Is small beautiful? A scoping review of 21st-century research on small rural schools in Europe

Small rural school: definitions

The definition of a small rural school varied within countries and studies. However, overall, small rural schools in the literature were mostly defined by the number of pupils enrolled. Small rural primary schools typically had fewer than 100 pupils. For post-primary schools, there was greater variation among countries but there were also fewer studies focusing on post-primaries. The ‘small’ number of pupils also had clear implications in terms of the size of staff and buildings/resources. Sometimes, the schools were characterized by their geographical location – for example, being remote or island schools – or by their situation – for example, being at risk of closure. Table 4 describes the different ways small rural schools have been defined or understood in some of the studies included here.

Table 4. Definitions of small rural schools.

As seen in these definitions, although the issue of size was often discussed and defined to some degree, the ‘rural’ dimension was addressed in only a few articles. No clear definition of ‘the rural’ or of ‘what constitutes rurality’ was attempted in most of the articles and book chapters reviewed. When the rural was explicitly defined, definitions were largely based on population density and inter-settlement distances (Gristy et al., 2020b). Thus, while in other fields of study (e.g. rural sociology, geographical studies, etc.) the notion of rurality has been extensively debated, in research about rural schools this issue has hardly been addressed, and there is instead an implicit assumption of what the ‘rural’ attribute is or signifies.

Emergent themes

In Table 1, we summarize the key themes and concepts identified in the scoping review, before going on to address each of these in more detail. Leadership was the most common topic (with 33 references), especially in empirical studies (rather than literature reviews), and it included articles focusing on the role of the principal, school boards, school collaborations or networks, curriculum development and change, and teachers’ professional development. The methods employed in these studies were also the most diverse, with about half employing qualitative methods and the other half using a mixed method design. The following most common topics were context (31 references), school–community relationship (28) and learning environment (23).

The topic of context embraced a range of themes, including school closures/amalgamations or the threat of closure, national education policies and rurality. Most of the studies included in this topic employed qualitative designs, and most of the literature reviews included in this review (7 out of 11) referred to this topic. School–community relationship was also a very popular topic, which included the role of school in the community, the impact of school closures on the community, and community engagement with schools. The learning environment topic mostly examined the practice of multi-grade teaching, but also included the theme referring to information and communications technology (ICT) and distance education, and teacher collaboration. The least explored topic was equality of education and academic achievement (12 references), which was referred to in nearly half of the literature reviews (including a research synthesis) (5 out of 11), but only a handful of studies (7 out of 36) dealt with these issues.

The importance of context

The importance of context and the diversity of small rural schools have been emphasized in many of the studies included in this review (see Table 1) (Beach et al., 2019; Hargreaves et al., 2009). In these studies, schools are recognized as distinctive at the micro-level (i.e. associated to a specific local spatial geography and history) but also connected to large political, economic and social structures (Beach and Vigo Arrazola, 2020).

Regarding the macro-level, much of the literature has described similar changes in Europe’s rural areas, with small rural schools closing or amalgamating. Some countries, particularly many Scandinavian countries, used to have a high proportion of small rural schools by the mid-20th century, but this number has significantly diminished since then. For instance, in northern Finland, between 1990 and 2010, three out of four small rural schools have closed (Autti and Bæck, 2021). A similar case is evident in non-Scandinavian countries such as Poland, where the number of rural primary schools dropped by nearly 40% between 1990 and 2012, resulting in the closure of nearly 6000 schools (Bajerski, 2020).

Indeed, school closures and schools under imminent threat of closure have been the focus of studies across Europe: in Finland (Autti and Hyry-Beihammer, 2014; Karlberg-Granlund, 2011), Norway (Aasland and Søholt, 2020), Latvia (Koroļeva et al., 2017; Supule, 2019), Czech Republic (Kučerová and Trnková, 2020), Sweden (Cedering and Wihlborg, 2020; Villa and Knutas, 2020) and England (Walker, 2010). The reasons behind school closures in most countries are cited typically as financial (i.e. small rural schools are too costly to run in comparison to larger schools). In several countries, authors (Hargreaves et al., 2009; Bajerski, 2020; Solstad and Karlberg-Granlund, 2020) have reported that there is a policy bias which presumes that rural schools are somehow deficient, that multi-age teaching in small rural schools is ‘inferior’ to age homogenous teaching in larger schools, and that the way to improve rural education is making schools bigger. Significantly, these prejudices seemingly exist despite little or no hard evidence that pupils in small schools do worse than others in larger ones (Solstad and Karlberg-Granlund, 2020).

