnerships—that can be leveraged and better supported to advance STEM education and

workforce development. We end with promising and emerging strategies for improving infrastructure and access to resources.

INFRASTRUCTURAL AND MATERIALS-BASED CHALLENGES TO STEM EDUCATION IN RURAL SETTINGS

Material Resources

Material resources are often a barrier to offering high-quality STEM learning and workforce development programs in rural areas. High-quality STEM education requires a variety of instructional resources, such as lab equipment,¹ and acquiring and maintaining these materials can create challenges for rural schools. In fact, rural teachers have identified a lack of resources as a major barrier to implementing STEM teaching standards (Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2020). Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs, for instance, often need specialized equipment that can be difficult to find or fund in rural areas and prevent schools from offering the programs (Advance CTE, 2017). Similarly, coding classes require computers and devices for students, and the lack of such equipment compromises rural schools’ ability to offer the classes (Grimes et al., 2019). Rural public libraries also have fewer and older public access computers than urban libraries (Real & Rose, 2019); these computers may be a critical resource for patrons without a home computer or internet access to apply to college, for example, or research industry programs. Rural teachers and afterschool providers may have to use their own resources to equip their programs. Research indicates that, during the pandemic, school librarians who spent their own money on books and supplies worked at rural schools with high rates of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch (Kammer et al., 2022).

Time is another resource that rural students may lack (Grimes et al., 2019). Those who live far from school may spend hours in transit each day. Not only may STEM extracurriculars be difficult for them to travel to, but, with so much time spent on the bus, these students have little free time to devote to the activities.

Another major challenge is limited occupational diversity and relatively few industry partners in rural areas (Grimes et al., 2019; Lakin et al., 2021; Sutton et al., 2016). Rural communities can be economically dependent on a single industry, such as mining, agriculture, or prisons (Eason, 2010; Huling, 2001). Such dependence limits both students’ exposure to the vast array of STEM industries and fields and the number of potential partners to hire interns, train apprentices, offer field trips, or cohost workforce development training.

___________________

¹ https://stemopportunityindex.com/

It also means that rural youth may have little exposure to STEM careers or opportunities for informal mentorship (Rogers & Sun, 2019).

Even spatial inequities that appear unrelated to STEM education and workforce training can impact them. For example, the rural housing crisis, especially a lack of high-quality, affordable rental properties (Housing Assistance Council, 2020), may make it difficult for schools to hire and retain teachers. (Chapter 2 discusses other spatial inequities related to rural communities.)

Education Deserts

Rural communities often lack the institutions—libraries, museums, and afterschool programs—that are important sites of informal STEM learning. Only 12 percent of children’s museums are located in rural areas (Association of Children’s Museums, 2015, quoted in Hartman et al., 2017). And although rural areas are well equipped with public libraries—about one third of all U.S. public libraries are in rural areas—they often provide fewer services than urban libraries, including fewer afterschool opportunities and STEM programming (Real & Rose, 2017). They also have fewer employees and older and smaller facilities than urban libraries, and their isolation can create unique challenges; for example, they are less likely than urban libraries to be part of a multiple-branch system, which can raise costs. A lack of local partners can also limit the STEM workshops and programming that libraries can provide (Davis et al., 2018), and transportation-related barriers can prevent rural residents from accessing library services (Real & Rose, 2017). Rural children also have fewer opportunities to participate in afterschool or summer programming, and when programming is available it can be cost prohibitive for low-income rural families (Afterschool Alliance, 2021).

Many rural communities are education deserts, which obviously shapes access to high-quality STEM education and workforce development. This limited educational access begins at a young age, with large swaths of rural America lacking early childhood education programs (National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, 2023). About 60 percent of rural communities are childcare deserts—that is, areas without an adequate supply of licensed child care (Malik et al., 2018). Given the well-documented academic and employment benefits of early childhood education (Belfield, 2006; Campbell et al., 2002; Phillips et al., 2017), this lack can have profound short- and long-term effects on rural youth. It also matters for STEM education specifically. The incorporation of STEM activities in early childhood education settings can boost STEM skills, foster STEM career aspirations, and support children’s and parents’ positive attitudes toward STEM learning (Wan et al., 2020). Without childcare options, many rural youth and families may miss out on this formative STEM experience.

Researchers have also documented education deserts at the postsecondary level (Hillman, 2016; Hillman & Weichman, 2016; Rosenboom & Blagg, 2018). College deserts are places with no institutions of higher education or where a single community college is the only public option, and they are disproportionately located in rural places. In addition, rural areas have fewer four-year and more two-year colleges (Hillman, 2016). Proximity also matters: the likelihood that a student will apply to college increases with each additional school nearby (Turley, 2009), and more than half of students attend college within 50 miles of their hometown (Hillman et al., 2021). So the lack of nearby postsecondary options limits students’ STEM and career opportunities and pathways. Furthermore, rural institutions of higher education may be underfunded, compromising their capacity for outreach and programming. Tribal colleges and universities, for example, enroll high proportions of students living in poverty, limiting their tuition revenue, and they receive little state support (Nelson & Frye, 2016).

