According to research, local schools are essential to have thriving rural communities. What happens when villages no longer have their own schools?

The proposed Canajoharie – Fort Plain school merger is being billed as something that may provide positive opportunities for students. Information on the actual impact of those supposed opportunities is presented in previous posts here and here. In this post, I am sharing information on the impact of school mergers on communities. This information comes from a literature review of more than 25 studies, combined with original research published in the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education in 2018. (1).

These researchers sought to answer questions on how local schools impact community vitality. To quote their purpose: “This research project focused on the connection between a community and its schools, and the role that schools play in rural community vitality and wellbeing. It investigated both community members and former student experience with small schools in one rural area of Ontario, Canada.” (2). Below are just a few of their findings: more to come in future posts.

From the extensive literature review: “There now appears to be clear recognition of the connection between the presence of a school and both student and community wellbeing (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2018, p. 9).” (3). From other studies: “There is extensive research demonstrating that small schools, often those in rural settings, make excellent learning environments for students, and contrary to popular belief, are more cost effective than the model of economy of scale would suggest (Irmsher, 1997; Lauzon & Leahy, 2000; Ares Abalde, 2014). For example, Irmsher points out that larger consolidated schools: a) have poorer attendance than smaller schools; b) dampen enthusiasm for involvement in school activities; c) have lower grade average and standardized scores; d) have higher dropout rates, and e) have more problems with violence, security, and drug abuse. Lauzon and Leahy’s review of literature reached several conclusions regarding the relationship between small local schools and student achievement.” (4).

And then from the original research: “the community survey made clear the association between their quality of life and the presence of education close to home. Many comments reflected a concern over the availability of services, the ability to attract professionals, and the likelihood of young people staying in the community. Several comments linked the presence of a school with economic development. One respondent commented that they could expect “loss of essential services because young families move out, and even more serious labour shortage (skilled trades, scientists, medical professionals). Possible closure of local library, peninsula family health team…the prospect of a ghost town…” (5).

The final conclusion: “Clearly, students and parents report positive experiences in a small rural school, and clearly the community recognizes the role of the school in their lives. What appears to be needed, then, are frameworks that bridge the gap between policy silos and the reality of rural community needs.” (6). The evidence is clear. What our two rural communities need are local schools serving strong individual communities.