In connection with regional development and policy, a growing necessity to define areas perceived as problematic in terms of resolving their needs is becoming apparent. The most prevalent concept regarding the unequal disposition of phenomena and relationships in space is the core-periphery dichotomy (Wallerstein 1984; Leimgruber 1994). Core/central areas can be characterized by concentration of certain controlling and crucial functions, attributes of economic development and by their autonomous position (Friedmann 1966). Peripheral areas are viewed primarily in contrast to the cores. They are subordinate to them and lack the attributes mentioned above. The process of peripheralization, during which an area becomes increasingly disadvantaged, implies that the area in question is developing in a different manner, wherein this dissimilarity is perceived negatively. In this way loss of the key attributes mentioned continues and the area begins to find itself on the margin of interest. However, periphery is not always determined by objectively quantifiable measures. It is possible for a subjective perception of peripheralization to arise, in which residents feel that they are on the margin of interest.

In connection with education, research on peripheral areas frequently indicates the lower qualifications of such areas’ inhabitants, most often measured by their highest obtained level of education. Nonetheless, rather than ensuring the highest possible level of education recognized in a given society, education means obtaining such knowledge and skills which an individual needs to successfully act in the surroundings, in which he/she will subsequently operate. Such education must take place from the elementary level. Therefore, we expect that the presence of an elementary school in a municipality plays an important role. At the present time, as a variety of service facilities are being concentrated in centers, claims that the operation of (small) elementary schools in peripheries are financially difficult and that schools in (cities) central locations provide pupils with better material accessories and professional personnel are certainly justifiable (e.g. Pacione 1984; Bell, Sigsworth 1987). In contrast, proponents of small (rural) schools point out that these institutions fill very important roles in the operation of their respective communities (e.g. Miller 1995). An elementary school also represents a certain symbol of autonomy and vitality of a rural community (Lyson 2002). Over time, therefore, school closures can lead to degradation of communities, environment and depopulation in various municipalities as well as entire regions.

For all of the reasons listed, we perceive the absence of an elementary school in a municipality to be spatial expression of unequal access to elementary education and the closure of elementary schools as an expression of peripheralization. From our perspective, a peripheral area is a territory with a lack/absence of elementary schools. Through the example of Czechia, we shall attempt to describe the mutual relationship between elementary school closure, especially in peripheral, rural areas, and the objective as well as subjective peripheralization of these territories. This poster’s objective is to answer the question of whether peripheralization is more a cause or an effect of the closure of an elementary school.

BELL, A., SIGSWORTH, A. (1987): The Small Rural Primary School: A Matter of Quality. Routledge, London, 295 p. FRIEDMANN, J. (1966/1972): A General Theory of Polarized Development. In: Hansen, N. M. (ed.). Growth Centres in Regional Economic Development. Free Press, New York, pp. 82–107. KUČEROVÁ, S., KUČERA, Z. (2009): Changes in the rural elementary schools network in Czechia in second half of 20th century and its possible impact on rural areas. European Countryside, 1, No. 3, pp. 125–140. LEIMGRUBER, W. (1994): Marginality and Marginal Regions: Problem of Definition. In: Chang, C. D. (ed.): Marginality and Development Issues in Marginal Regions. National Taiwan University, Taiwan, pp. 1–18. LYSON, T. A. (2002): What Does a School Mean to a Community? Assessing the Social and Economic Benefits of Schools to Rural Villages in New York. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 17, No. 3, pp. 131–137. MILLER, B. (1995): The Role of Rural Schools in Community Development: Policy Issues and Implications. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 16 p. MUSIL, J., MÜLLER, J. (2008): Vnitřní periferie v České republice jako mechanismus sociální exkluze (Inner Peripheries of the Czech Republic as a Mechanism of Social Exclusion). Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 44, No. 2, pp. 321–348. PACIONE, M. (1984): Rural Geography. Harper and Row, London, 384 p. WALLERSTEIN, I. (1984): The Politics of the World-Economy: the States, the Movements and the Civilizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 191 p.