Finally, many rural communities face the closure of their K–12 schools. These closures disproportionately affect poorer rural communities or rural areas with more students of color (Tieken & Auldridge-Reveles, 2019). District officials often make the decision to close schools because of low enrollment or budget shortfalls; policies that incentivize district consolidation are another major cause of school closures (Tieken & Auldridge-Reveles, 2019). Yet district consolidation and school closures may not create the efficiencies hoped for (Cooley & Floyd, 2013; Howley et al., 2011). For example, if teacher salaries differ, the higher pay scale often prevails, and increased capital expenditures can also reduce savings (Duncombe & Yinger, 2001). Consolidation and closure may also fail to improve student performance (Cooley & Floyd, 2013) and have long-term negative impacts on postsecondary attainment and employment (Kim, 2024).

School closure risks limiting educational access. Students whose schools are closed often face longer, more dangerous bus rides (Deeb-Sossa & Moreno, 2016; Spence, 1998), participate in fewer extracurricular activities (Graham et al., 2014; Lipman, 2014), and experience less parent involvement (Deeds & Pattillo, 2015; Lipman, 2014; Spence, 1998)—all of which may affect access to STEM learning. Finally, closure often eliminates an institution important to the community’s economic, social, and political well-being (Tieken, 2014). “It is like having your arm chopped off one inch at a time,” one rural superintendent said (Chance & Cummins, 1998, p. 4). It’s not surprising, then, that policies promoting consolidation and closure erode trust in state government; local residents feel like the state is trying to “get rid of small rural districts” (Tieken, 2014, p. 108), limiting the potential for responsive and effective education and economic policymaking.

Broadband Access

One of the most critical inequities facing rural communities related to STEM education and workforce development is the lack of reliable high-speed internet access, which is essential for effective use of digital tools in education (Center for Public Education, 2023; Federal Communications Commission [FCC], 2024; Stenberg et al., 2009). Though more schools now have strong internet connectivity—in fact, nearly three quarters of all districts now meet or surpass the FCC’s bandwidth recommendation of 1 Mpbs per student (NCES, 2023)—almost 25 percent of schools do not meet that limit, and many students do not have a robust connection at home.

According to the FCC (2024), approximately 19 million people in rural America still lack access to broadband internet. At the FCC’s new benchmark speed of 100/20 Mbps, 72 percent of rural areas and 76 percent of tribal areas have access to fixed broadband (which includes technologies such as T1, cable, DSL, and FiOS and excludes cellular data), compared to 98 percent of urban areas (FCC, 2024, pp. 32–33).² Access is even more limited for rural students living in poverty (NCES, 2023). In addition, while about 63 percent of urban households have at least two provider options at this speed, fewer than 24 percent of rural households and 31 percent of households on tribal land do (FCC, 2024, pp. 37–38). Quoting the Wireless Infrastructure Association, the FCC (2024, p. 7) also notes the challenge of affordability: “For many Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide the biggest barrier is not the availability of service but the lack of resources to connect.” In addition, rural households appear less likely to take advantage of subsidies than urban ones (Galperin, 2022). The spatial gap in access overlaps with a racial gap: rural Black and Latine households are significantly less likely to have access (Center for Public Education, 2023; Wright, 2023). For people without reliable internet access at home, rural public libraries are an important site for access to the internet, but they too are less likely than urban libraries to have high-speed internet connections (Real & Rose, 2017).

These limitations have serious implications for rural STEM learning and workforce development. One of several significant roles for internet technology in rural K–12 schools is the enhancement of educational resources and learning opportunities through digital learning materials, online courses, and virtual classrooms that can supplement traditional resources and practices. For instance, with reliable internet access students

___________________

² With increased attention to broadband access and new federal and state resources, the landscape of broadband access is changing quickly. However, although the gap in rural versus urban access has decreased over time, it persists (Vogels, 2021).

in remote areas can participate in Advanced Placement courses, advanced CTE courses, dual enrollment courses, or specialized programs not available locally, thereby expanding their academic horizons and improving their college readiness (Means et al., 2009). Related, the digital divide can also compromise training for STEM fields that rely on the internet, like coding (Grimes et al., 2019). In addition, teachers without adequate access to the internet are not able to access STEM professional development remotely—or colleagues, pedagogical resources, support services, or opportunities for collaboration with peers in other areas (Harris, 2016).

Even with adequate internet connectivity, rural schools encounter challenges in integrating internet technologies. One problem is inadequate schoolwide infrastructure. Limited budgets often mean that schools cannot afford the necessary hardware, software, and IT support required to implement and maintain modern technological systems. The cost of upgrading infrastructure, purchasing devices, and training staff can be prohibitive, leaving rural schools lagging behind their urban counterparts (Johnson, 2017). Furthermore, there are pedagogical challenges related to the integration of technology. Teachers in rural schools may not be adequately trained or resourced to incorporate digital tools effectively in their instruction. Professional development and support are often scarce, and without proper training, the potential of associated technologies to enhance learning may not be fully realized (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach. Investments in rural broadband infrastructure are necessary but not sufficient to ensure that all students and educators have access to high-speed internet. Without ongoing support to routinely update and upgrade hardware and software, readiness for accessioning technology upgrades, professional development, and the like, rural schools will continue to struggle with resource gaps that interfere with competitive educational outcomes for their students. Policymakers have a role in prioritizing funding and support for rural schools to bridge financial and teacher resource gaps. Professional development programs that address rural contexts are also needed to equip teachers with the skills to integrate technology in their classrooms effectively and promote student success (Best & Cohen, 2014).

