What Counts as Evidence in Rural Schools? Evidence-Based Practice and Practice-Based Evidence for Diverse Settings

Despite a century of research searching for what works in teaching and learning, a project that has benefited from political support in the form of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, any individual child's experience of learning in school is marked by inequalities based on socioeconomic status, race, immigrant status, and geospatial location (Eppley & Shannon, 2017). The search for what works has remained unchanged in philosophy and design despite long-standing evidence of persistent and growing inequalities among groups (Reardon, 2011). Evidence Based Practice (EBP) has undergirded contemporary education policies and the educational outcomes that have resulted from this research. As such, EBP directs teachers' and students' experiences in school. Education policy in the United States favors a near-exclusive emphasis on evidence-based practice to guide policy and practice about what educational interventions work (Walsh, Reutz, & Williams, 2015). What "works," however, ignores the relevance of context. Context of place, particularly of rural places, is an important consideration for research whose aim is to identify and promote effective and culturally sustaining instruction for students (Gruenewald, 2003; Lester, 2012). This policy column considers the limitations of EBP as the foundational philosophy of contemporary education policy in rural schools and suggests Practice Based Evidence as a socially just alternative.