Regardless of these global trends, national education policies and socio-economic situations are different in the various European countries where studies are situated. In post-Soviet and post-socialist countries, after the fall of the communist regimes, there was a determination to decentralize policymaking, but this occurred in different ways and with different consequences (Gristy et al., 2020a). Kovács (2012) situated their case study of a small village school in the context of the Hungarian countryside, which was experiencing a process of counter-urbanization and also the process of impoverishment and ghettoization in that particular rural area (i.e. ethnic segregation of Roma and non-Roma people). So, in the studied school, demographic decline led to a sharp drop in enrolment, which was fought by stimulating the attraction of non-Roma children from a neighbouring village (where its own school comprised 70% of Roma children). The phenomenon of attracting pupils from outside the local area, however, has been explored in other case studies. In some jurisdictions like England, wealthy and middle-class city dwellers relocate to rural areas (Hillyard and Bagley, 2015). One further reported case was an English school which was under threat of closure and located in a remote geographic location (Walker, 2010). The author concluded that ‘small schools opting for a niche market as a school-management policy jeopardize the future of the school if this turns away local parents on a scale that cannot be compensated for by like-minded parent choosers coming in from further afield’ (Walker, 2010: 724).

Some studies have compared small schools located in different countries and they have found differences but also similarities. For instance, differences in terms of stakeholders’ attitudes regarding school closures were found between Latvia and Norway. Thus, whereas in Latvia the majority of school administrators held a positive opinion about small schools, with schools and municipalities agreeing that school closures and mergers should be avoided, this opinion was not shared in Norway (Koroļeva et al., 2017). Beach and Vigo Arrazola’s (2020) cross-national meta-ethnography comparing rural schools in Sweden and Spain focused on the similarities between these two countries in terms of the marketization of the education system, characterized by policies of private choice, decentralization and competitive funding. The authors identified two types of schools in Spain’s and Sweden’s rural areas: ‘communitas schools’ and ‘magnet schools’. Whereas communitas schools were considered as having developed strong links to families and the local community, with teachers, parents, pupils and community members working hard together for their survival, magnet schools had not and were getting half or more of their pupils from middle-class families from outside the schools’ local area. This finding mirrors Kovács’ (2012) and Walker’s (2010) studies with magnet schools exploiting their existing forms of capital and the market conditions they operated in.

Even within the same country, studies have distinguished between different ruralities and types of rural areas. Raggl (2020: 213) emphasized the plurality of small rural schools ‘and how much they differ according to their location, their numbers of pupils and teachers, and whether or not they have to fight for their existence’. In fact, in her study, she distinguished between different types of small rural schools in Austria: very small and remote single-teacher schools (with fewer than 20 pupils); small 2-teacher schools located approximately 30 minutes’ driving time away from a small town (with 20–30 pupils); and small Montessori schools located near urban centres (with 20–35 pupils). She found that the different types of schools faced different challenges, with teachers facing more isolation and fluctuation in the very small remote schools (Raggl, 2019). Similarly, Beach et al. (2019), drawing on a materialist spatial geographic theoretical perspective (Massey, 1994), in which space is understood as fluid and formed through socio-spatial and material practices, emphasized the importance of context and the plurality of rural schools.

Moreover, recent local social histories impact on the schools’ current realities, as highlighted in Hillyard and Bagley’s (2019) case studies of two English rural schools. When focusing on one of these case studies, Hillyard and Bagley (2013) revealed how the interpersonal issues (high staff turnover and the legacy of a former principal), political-economic (the village shifting local ‘squirearchy’) and spatial dynamics (post-war expansion and the situation of amenities) together influenced the fact that the school lacked a full-time principal for several years.