Funding

Rural STEM resources, facilities, and other infrastructure are often lacking because of insufficient funding. Rural superintendents cite low funds as one of their biggest challenges (Williams & Nierengarten, 2011; Yettick et al., 2014). Because much of school funding depends on property taxes, areas with low property wealth have trouble raising funds to adequately cover costs (Strange, 2011); many rural communities, especially

those with high rates of poverty and larger Black, Indigenous, and Latine communities, have low property values (Tieken, 2017). In addition, federal Title I policy can disadvantage sparsely populated low-income rural districts. Many rural districts also have unique costs that can raise budgets, such as transportation, and small enrollments can limit economies of scale and inflate per-pupil costs (Sipple & Brent, 2012; Strange, 2003).

State and federal governments try to compensate for these funding inequities; states may offer additional funding for schools with small populations or in isolated areas (Kolbe et al., 2021; Sielke, 2004), and the federal government provides funds to support rural schools through the Rural Education Achievement Program³ (Shavers, 2003). Yet concerns persist that these sources are inadequate for offsetting the higher costs and limited local resources of rural districts (Kim, 2021; Strange, 2011), and inadequate funding may be a major cause of educational inequities, including those related to STEM and workforce development.

INFRASTRUCTURAL AND MATERIALS-BASED ASSETS FOR STEM EDUCATION IN RURAL COMMUNITIES

Though rural communities face serious challenges and inequities in their efforts to provide STEM education, they also enjoy some important assets. Perhaps one of the most meaningful is access to the natural environment (Flora & Flora, 2008; Hellsten et al., 2011; Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2020). Many rural communities have substantial natural resources with diverse plant and animal life in close proximity: forests, mountains, streams, fields, riverbeds, tundra, and lakes. These resources can provide rich opportunities for place-based education across STEM disciplines (Corbett, 2020; Grimes et al., 2019; Harris & Hodges, 2018; Lakin et al., 2021; NSF, 2024; Sobel, 2004), like studying frog life cycles in a local pond, coastal erosion at a local beach, or the impact of an invasive insect species on local crop production.

Natural resources shape the economies of many rural communities, and the associated economic activities can provide opportunities for STEM learning and workforce preparation (Smith & Sobel, 2010). Many rural youth learn STEM trades, like fishing or maple sugaring, by engaging in these practices at home. Because the natural resources that these industries rely on are accessible, and because local economies are so dependent on these trades, rural youth often have ample opportunities to develop these skills at a young age. These activities not only help develop the future workforce but also hone discrete STEM knowledge and skills: by observing

___________________

³ https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/formula-grants/rural-education-achievement-program

local fish counts, youth may learn about the impact of global warming, and by estimating how much syrup a bucket of sap will yield, youth may learn about ratios. This kind of continuous, informal STEM learning is often overlooked in assessments of rural youth achievement.

The rich cultural resources of rural communities can similarly support directed STEM learning (Moll et al., 1992; Topkok & Loon, 2021). Educators can leverage local rural knowledge (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of LRK) and Indigenous knowledge to create learning opportunities that are relevant and culturally sustaining.

Despite the relative lack of partnering institutions, those that are available in rural communities are often very committed to local education. For example, school staff and other educators work with local STEM-based industries to host events like career days or support afterschool programming (Grimes et al., 2019; Lakin et al., 2021). These events may help showcase the variety of paths—requiring college or not—to a STEM career, and they are “important in disputing the myth that STEM careers are far away and require a business suit” (Grimes et al., 2019, p. 81).

Local universities are also important partners (Crumb et al., 2022). They can help support postsecondary aspirations and connect local schools to governmental and private funding sources (Casto et al., 2016). Rural community colleges and tribal colleges are valuable sites for STEM learning and workforce development. They offer critical educational programs and training that build not only the workforce but also infrastructure and trust. In sparsely populated, underresourced rural places, they might be one of few institutions with the facilities and relationships necessary to spark economic development and drive economic activity. The Richmond Federal Reserve Bank, in fact, categorizes rural community colleges as “anchor institutions” (Norris et al., 2023). They may provide services, such as public computer labs and day care, and resources, such as an observatory or a library, that are critical to local STEM education and workforce development. In addition, the long-standing 4-H program⁴ run through cooperative extension programs at over 100 public universities and available in every state, offers STEM and agricultural programming to students, including those in rural areas.

Rural community colleges and tribal colleges can also undertake infrastructure projects, like refurbishing a downtown, or house cultural projects, such as language preservation, that indirectly support a strong rural workforce (Bombardieri & Horwedel, 2022; Katsinas & Hardy, 2012; Norris et al., 2023). Some federal programs are expanding investments in education and workforce development at tribal colleges and universities (Head Start, 2023).

