In line with Richard Rothstein’s lectures about lower-class children in schools, I want to say that "lower-class" doesn’t necessarily equate to "inner-city." It’s true that as one leaves urban areas, any number of good schools may be found in the small towns. However, some of these rural schools are in high-poverty areas and are very much like inner-city schools. Of course, there aren’t the great numbers of poor students in the country that one finds, say, in Los Angeles or New York: but city crime, drugs, and apathy can be found in rural settings.

Since 1996 I’ve taught in Texas country schools where I’ve observed everything from graffiti to assaults upon teachers. There doesn’t seem to be that much heroin in the rural areas; but the rural areas are idea for meth labs. There’s also plenty of marijuana and alcohol.

In some of these rural schools the absenteeism is very reminiscent of what I saw in San Antonio, Texas. Students also withdraw from school (and return) with startling frequency. They're members of families who have to move to find work or to escape from problems like domestic violence. Some of these kids are "disguised homeless children" who live with grandparents or move from one set of relatives to another.

Many of them show the typical lower-class indifference toward academic achievement, and a surprising number are special education students. Many not formally enrolled in Special Ed. probably should be.

Of course, this post is full of generalizations to which exceptions may be taken; but I do want to debunk the stereotype of lower-class kids being exclusively in urban schools.