By JC Bowman
For years, America’s political and media leaders have either ignored the issues facing rural areas or felt they were unavoidable. However, the problems in rural communities are real and, in some ways, just as deep-rooted as the issues that get attention in major cities.
A 2017 Wall Street Journal analysis famously described rural America as the nation’s “new inner city,” documenting troubling trends in non-metropolitan counties: declining labor-force participation among men, worsening educational attainment, aging populations, and persistent poverty. More recent USDA data confirm that rural poverty rates remain consistently higher than urban rates, with deep pockets of hardship spanning Appalachia, the rural South, and parts of the Midwest and West.
Both rural and urban poverty present significant challenges. Urban poverty is often more visible and is frequently associated with crime and school failure. In contrast, rural poverty tends to be more subdued and is dispersed across remote towns. Unfortunately, policymakers often overlook rural communities. Addressing one type of poverty will not resolve the issues of the other.
Nowhere is this tension more evident than in the debate over the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP). The Trump administration’s FY2027 budget proposal would eliminate REAP as a standalone program and consolidate it—along with 16 other federal education programs—into a larger, state-controlled block grant called “MEGA.”
Currently, REAP provides roughly $220 million annually to small and rural districts through two primary channels: the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program and the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program. These funds support tutoring, after-school programs, teacher training, technology upgrades, and other essential services for districts that often lack economies of scale and face shrinking tax bases. For many rural schools, these funds are modest yet critical.
Supporters of consolidation argue that states and local communities—not Washington bureaucrats—are better positioned to set educational priorities. This reflects a longstanding conservative principle: education decisions should move closer to parents, local leaders, and state governments rather than remain tied to federal mandates and fragmented categorical programs. There is merit to that argument.
Small rural districts often struggle with the paperwork and rules required for federal aid. If states had more flexibility, they could allocate resources to important areas such as expanding broadband, vocational education, and teacher recruitment. Less red tape could help administrators focus more on student results. However, critics are rightly concerned that this approach could lead to a loss of funding for these districts.
Under REAP, rural schools receive dedicated funding streams designed to address geographic isolation and concentrated poverty. Under a broad block grant, there is no assurance that states will continue to prioritize those communities—especially in states where political power and population are concentrated in suburban and urban areas.
That fear is not irrational. History shows that broad block grants can gradually shift toward population centers and politically powerful constituencies. Rural superintendents worry that their districts could be swallowed up in larger statewide funding battles.
There is growing concern about the proposed MEGA block grant because it would provide less money than the combined funding of the programs it replaces. This could mean that, instead of just restructuring, there will be spending cuts. Rural districts are already facing budget challenges.
Many rural communities face teacher shortages, declining enrollment, limited access to advanced coursework, transportation challenges, and broadband gaps. The decline of traditional industries like manufacturing and farming has weakened local economies, leaving schools to tackle broader social challenges with fewer resources.
At the same time, rural America is not simply a portrait of dysfunction. Rural communities often retain strengths that many urban areas have lost, including stronger social cohesion, lower rates of violent crime, and deep community ties. Many rural schools exceed expectations despite limited resources, proving that money alone does not determine outcomes.
Evidence on federal education spending is mixed. Additional funding can help specific programs and services. Still, long-term student success depends heavily on factors beyond Washington appropriations, including family stability, local leadership, school culture, curriculum quality, and economic opportunity. That reality is precisely why the REAP debate matters.
The question is not merely whether Washington or states should control education dollars. The deeper question is whether America is willing to acknowledge that rural decline deserves sustained national attention rather than periodic political rhetoric.
If states are granted more flexibility, they must also accept greater accountability. Rural communities should not be collateral damage in the pursuit of administrative simplification. Strong transparency rules, rural set-asides, and maintenance-of-effort protections could help ensure that flexibility does not become abandonment.
Ultimately, outcomes matter more than inputs. Policymakers should measure success not by preserving programs for their own sake, but by whether rural students graduate prepared for productive lives—whether through college, the trades, apprenticeships, or local economic opportunities.
But that requires first recognizing an uncomfortable truth: millions of rural children face barriers every bit as serious as those confronting students in America’s inner cities. These barriers keep them farther from the cameras. And for too long, the country has found it easier not to look.
#####
JC Bowman is the Executive Director of Professional Educators of Tennessee, a non-partisan teacher association headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the association are properly cited. For more information on this subject or any education issue please contact Professional Educators of Tennessee. To schedule an interview please contact info@proedtn.org or 1-800-471-4867.
Legal Notice: This message and any attachments may contain confidential and legally privileged information. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the named addressee(s). Please refrain from including sensitive data, such as social security numbers and passwords, in non-encrypted emails and non-password-protected email attachments when responding. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Suppose the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipients). In that case, you are notified that you have confidential and privileged information and are officially notified that any unauthorized distribution or copying of this communication or the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you are not a named addressee, you should not copy, alter, post, forward, distribute, or disseminate the contents of the e-mail, either whole or partial, or attachments without the sender’s written permission. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake, and delete this e-mail from your system. Any views or opinions expressed may solely be those of the individual and may not necessarily represent those of Professional Educators of Tennessee (ProEdTN or PET). Please note That Emails sent from a government computer or a government-issued email account are not considered private.
You must be logged in to post a comment.