Although rural public libraries may lack the resources, capacity, and connectivity of more urban libraries, they play an outsized educational role

___________________

⁴ https://4-h.org/programs/

in rural communities. They are more likely than urban or town libraries to offer patrons support in accessing online degree coursework, whether for high school, trade school, or certification programs (Real & Rose, 2017). And despite the relative lack of children’s museums, there are other types of museums—in fact, as mentioned in Chapter 3, one in four U.S. museums is located in a rural area—and they serve as “community anchors” for cultural and STEM learning.⁵

In addition, many rural school districts partner to share services through education collaboratives (Brent et al., 2004; Broton et al., 2009). Through these collaboratives—known as education cooperatives, educational service centers, or boards of cooperative educational services—school districts pool resources and share opportunities. For example, students may take specialized STEM courses in other districts, districts may share a STEM coach, or STEM coordinators may share classroom materials or lab equipment between schools across district lines. These collaboratives can be critical in helping districts avoid consolidation and school closure (Howley et al., 2012).

Finally, more generally, rural K–12 schools are integral to the well-being of rural communities (DeYoung, 1995; Schafft, 2016; Tieken, 2014). They may be a community’s largest employer, offering stable, well-paying, middle-class jobs to residents (Tieken, 2014). And they shape the social fabric of rural communities; they are a site for both youth and adults to gather, whether in classrooms or at Friday night basketball games or for community suppers, and, in these spaces, relationships are nurtured and grown. In some places, where schools pull together people across lines of race and class, they can have a significant influence on integration. Schools can help sustain cultural practices, such as maintaining home languages, or traditions, like homecoming events. They are also a source of political power, as schools are governed by a locally elected school board; this power may be especially important for historically marginalized populations. In all these ways, rural schools can have important social, cultural, political, and economic benefits to rural communities, and any reform to rural education must take into account this critical role.

PROMISING AND EMERGING STRATEGIES

This chapter ends with promising and emerging strategies for advancing infrastructure and material resources that could enchange rural STEM education and workforce development. The committee has identified strategies that leverage rural community assets and resources and that address inequitable infrastructure and technology access in rural communities.

___________________

⁵ https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Museum-Facts-2024.pdf

Research-Practice Partnerships for STEM Learning

Research-practice partnerships are “long-term, mutualistic collaborations between practitioners and researchers that are intentionally organized to investigate problems of practice and solutions for improving” learning, outcomes, and processes (Coburn et al., 2013, p. 2). They have been leveraged to specifically improve STEM learning, experiences, and outcomes (Bhaduri et al., 2022; Penuel, 2020) and can expand out-of-school spaces for STEM learning, relationships with local STEM-related businesses, and access to STEM technologies for rural youth (Bhaduri et al., 2022). In one such partnership, STEM Career Connections (STEMCC), researchers, educators (school district and postsecondary education), and STEM-related business leaders and professionals in a rural community collaborated to develop and implement STEM experiences for middle school youth through in- and out-of-school learning spaces, such as afterschool programs and summer camps (Bhaduri et al., 2022). In the out-of-school learning spaces, youth had the opportunity to engage in activities that advanced their knowledge of STEM technology (e.g., “designing, programming, and building sensor-integrated physical computing systems; designing, revising, and creating 3D printed animal prosthetics;” Bhaduri et al., 2022, p. 53). In addition, local STEM-related professionals served as mentors to the youth to support their STEM learning. STEMCC expanded students’ STEM skills, increased their interest in STEM careers, and led to the development of STEM practices and resources that support STEM learning and pathways for rural youth (Bhaduri et al., 2022).

Work-Based Experiences for STEM Learning

Public-private-nonprofit partnerships can be essential for coordinating and collaborating on STEM learning opportunities such as internships and apprenticeships (Mathieson et al., 2023; Ross et al., 2020). One such example is a partnership codesigned by Rural Action and Building Bridges to Careers to offer a high school internship program in Appalachian Ohio (Ricket et al., 2023). Internship host sites include local businesses, nonprofits, community- and public-based organizations, and large employers, many of them in the agriculture, health science, and STEM sectors. Internship participants explore local career opportunities and can envision remaining in their communities. The internship experiences also help students expand their social networks and build soft skills.

STEM Learning in Rural Public Libraries

Rural libraries can be a critical learning space and facility for STEM learning and workforce development (Real & Rose, 2017). The national

STAR Net STEAM Equity Project—an U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded collaborative initiative of the American Library Association, National Center for Interactive Learning at the Space Science Institute, Twin Cities PBS, Institute for Learning Innovation, and Education Development Center—engages staff at 12 rural public libraries in largely Hispanic communities with community partners to collaborate on providing STEAM learning opportunities for rural youth.⁶ The project hosts traveling STEAM exhibitions and the development of a STEAM learning space in each library.

STEM Learning in Outdoor Spaces

Many rural communities have access to natural resources and spaces that can be leveraged to enhance STEM learning (Corbett, 2020; Grimes et al., 2019; Harris & Hodges, 2018; Lakin et al., 2021; NSF, 2024). With NSF funding, the Center for Applied Special Technology (an education research organization), the University of New Hampshire, and outdoor recreational and STEM youth-based organizations in New Hampshire collaborated to investigate how outdoor recreation shapes STEM learning and identity development for rural youth in the state.⁷ The findings indicate that outdoor recreation spaces can facilitate STEM interest and engagement (Bastoni et al., 2024). As described in Chapter 5, STEM learning ecosystems connect schools and community-based organizations to support outdoor STEM learning experiences.

