Affiliation:
1. University of South Bohemia , České Budějovice , Czechia
Abstract
Abstract
The article compares the community functions of schools and the support to schools from the municipality representatives and community depending on the location of the school – in peripheral or semi-peripheral rural areas, rural small towns, outer suburbs and also in towns, i.e., at various distances from the town. It is based on controlled interviews with school headmasters and mayors of the respective municipalities and on the collection of information from annual school reports and school inspection reports. A total of 57 schools of two districts in the south-west of Czechia were evaluated. The assumption that complete rural schools in peripheries have the greatest community functions was confirmed; but complete rural schools in semi-peripheries also received similar assessment. However, a fully functioning rural "community school" was not found in the case study area. Schools in towns show weak community functions, because community functions in towns are provided by other institutions and facilities.
Reference83 articles.
1. Aberg-Bengtsson, L. (2009). The smaller the better? A review of research on small rural schools in Sweden. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 100–108. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.007.
2. Alloway, N. & Dalley-Trim, L. (2009). "High and dry" in rural Australia: Obstacles to student aspirations and expectations. Rural Society, 19(1), 49–59. DOI: 10.5172/rsj.351.19.1.49.
3. Arqué, D. M., Colom, J., Bernad, O. & González, T. T. (2018). Liderazgo en la Escuela Rural: Estudios de Casos. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 7(1), 49–70. DOI: 10.17583/rise.2018.2637.
4. Arnold, R. (1998). The small rural primary school and its community: Educating together. Stroud: National Small Schools Forum.
5. Amcoff, J. (2012). Do rural districts die when their schools close? Evidence from Sweden around 2000. Educational Planning, 20(3), 47–60.