Indifference has not always characterized American attitudes toward rural children, nor has neglect always been the cornerstone of state and federal policy toward rural education. Indeed, for nearly a century there was an avid and influential—though ultimately ineffective—rural school reform movement in the United States. But in recent years, rural education has become a "skeleton in the closet" of the education profession. More than 14 million children attend rural schools that receive only minuscule amounts of the nation s financial resources and professional attention. The authors of this book carefully analyze the beliefs, assumptions, policies, and practices that have shaped and continue to shape education in rural America, concluding that conventional wisdom in rural education has proved to be considerably more conventional than wise. They offer pragmatic suggestions for changes in rural schools, in educational policy, and in programs designed for rural communities. As Robert Coles tells us in his Foreword to the book, they "give us clear, strong, uncluttered prose—a good sign that they are able to offer sensible, honest, unpretentious suggestions and useful ideas. They give us. . .a social history that enables perspective . . . and [they give us] practical, well-argued suggestions for a public policy both humane and capable of realization for our rural areas."

In the United States and other western nations, debates rage over whether welfare, medical care, educational programs, and many other aspects of public policy should be the responsibility of central govern ment, local government, or the private sector. In most nations, the issues of regional autonomy and decentralization are constantly in the news, with intensity varying from mild debate to open warfare. Less visibly, battles are continuously fought in the political arena over what groups should have the right to make decisions concerning the allocation of soci ety's resources. In response to these concerns, social scientists have focused consider able attention on the causes and consequences of centralization and de centralization in political, economic, and social organizations. Their analyses of centralization have been varied, ranging from systems that are quite small (e. g. , the family, the firm, and the community) to those sys tems that are very large (e . g. , the welfare state). While centralization is a concept of major concern in most of the social science disciplines, each discipline has tended to focus on centralization with a different set of interests. Economists have been very much concerned with the causes and the consequences of the concentration of economic resources. Polit ical scientists have long sought to understand the origins and conse quences of dictatorship and democracy. Sociologists have focused on inequalities in the distribution of power.