Broadband and Technology Access Initiatives

Rural students, districts, businesses, and communities are often disadvantaged by lack of broadband access (FCC, 2024; Stenberg et al., 2009). Two FCC programs that demonstrated success with broadband and technology access were the Affordable Connectivity Program and Emergency Connectivity Fund; both ended in 2024 because of lack of renewed funding from Congress. The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) ran from December 2021 until June 2024 and provided eligible, low-income consumers “a discount of up to $30 per month toward internet service and up to $75 per month for households on qualifying Tribal Lands.”⁸ In addition, “eligible households could also receive a one-time discount of up to $100 to purchase a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet from participating internet companies if the household contributed more than $10 and less than $50 toward the purchase price.” Over 23 million households participated in ACP, including approximately 3.45 million rural households (FCC, 2024).

___________________

⁶ https://www.ala.org/news/2020/05/ala-announces-steam-funding-and-exhibitions-rural-libraries-serving-latino-populations

⁷ https://www.cast.org/our-work/projects/outdoor-recreation-connecting-rural-youth-stem-careers

⁸ FCC Affordable Connectivity Program has ended for now, https://www.fcc.gov/acp

The Emergency Connectivity Fund was authorized as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and ended in June 2024. It provided “funding to schools and libraries for the reasonable costs of eligible equipment and services that can be provided to students, teachers, and library patrons who lack connected devices” such as laptop or tablet computers, Wi-Fi hotspots, modems, and routers. The initiative “funded nearly 13 million connected devices and more than 8 million broadband connections.”⁹

Although these federal programs have ended, the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program (BEAD), funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2022, is a federal grant program aimed at getting all Americans connected to the internet with 100/20 Mbps by 2026. The 50 states, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and all U.S. territories were eligible to apply for BEAD funding to contract with local internet providers to build infrastructure for places not adequately or affordably connected to the internet. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce provides guidance for states using BEAD dollars through a “cascade of options”.¹⁰ First, states are directed to pursue partnerships with providers offering Fiber to the Home infrastructure. In areas where fiber costs are prohibitive, NTIA suggests other reliable broadband technologies like coaxial cable or licensed fixed wireless. For very remote communities where none of these technologies may be feasible, NTIA advises that states fund providers of alternative technologies such as Unlicensed Fixed Wireless or Low Earth Orbit satellites (at this time Geostationary Orbit satellite is not eligible for BEAD funding).

Additionally, NTIA maintains a list of about 100 federal programs that support high-speed internet connectivity and adoption.¹¹ The programs are located across 13 federal agencies, and while some programs focus only on rural areas, many serve all communities. Because each has “its own application process and reporting requirements, definition of rural and other eligibility requirements, timeframe, and level of funding” (Pipa et al., 2023, p. 11), rural communities with few human resources may not be able to apply.

Separate from how states use federal grant money to support internet connectivity, state-level policies can affect access to and adoption of high-speed connectivity. A study of 2012–2018 data found that restrictions on cooperative and municipal connectivity efforts (i.e., privatization of broadband access) decreased availability but that offices and dedicated funding at the state level can improve it (Whitacre & Gallardo, 2020). More recently, states are administering federal funding to improve access and adoption. While states use a variety of efforts, such as offices or task forces (Read &

___________________

⁹ https://www.fcc.gov/emergency-connectivity-fund-faqs

¹⁰ NTIA.gov

¹¹ https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/resources/federal/federal-funding

Gong, 2022), the NTIA convenes a network of state broadband leaders to discuss best practices and improve coordination across federal agencies, states, and localities.¹²

Many state legislatures enacted policies and leveraged federal funding to expand broadband access and digital device access in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Brixey, 2021). For instance, New Mexico appropriated funds from 2021 to 2026 “for the development of statewide broadband to support education” (Brixey, 2021, para. 8) and passed Connect New Mexico to expand broadband access across the state.¹³ In Idaho the state legislature appropriated over $26 million to support “classroom technology, classroom technology infrastructure, wireless technology infrastructure, and learning management systems that assist teachers and students in effective and efficient instruction or learning” (Brixey, 2021, para. 10). In addition, states and school districts have begun investing in wireless routers and Wi-Fi hotspots on public school buses (Bartlett et al., 2023–2024; NCES, 2018), which supports students in doing and completing academic work (NCES, 2018).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter provides an overview of infrastructure and access to material resources needed in rural areas to support effective learning experiences in STEM. Rural communities often lack easy and affordable access to material goods that affect their schools’ ability to support STEM learning either directly (e.g., with lab equipment) or indirectly (e.g., through available and affordable housing for the STEM teacher workforce to buy or rent). Learning facilities themselves, both formal and informal, can be few and far between in rural America, especially as some rural schools, institutions of higher education, libraries, and museums close, reduce hours and/or services, or are understaffed because of policy and/or budget constraints.

Not only is physical infrastructure for STEM learning in rural areas often out of date or nonexistent, but digital infrastructure as basic as affordable access to broadband is slow to reach rural and remote areas. State and federal money can partially offset budgetary shortfalls contributing to this problem but is often not enough to make necessary improvements to physical or digital infrastructure and materials needed for effective, consistent STEM learning experiences in all rural places across the country.

Even with these infrastructural challenges (and in some cases because of them), rural areas have numerous, rich assets that educators can and do leverage to connect students to authentic STEM learning. Rural schools are often close to natural areas and students come to learning settings with a

___________________

¹² https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/resources/states

¹³ https://connect.nm.gov/

deep understanding of the natural world as a result. Engineering and mathematical reasoning form a foundational part of how many rural students navigate through their daily lives. Educators and students alike draw on local rural knowledge in pursuing STEM learning goals.