The school–community relationship

One of the advantages traditionally associated with small rural schools has been their strong connection with the local community. Indeed, teachers and principals interviewed in various studies (Karlberg-Granlund, 2019; Trnková, 2009; Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis, 2002) identified as a strength the positive relationships between their schools and the community. In addition, there was evidence from different countries that small rural schools had extended roles within their communities. For instance, Supule (2019) found that 78% of rural schools they surveyed in Latvia were an open space to community members (e.g. school premises were used for sports and hobby activities).

It was found that studies that have focused on this topic often employed sociological concepts such as social cohesion and social capital, particularly Putnam and Feldstein’s (2003) distinction between bonding, bridging and linking social capital. Bonding social capital refers to close connections within particular social groups, bridging social capital refers to more distant connections between different groups, and linking social capital refers to connections between different levels of power hierarchies. Such conceptual distinctions were used in four of the studies included here (Autti and Hyry-Beihammer, 2014; Hemming, 2018; Karlberg-Granlund, 2019; Kovács, 2012). Authors found that small rural schools boosted and created bonding and bridging social capital within the local community, but this could potentially operate in a negative/exclusionary way (Bagley and Hillyard, 2014). For instance, both small rural faith schools in Hemming’s (2018) English study were able to meaningfully engage with their local communities (bonding and bridging social capital), particularly through strong links with local parish churches. At the same time, commuters and newcomers to the local area who came in order to take advantage of the school were seen as disrupting the village character, and social divisions emerged. In addition, community cohesion can sometimes be experienced by teachers and principals as a mechanism of restrictive control in a small rural school, due to the tensions caused by social proximity (Karlberg-Granlund, 2019).

Some schools have been labelled as ‘community active schools’, particularly in the Nordic countries (Kalaoja and Pietarinen, 2009), but also in other countries like Ireland (Gill, 2017) or Austria (Raggl, 2019). This label originates from Solstad’s (1997) distinction between ‘community-ignorant’ schools (i.e. acting like isolated islands in the community), ‘community-passive’ schools (i.e. using the local community for teaching and learning) and ‘community-active’ schools (i.e. integrating teaching and learning in the local context and playing an active role in the community). In Norway, community-active schools are most frequently found among small schools (Karlberg-Granlund, 2019). In Austria, another study also found that some of the schools that took part were community-active schools, but the majority of principals/teachers that took part did not engage in village activities outside their work and did not live in the village where they worked either (Raggl, 2019). In Finland, a review concluded that half of the small rural schools in the country were considered community-active schools (Kalaoja and Pietarinen, 2009).

The learning environment

Within the learning environment theme, authors mostly focused on multi-grade teaching and the use of ICT. When talking about multi-grade teaching or classes, we are referring to classrooms where children of different ages and grades are taught together. As highlighted in Gristy et al. (2020a), this has been named in different ways by different authors in different countries, including multi-age, mixed age and incomplete teaching.

Multi-grade teaching has been considered as both a necessity and an opportunity, and teachers, principals and educators have shown opposite views regarding its value (Raggl, 2015). Deunk and Maslowski (2020), for example, found that of 26 principals interviewed who mentioned this issue, 9 thought multi-grade teaching was too difficult and should be avoided if possible, 6 felt multi-grade classrooms were managed well by their highly qualified staff, and 11 were not sure and thought multi-grade classrooms were hard to manage but they could work well. Difficulties highlighted by teachers in different studies are to do with evaluation (i.e. difficulty and doubts in finding the right method) (Domingo Peñafiel and Boix Tomàs, 2015) and planning, which becomes more complex in multi-grade classrooms and involves a higher workload, putting pressure on teachers with less experience (Raggl, 2015). In addition, it requires sufficient training preparation, which many teachers do not have, and most school books and materials are oriented according to age-homogenous classes (Raggl, 2015).

