When I stepped back from teaching high school after 14 years, a lot of people asked me if it was because of the pay.

Well, no.

Nor did I leave because of the kids, the communities, or the supportive administration or colleagues.

But overall funding for schools certainly contributed to me leaving.

School funding in Michigan declined significantly from 2002 to 2017, and so did teacher salaries. Between the combination of the challenges COVID-19 presented after 15 years of budget cuts — which resulted in less funding for support staff, social workers, supplies and more — and pay freezes, it’s no wonder that teachers are leaving the profession in high numbers.

On top of that, benefits like health insurance, paid time off, and opportunities for professional development were cut.

That’s what teachers have faced.

And, of course, what teachers face, students face. Their favorite teachers leave for better opportunities. Their friends who struggle with mental health can’t get the support they need because the school doesn’t have the resources. They aren’t able to access a broad range of academic, social, and career and technical programs.

All districts in the state are dealing with those issues. But we know that problems are more acute in urban and rural areas, where students are more likely to be economically disadvantaged and face barriers like racial discrimination (primarily in urban areas), language access, isolation (primarily in rural areas) and more.

Disparities in education can be traced to public policies that limit employment and housing opportunities and fail to recognize the added costs of teaching children who live in high-poverty areas.

Michigan State University’s new report, “Educational Opportunities and Community Development in Rural Michigan,” focuses on some key opportunities Michigan has when it comes to improving educational and community outcomes in rural areas, in particular.

And the Michigan League for Public Policy and our partners have long advocated for a weighted funding formula for schools, meaning the schools with the highest needs would receive more targeted funding. We need to improve opportunities for students in both rural and urban areas — districts in those areas have students with the most to gain from our investments.

For context, 56% of students in Alpena County, 57% in Presque Isle County, 58% in Montmorency County, and 63% in Alcona County are eligible for free and reduced-price lunches, which is one of the markers for financial insecurity.

I grew up in a rural area and taught in one for five years. The school district truly was the heart of the community. It’s where people gathered for family recreation, concerts, sporting events, senior citizen activities, and more.

The report reflects that.

But it’s no secret that rural areas are facing unique challenges.

The new report delves into the history of what has caused opportunities in rural areas to decline, including stagnant employment, the movement of young people — and their talents — to more metropolitan settings after graduation, a lack of affordable housing, and I’d add access to child care, healthy foods, and transportation to the mix.

It also highlights five key problem areas: teacher recruitment and retention, serving students with mental health needs, broadband access, funding, and state reporting requirements.

According to the report, Michigan has seen a 71% drop in teacher preparation completion since 2006. We lead the nation in that rate of decline at the same time teachers are leaving the profession in high numbers.

And, in rural areas, issues like lower pay and geographic isolation make it even harder to attract and retain teachers.

The 2023 state budget will go a long way in improving outcomes for schools. It definitely addresses the dire need for teachers to join the profession and stay in it, with $575 million to recruit teachers and provide bonuses to current teachers. Meanwhile, $313 million will go toward behavioral health services. The budget also includes $500 million for school districts whose facilities are in decline to invest in improvements.

Strong schools also depend on strong communities, and policymakers can improve education outcomes by continuing to strengthen supports for families.

It will take time for that funding to truly improve outcomes. For that and future funding to have the biggest impact, it must be targeted to places with the highest need and provide the right supports for districts.

Laura Millard Ross is communications director at the Michigan League for Public Policy.