Many of the promising strategies to connect rural communities to effective STEM learning opportunities for life, future education, and work leverage assets at the heart of rural communities. State and federally funded programs to address inequities in rural communities should empower local entities to design solutions for their problems by building on resources, assets, and strengths embedded in the diverse, vibrant places they seek to improve.

Conclusion 7-1: Many rural districts and schools lack adequate infrastructure and materials to support high-quality STEM education and workforce development. Specifically, they often have old buildings with outdated systems; lack dedicated space, equipment, and materials for science investigations; lack access to fast and affordable broadband; and have insufficient funding. Strategies for addressing these challenges include

• research-practice partnerships;
• leveraging rural public libraries, government/business facilities, and outdoor spaces;
• online courses and resources; and
• initiatives to expand and enhance broadband access and speed.

Conclusion 7-2: Inequitable access to broadband in rural communities leads to challenges with STEM education and workforce development and digital literacy in preparation for work and life. However, broadband access alone will not solve or fix access to STEM education and workforce development opportunities and resources.

Conclusion 7-3: Recent legislation has led to large investments in broadband connectivity across the United States, and many federal and state agencies are working to improve broadband access and adoption. But it is difficult to determine the extent to which these efforts will address broadband-related challenges for K–12 STEM education in rural areas because

• the efforts are not well coordinated,
• some do not attend to affordability, and
• broadband access alone cannot address lack of or outdated computers, routers, or other hardware.

REFERENCES

Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. (2013). Research-practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. White paper prepared for the William T. Grant Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568396.pdf

Cooley, D. A., & Floyd, K. A. (2013). Small rural school district consolidation in Texas: An analysis of its impact on cost and student achievement. Administrative Issues Journal, 3(1), 45–63. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1056898.pdf

Corbett, M. (2020). Place-based education: A critical appraisal from a rural perspective. In M. Corbett & D. Gereluk (Eds.), Rural teacher education: Connecting land and people (pp. 279–298). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2560-5_14

Crumb, L., Chambers, C. R., Azano, A. P., Hands, A. S., Cuthrell, K., & Avent, M. (2022). Rural cultural wealth: Dismantling deficit ideologies of rurality. Journal for Multicultural Education, 17(2), 125–138. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/jme-06-20220076/full/pdf?title=rural-cultural-wealth-dismantling-deficit-ideologies-of-rurality

Davis, K., Subramaniam, M., Hoffman, K. M., & Romeijn-Stout, E. L. (2018). Technology use in rural and urban public libraries: Implication for connected learning in youth programming. Proceedings of the Connected Learning Summit, Pittsburgh, PA, 47–56.

Deeb-Sossa, N., & Moreno, M. (2016). ¡No cierren nuestra escuela! Farm worker mothers as cultural citizens in an educational community mobilization effort. Journal of Latinos and Education, 15(1), 39–57.

Deeds, V. R., & Pattillo, M. (2015). Organizational “failure” and institutional pluralism. Urban Education, 50, 474–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085913519337

DeYoung, A. J. (1995). The life and death of a rural American high school (1995): Farewell Little Kanawha. Routledge.

Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. M. (2001). Does school district consolidation cut costs? Education Finance and Policy, 2, 341–375. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2007.2.4.341

Eason, J. (2010). Mapping prison proliferation: Region, rurality, race and disadvantage in prison placement. Social Science Research, 39(6), 1015–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.001

Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 255–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2024). Inquiry concerning the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion (GN Docket No. 22-270). https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-2427A1.pdf

Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. (2008). Rural communities: Legacy and change (3rd ed.). Westview Press.

Galperin, H. (2022). Estimating participation in the Affordable Connectivity Program (Policy Brief No. 2). USC Annenberg. https://arnicusc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PolicyBrief-2-ACP-eligibility-final-1.pdf

Graham, B. C., Keys, C. B., McMahon, S. D., & Brubacher, M. R. (2014). Transportation challenges for urban students with disabilities: Parent perspectives. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 42(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2014.855058

Grimes, L. E., Arrastía-Chisholm, M. A., & Bright, S. B. (2019). How can they know what they don’t know? The beliefs and experiences of rural school counselors about STEM career advising. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 9(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2019.v9n1p74-90

Harris, J. (2016). Inservice teachers’ TPACK development: Trends, models, and trajectories. In M. Herring, M. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (2nd ed., pp. 191–205). Routledge.

