When I started my PhD in education policy, I was eager to build on what I’d learned during my six years as a high school Spanish teacher, including in rural Ohio. But in my PhD coursework at the University of Wisconsin, rural education wasn’t part of the conversation. Despite Wisconsin being a predominantly rural state—over three-quarters of school districts are rural and educate about half of all students—we weren’t discussing rural schools, rural students, or rural teachers. That gap between my lived experience and my academic training changed the trajectory of my career.

For the past four years, I’ve been working with Brad Carl at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on three interconnected studies. Brad grew up in a rural Wisconsin community and brings expertise in administrative data analysis and deep ties to the state education system. I bring the qualitative side: interviews, focus groups, and the ability to connect research findings to the lived realities of rural schools. Together, we’ve created mixed-methods studies that serve policymakers, practitioners, and researchers.

Our first study examined “grow your own” strategies rural districts were using to address teacher shortages. Most importantly, we found that rural districts weren’t waiting around for someone else to solve their staffing problems—they were innovating.

One of the most successful examples is the GROW Consortium, a group of rural districts that has pooled resources to offer scholarships to high school seniors pursuing education degrees, college students in teacher preparation programs, and graduates who would commit to teaching in any consortium district.

This solved an “economy of scale” problem faced by many rural districts that try to grow their own teachers. On one hand, small rural districts can’t “grow” enough teachers to fill their own needs, but a multi-district partnership increases the potential number of future teachers. On the other hand, a small rural district may not have a math teacher opening for a student returning home to teach, but the neighboring partner district does, so in this collective approach, the homegrown teacher still has a path back to employment in the region.

The second study examined educator preparation programs across Wisconsin. We identified a critical disconnect: rural districts and the universities training teachers were often operating in parallel ways to support the rural teacher pipeline, but not in partnership. Rural districts were desperately seeking teachers while educator preparation programs—many of which draw students from rural communities—weren’t always intentionally preparing them for rural contexts.

One important realization that came out of the study is how educator preparation programs, and universities as a whole, have different understandings of what it means to be “rural-serving” or to have programs that are intentionally rural. We organized a convening to bring these groups together, and it’s led to emerging collaborations around student teaching placements, dual-credit courses, and rural student-focused programming.

Our third study is currently examining whether state-supported strategies are improving rural teacher recruitment and retention. We’re tracking participants in three programs:

• The Wisconsin Improvement Program allows qualified student teachers to serve as paid teachers of record for part of the day while completing their training. 
• The Rural Teacher Talent Grant provides funds to student teachers who complete placements in rural districts.
• Aspiring Educators is a college-level club for students interested in teaching careers sponsored by the Wisconsin Education Association Council on campuses across the state.

Perhaps the most important component of my research is that I ask a different question than most educator workforce studies. Our society’s traditional narrative tells rural young people they must leave their communities to succeed, and we constantly ask teachers why they leave the profession. To support programs that encourage young people to return to rural communities to teach, it is crucial that we ask instead why adults, including teachers, choose to stay.

After a stint in Baltimore, Maryland, I worked in rural Appalachian Ohio and learned firsthand the challenges rural educators face—being the only teacher of a subject in a district, managing isolation, and seeking creative ways to connect with colleagues—as well as the benefits rural teaching reaps.

During interviews with rural teachers and Educators Rising alumni, I often hear about the assets that drew them to and keep them in rural schools: knowing families across generations, being part of the community beyond school walls, forming close connections with students in small classes, and having opportunities to coach, advise, and contribute beyond their classroom responsibilities.

While I ultimately left my teaching career in rural Ohio because of financial concerns, I still miss being in the classroom and connecting with students every day. My own experience helps me understand how important financial support can be for a traditionally unpaid student teaching experience where even a few thousand dollars can offset the burden of an unpaid internship.

And focusing on what keeps college students committed to teaching—when most students change majors three or four times—helps to identify and strengthen supports that colleges can provide to increase the likelihood that these students will continue into the teaching profession.

This asset-based perspective is central to my approach to studying rural schools and it stems from genuinely valuing rural communities and rural teaching, not studying them as problems to be solved.

• Rural districts in Wisconsin are innovating through collaborative “grow your own” programs, such as the GROW Consortium, which pool resources across multiple small districts.
• Rural schools and educator preparation programs often operate in parallel rather than partnership. Many universities draw students from rural communities but don’t intentionally prepare them for rural teaching contexts.
• State investments like the Rural Teacher Talent Grant and Wisconsin Improvement Program show promise for strengthening rural teacher pipelines, but longitudinal data on effectiveness has been limited.

• Our research suggests educator preparation programs should develop intentionally rural programming, including coursework that addresses the realities of rural teaching.
• Findings point to the need for data infrastructure to track students from pre-college through teaching careers so researchers can follow individuals across career stages and evaluate which programs strengthen rural teacher pipelines.
• Our work indicates that support needs to extend beyond recruitment to retention. Rural districts could benefit from offering mentoring programs, ongoing professional development, and pathways for emergency-certified teachers to earn full licensure.
• Our research shows that the rural teacher shortage is inseparable from rural community sustainability. Policy solutions could include housing availability, health care access, and economic development alongside education workforce issues.