In our sample, there were two studies and a research synthesis that focused on the teaching strategies used in multi-grade classrooms. In Spain, Domingo Peñafiel and Boix Tomàs (2015) found that the educational methodology used by teachers in multi-grade classrooms in three rural schools was a mixture of promoting participation among all of the students and the development of active educational strategies (where the focus was the type of activities around which the students’ work and the teachers’ lesson plan evolves). Regarding the spatial organization, this depended on the activities being developed, while the time organization differed between the three case studies observed (from a rigid schedule to an autonomous development of activities). The textbook was the main educational material in two of the schools; in the other, the textbook was just one tool among others. Hyry-Beihammer and Hascher (2015) also found that teaching practices in multi-grade classrooms varied widely in Austria and Finland, and were associated with teacher personality, subjects and teaching situations. However, some common practices were identified. The subjects of science, religion and art were usually taught as whole-class teaching, whereas mathematics and (native) language were commonly taught using the parallel curriculum, which means that both grades are taught the same but have different assignments. Peer tutoring was also found to be common, and the authors identified two forms of peer tutoring: spontaneous peer tutoring (i.e. when children help others unprompted) and guided peer tutoring (i.e. as a reaction to the teacher’s guidance). One of the most challenging tasks identified by teachers in both countries was how to meet the needs of different learners. Teachers believed individual differentiation to be essential because of the wide range of differences between learners. The authors identified two main strategies: (a) one reducing or overcoming the heterogeneity of students as much as possible (using parallel curricula, curriculum rotation and whole-class teaching); and (b) one capitalizing on the heterogeneity of the students, but also reducing teaching demands (using peer tutoring, personal work plans or free work). In their research synthesis of studies from Austria, Finland, Spain and Switzerland, Smit et al. (2015) concluded that mixed-age learning is most effective when:

• teachers support peer- and cross-age tutoring, but also work with groups and give instruction at the same time;

• tutoring supplements teacher instruction but does not replace it;

• the age-gap in peer tutoring should not be more than four years;

• teachers know where the student is in the learning process in order to guide instruction and provide feedback; and

• teachers implement cross-age, open-ended tasks to enable simultaneous learning and assessment.

The use of ICT in the learning environment of small rural schools was the focus of a few studies. In Italy, Cannella (2020) identified two models of lessons using ICT in three small mountain and island school networks: (a) the Common Learning Environment scenario, where two or more classrooms work together on a common project-based activity using different technological settings; and (b) the shared lesson, where two multi-age classrooms work together using a video-conferencing system. However, for ICT to be used positively in the classroom, she found that four principles needed to be in place: appropriate technology infrastructure, good school organization, well-trained teachers and appropriate curriculum content and organization. She concluded:

Similarly, in Finland, Hilli (2020a, 2020b) focused on virtual learning environments (VLE) in three small rural schools, and found that the VLE enabled teacher collaboration, but it needed the same digital infrastructure (and advanced digital competence to use it) in all the schools, which proved difficult. For instance, most teachers and students lacked the digital competence to interact through the learning management system. Teachers appreciated the collaboration, as it supported their professional development and reduced their professional isolation.

School leadership

Some studies (six included in this review) have focused on the figure of the school principal in the small rural school. Given the heterogeneity of small rural schools within and between countries, the situation of their principals is also diverse. Deunk and Maslowski (2020) interviewed principals in the north of the Netherlands, and some were teaching heads while others were multi-school principals (i.e. part-time principals of two or three schools). In their study, teaching heads had opposite reactions to this role. Some felt it was stressful, while others considered teaching as an enrichment. For multi-school principals, the advantage was cooperation between teams of different schools, whereas the disadvantage most mentioned was a lack of time for educational leadership.

In Cyprus, Hadjitheodoulou Loizidou and Fokaidou (2020) tried to understand the complexity of the leadership experience of a novice active principal in a small rural school in her first year of headship. They used Clarke and Hollingsworth’s (2002) Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth as a framework, which emphasizes teachers’ active role in their own professional development and learning. According to this model, teachers’ knowledge is a result of active and meaningful change, which is achieved through four different domains: the personal domain (i.e. knowledge, belief and attitudes); the external domain (i.e. external sources of information or stimuli); the domain of practice (i.e. professional experimentation); and the domain of consequences (i.e. prominent outcomes related to practice). In their case study, Hadjitheodoulou Loizidou and Fokaidou (2020) found that the new principal felt isolated and hopeless in the face of challenges in the external domain, having never worked in a small rural school, but ‘commitment and care in interaction overcame challenges through reflection on definitions of situation’ (174).