Harris, R. S., & Hodges, C. B. (2018). STEM education in rural schools: Implications of untapped potential. National Youth-At-Risk Journal, 3(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1269639.pdf

Hartman, S. L., Hines-Bergmeier, J., & Klein, R. (2017). Informal STEM learning: The state of research, access and equity in rural early childhood settings. Science Education and Civic Engagement, 9(2), 32–39. https://seceij.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SENCEIJSummer2017_FINAL.pdf#page=32

Head Start. (2023). Biden-Harris administration announces increased investment in Tribal Colleges and Universities–Head Start Partnership Program. Administration for Children & Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/about-us/press-release/biden-harris-administration-announces-increased-investmenttribal-colleges-universities-head-start

Hellsten, L. A. M., McIntyre, L. J., & Prytula, M. P. (2011). Teaching in rural Saskatchewan: First year teachers identify challenges and make recommendations. The Rural Educator, 32(3), 11–21. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=ruraleducator

Hillman, N., Colston, J., Bach-Hanson, J., & Peek, A. (2021). Mapping rural colleges and their communities. University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Hillman, N., & Weichman, T. (2016). Education deserts: The continued significance of place in the twenty-first century. American Council on Education. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Education-Deserts-The-Continued-Significance-of-Place-in-the-Twenty-First-Century.pdf

Hillman, N. W. (2016). Geography of college opportunity: The case of education deserts. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 987–1021. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216653204

Housing Assistance Council. (2020). Taking stock: Rural housing, rural people, and their homes. https://takingstockrural.org/taking-stock/rural-housing/

Howley, A., Howley, M., Hendrickson, K., Belcher, J., & Howley, C. (2012). Stretching to survive: District autonomy in an age of dwindling resources. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 27(3). https://jrre.psu.edu/sites/default/files/2019-08/27-3.pdf

Howley, C. B., Johnson, J., & Petrie, J. (2011). Consolidation of schools and districts: What the research says and what it means. National Education Policy Center. https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/consolidation-schools-districts

Huling, T. (2001). Building a prison economy in rural America. In M. Mauer, & M. ChesneyLind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 197–213). Free Press. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/huling_chapter.pdf

Johnson, K. (2017). Where is rural America and who lives there? In A. Tickamyer, J. Warlick, & J. Sherman (Ed.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 1–27). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/tick17222-003

Kammer, J., Atkins, C., & Burress, R. (2022). The personal cost of small budgets & underfunded libraries: Out-of-pocket spending by school librarians during COVID-19. School Library Research, 25. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1362293.pdf

Katsinas, S. G., & Hardy, D. E. (2012). Rural community colleges. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 453–520). Springer.

Kim, J. (2024). The long shadow of school closures: Impacts on students’ educational and labor market outcomes (EdWorkingPaper No. 24-963). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/ax4m-3z14

Kim, R. (2021). Under the law: The rights of rural students. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(4), 64–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211065836

Kolbe, T., Baker, B. D., Atchison, D., Levin, J., & Harris, P. (2021). The additional cost of operating rural schools: Evidence from Vermont. AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420988868

Lakin, J. M., Stambaugh, T., Ihrig, L. M., Mahatmya, D., & Assouline, S. G. (2021). Nurturing STEM talent in rural setting. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(4), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211065823

Lipman, P. (2014). Capitalizing on crisis: Venture philanthropy’s colonial project to remake urban education. Critical Studies in Education, 56, 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.959031

Malik, R., Hamm, K., Schochet, L., Novoa, C., Workman, S., & Jessen-Howard, S. (2018). America’s child care deserts in 2018. Center for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2018/12/06100537/AmericasChildCareDeserts20182.pdf

Mathieson, D., Cotrupi, C., Schilling, M., & Grohs, J. (2023). Resiliency through partnerships: Prioritizing STEM workforce pathways amid macro challenges. School Science and Mathematics, 123(3), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12575

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505824.pdf

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476399

National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services. (2023). Childcare need and availability in rural areas: Policy brief and recommendations to the Secretary. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/advisory-committees/rural/nac-rural-child-care-brief-23.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2018). Student access to digital learning resources outside of the classroom (NCES No. 2017098). U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017098/index.asp

———. (2023). Rural students’ access to the internet: Condition of education. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/lfc

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2024). Making visible the invisible: STEM talent of rural America. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/CEOSE_STEM-Talent_of_Rural_America_Report.pdf?VersionId=Jr.NV_HxMT0eVnFm12wZA5EPZ0DgxAXJ

Nelson, C., & Frye, J. R. (2016). Tribal college and university funding: Tribal sovereignty at the intersection of federal, state, and local funding. American Council on Education. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/7ca9c93e-3ef4-4150-b92639797476cfcd/content

Norris, S., Ullrich, L. D., & Waddell, S. R. (2023). District digest: Community colleges as anchor institutions in rural areas. Econ Focus, 23(3Q), 26–30. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/RichmondFedOrg/publications/research/econ_focus/2023/q3/district_digest.pdf

Penuel, W. R. (2020). Promoting equitable and just learning across settings: Organizational forms for educational change. In N. S. Nasir, C. D. Lee, R. Pea, & M. M. de Royston (Eds.), Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. 348–364). Routledge.

Phillips, D. A., Johnson, A. D., Weiland, C., & Hutchison, J. E. (2017). Public preschool in a more diverse America: Implications for next-generation evaluation research (Working Paper No. 2-17). Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan.

Pipa, A. F., Landes, L., & Swarzenski, Z. (2023). Maximizing new federal investments in broadband for rural America. Center for Sustainable Development, Brookings Institution. https://communitiesu.org/assets/uploads/2023/07/Rural_Broadband-Published-5.31.2023-Catherine-Krantz-contributer-1.pdf

Read, A., & Gong, L. (2022, June 28). Which states have dedicated broadband offices, task forces, agencies, or funds? Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2021/06/28/which-states-have-dedicated-broadband-officestask-forces-agencies-or-funds

Real, B., & Rose, R. N. (2017). Rural libraries in the United States: Recent strides, future possibilities, and meeting community needs. American Library Association. https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/advocacy/content/pdfs/Rural%20paper%2007-31-2017.pdf

Ricket, A. L., Yahn, J., & Bentley, E. (2023). Rural community and career connected learning: Impacts of high school internships prioritizing people and place. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 39(3). https://doi.org/10.26209/JRRE3903

Rogers, R. R., & Sun, Y. (Eds.). (2019). Engaging STEM Students from rural areas: Emerging research and opportunities. IGI Global.

Rosenboom, V., & Blagg, K. (2018). Disconnected from higher education: How geography and internet speed limit access to higher education. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96191/disconnected_from_higher_education_1.pdf

Ross, D. A., Hinton, R., Melles-Brewer, M., Engel, D., Zeck, W., Fagan, L., Herat, J., Phaladi, G., Jacome, D. I., Anyona, P., Sanchez, A., Damji, N., Terki, F., Baltag, V., Patton, G., Silverman, A., Fogstad, H., Bangerjee, A., & Mohan, A. (2020). Adolescent well-being: A definition and conceptual framework. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(4), 472–476. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343629935_Adolescent_Well-Being_A_Definition_and_Conceptual_Framework

Sandholtz, J., & Ringstaff, C. (2020). Offering modest supports to extend professional development outcomes and enhance elementary science teaching. Professional Development in Education, 48(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1725594

Schafft, K. A. (2016). Rural education as rural development: Understanding the rural school–community well-being linkage in a 21st-century policy context. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1151734

Shavers, A. W. (2003). Rethinking the equity vs. adequacy debate: Implications for rural school finance reform litigation. Nebraska Law Review, 82(1), 133–189. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/nebklr82&div=12&id=&page=

Showalter, D., Hartman, S. L., Eppley, K., Johnson, J., & Klein, B. (2023). Why rural matters 2023: Centering equity and opportunity. National Rural Education Association. https://wsos-cdn.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/18/WRMReport2023_DIGITAL.pdf

Sielke, C. (2004). Rural factors in state funding systems. Journal of Education Finance, 29(3), 223–236. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40704206

Sipple, J. W., & Brent, B. O. (2012). Challenges and strategies associated with rural school settings. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 634–652). Routledge. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262950112_Challenges_and_Strategies_Associated_with_Rural_School_Settings

Smith, G. A., & Sobel, D. (2010). Place- and community-based education in schools (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203858530

Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classroom and community. Nature and Listening, 4(1), 1–7. https://kohalacenter.org/teachertraining/pdf/pbexcerpt.pdf

Spence, B. (1998). Whatever happened to Pauley vs. Bailey? The story of the politics of education in West Virginia. Covenant House. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED426839.pdf

Stenberg, P. L., Morehart, M. J., & Cromartie, J. (2009). Broadband internet service helping create a rural digital economy. Amber Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, 22–27. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2009/september/broadband-internet-service-helping-create-a-rural-digital-economy

Strange, M. (2003). Equitable and adequate funding for rural schools: Ensuring equal educational opportunity for all students. Nebraska Law Review, 82, 1. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1300&context=nlr

———. (2011). Finding fairness for rural students. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721711092006

Sutton, K., Patrick, K., Maybery, D., & Eaton, K. (2016). The immediate impact of a brief rural mental health workforce recruitment strategy. Rural Society, 25(2), 87–103. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10371656.2016.1194327

Tieken, M. C. (2014). Why rural schools matter. University of North Carolina Press.

———. (2017). The spatialization of racial inequity and educational opportunity: Rethinking the rural/urban divide. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(3), 385–404. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1324662?needAccess=true

Tieken, M. C., & Auldridge-Reveles, T. (2019). Rethinking the school closure research: School closure as spatial injustice. Review of Educational Research, 89(6), 917–953. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877151

Topkok, S. A., & Loon, H. P. (2021). Uvvatuq Naluallangniaqtugut (I humbly hope we run into game): An Iñupiaq research process. The Morning Watch: Educational and Social Analysis, 47(1). https://journals.library.mun.ca/index.php/mwatch/article/view/2257/1792

Turley, R. N. L. (2009). College proximity: Mapping access to opportunity. Sociology of Education, 82(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070908200202

Vogels, E. A. (2021). Some digital divides persist between rural, urban and suburban America. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/19/somedigital-divides-persist-between-rural-urban-and-suburban-america/

Wan, Z. H., Jiang, Y., & Zhan, Y. (2020). STEM education in early childhood: A review of empirical studies. Early Education and Development, 32(7), 940–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1814986

Whitacre, B., & Gallardo, R. (2020). State broadband policy: Impacts on availability. Telecommunications Policy, 44, 102025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.102025

Williams, J. M., & Nierengarten, G. (2011). Recommendations from the North Star State: Rural administrators speak out. The Rural Educator, 33, 15–24.

Wright, R. G. (2023). The place of broadband within equal education opportunity. Indiana Law Review, 56(3), 519. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/indilr56&div=29&id=&page=

Yettick, H., Baker, R., Wickersham, M. E., & Hupfeld, K. E. (2014). Rural districts left behind? Rural districts and the challenges of administering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 29(1). https://jrre.psu.edu/sites/default/files/2019-08/29-13.pdf