The type of culture intrinsic in school leadership was explored by Wildy et al. (2014). In two case studies in Iceland and Australia, they concluded that both principals were contextually literate (having an appreciation of place) but both schools were characterized by a culture of acceptance (where the conditions they find themselves in are accepted but not questioned). That contrasts with a culture of inquiry, which entails wilfully engaging in critical discourse to produce personal meaning and mutual understanding. They argued that to promote such culture, principals in small rural schools need continuing professional support and adequate preparation. There have been, indeed, calls for principals and teachers to be provided with appropriate training and professional development focused on leading and teaching in rural schools. Principals and teachers often appear to come unprepared for the context of working in small rural schools.

Leadership in some countries did not only refer to principals, but also to other figures, like the joint superintendent as in Norway (Forfang, 2020), or school boards (Deunk and Maslowski, 2020), and collaboration between different roles within the education system was found to be crucial for the school functioning and even its survival.

Another topic within the area of leadership that was the focus of certain studies in this review is curriculum change and development. Studies demonstrated the importance of cooperation and collaboration between principals and others within the school community to carry out school reform and curriculum change successfully. This task was identified as difficult when the numbers of staff are very low (one-, two- or three-teacher schools), leading to obvious practical difficulties in implementing any change (Wilson and McPake, 2000). Thus, school size was found to influence local curriculum development processes, as development processes cause a lot of administrative work for a few members of staff (Autti and Bæck, 2021). There were also differences between and within countries. While in Norway ‘principals transferred the responsibility of implementation and the efforts to work with the new curriculum to the teachers’ (Germeten, 2011: 21), principals in Scotland appeared to see themselves as ‘part of the teaching team’ and led from within the team rather than from outside to implement four new initiatives (Wilson and McPake, 2000). Germeten’s (2011) study explored the role of school principals and others in implementing curriculum change in northern Norway, and argued that

Wilson and McPake (2000) found that the type of management activities used by principals to implement four initiatives in Scotland constituted a distinctive small schools’ management style (i.e. situational school management). Their implementation strategy could be defined as: quick audit; realistic planning for achievable goals; implement through networking and support from internal/external sources; and move on to next initiative.

In Finland, curriculum planning and change has involved considerable challenges for small rural schools, particularly in terms of ‘the management of change, the organization of teaching, professional development of the teachers and the co-operation between the school and the surrounding community’ (Kimonen and Nevalainen, 2001: 172). In their case study of a small rural school, Kimonen and Nevalainen (2005) identified a series of school characteristics that enabled the principal and the school community to be successful in implementing rapid curriculum changes, including informal relationships between staff and pupils; radical changes in the teachers’ models of thinking and action; and pupils’, parents’ and community members’ positive attitude regarding the pedagogical changes in the school.

In different countries, some small rural schools have coped with financial and educational challenges (caused by their size) by forming networks and collaborations, clusters or federations, which work in different ways. In Norway, collaborations between schools appeared endemic in some regions’ educational infrastructure, as in Forfang’s (2020) study, the schools in a network of three rural municipalities had a joint superintendent, and the schools were governed through networking and inter-organizational collaboration. In Scotland, small rural schools have formed clusters or loose collaborative groups, which appear to have been largely successful in terms of teamwork, sharing expertise with staff in other schools, minimizing duplication of effort, providing new opportunities for staff development, and reducing professional isolation (Dowling, 2009). Research in England has also highlighted the benefits of clustering for small rural schools, as national policy has encouraged small schools to work together and form networks and federations (Hargreaves, 2009).

However, although collaborations between small rural schools are mostly perceived as beneficial in expanding opportunities for teaching and learning, principals can also conceive them as extra work. Jones (2009), for instance, found that the principals they interviewed in England discussed collaboration ‘almost exclusively in terms of the time, money and workload involved’ (129).

Equality of education and academic achievement

Equality of education and academic achievement was less explored, with seven empirical studies included in this review focusing on these issues. Some of these studies have focused or touched on special education in small rural schools. In general, studies have indicated the advantages of small rural schools in supporting children with special education needs. For instance, participating principals in a case study of five small rural secondary schools in Wales argued that one of their strengths was high levels of support for pupils with special educational needs (Jones, 2004). Similarly, teachers in Cyprus who participated in a mixed methods study felt that pupils’ special needs can be recognized more quickly in small schools (Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis, 2002). In Sweden, all the teachers interviewed in three case studies (Pettersson and Ström, 2019) considered the rural school as ‘a good learning environment for all students’, and they had access to a special educator working in the municipal administrative centre, whom they could contact when they needed a consultation. In this study, teachers asked for support rather than advice when they contacted special educators, and they described the consulting discussions as a professional dialogue/exchange. In contrast with all these studies, findings from a survey of teachers in Iceland (Aðalsteinsdóttir, 2008) did not indicate that small schools were particularly well equipped regarding giving attention to pupils with special needs. According to the author, this appeared to be due to a variety of reasons, including staff being poorly trained and isolated; poor resources in terms of curriculum facilities; or being unprepared to exploit the potential advantages of small schools.

Educational achievement and performance in small rural schools has been examined in several literature reviews and a few empirical studies. Literature reviews and studies present a mixed and complex picture in relation to comparing educational performance between small rural schools and large urban schools. This unclear picture is highlighted in Dowling’s (2009) scoping review regarding research on rural Scottish education, and Åberg-Bengtsson’s (2009) review of Swedish research found that there was no evidence that performance is better in larger schools (but it seemed to be rather the other way round). While teachers in Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis’ (2002) study in Cyprus found the performance standards of pupils in small schools lower than those of pupils in large schools, in Poland, according to Bajerski’s (2020) review, studies conducted after the 1998 reforms have shown that deep differences in the educational achievements of pupils from rural and urban schools have been eliminated. However, inequalities have emerged between peripheral and central areas (major urban agglomerations) ‘that not only differ because of the availability of social, cultural and financial capital resources, but also of actual accessible opportunities to select schools and extracurricular activities’ (Bajerski, 2020: 133).

Conceptual and theoretical frameworks

The importance of theory in this area of work has been emphasized by authors such as Gristy (2020), who argued that applying theory to research on education in rural areas, particularly in case studies, can enhance the beneficial aspects of the footprints of research. In this review, more authors appeared to mention specific theoretical concepts and theories when contextualizing and analysing the findings of their research than what was found over 10 years ago, in Kvalsund and Hargreaves’ (2009) review.

Nevertheless, many research studies reviewed here did not appear to start from a theoretical standpoint, but they often used theory a posteriori (rather than a priori) to make sense of the data collected. For example, some appeared to use some form of grounded theory approach, which was not necessarily clearly articulated, with findings subsequently thematically analysed and descriptively reported. In Table 5, we show the range of theories mentioned and applied to the research studies; most of which we have referenced previously in relation to our discussion around prevalent themes. Theories around the concept of social capital were the most used, followed by Gidden’s structuration theory and Lefebvre’s conceptualization of space, and stemmed from different disciplines, including sociology, political theory, geography and education.

Table 5. Theoretical frameworks.

While some authors clearly used theory to ‘inform research questions, the nature of sample, the selection of methods and the interpretation of the data’ (Kvalsund and Hargreaves, 2014: 44), a few others merely mentioned the theory as a ‘genuflection’, rather than meaningfully using it in their research. Among many others specified in Table 5, examples of authors using theory to inform their research questions and interpret their data were Beach et al. (2019), drawing on materialist spatial geographic theory to explore how rural schools related to the local place, and Hillyard (2020), who applied Bourdieu’s field theory to a case study of a small rural school in England, particularly focusing on the school’s changing relationship with the local community.

The theoretical background of the different studies often depended on the topic the author(s) focused on, and the methodology used. In contrast with studies conducted previously, most studies included in this review used a bottom-up approach and a life-world perspective (Hargreaves et al., 2020). Thus, they are studies where the school and the local community were examined at the local level where ‘the everyday interplay between actors, conditions and processes of place – nature, production, culture – and education takes place’ (Hargreaves et al., 2009: 141). In addition, a few (particularly those studying the learning environment) focused on the micro level.