Across the United States, students attending rural school districts can face different obstacles than their urban counterparts, particularly rural students from households living below the federal poverty level. But how rural districts are defined can vary by federal, state, and local entity and can sometimes not capture the difficulties specific districts face. The authors examine the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) definitions of rurality--the predominant avenue of federal funding for rural districts--and compare these definitions with how states define "rural" in their own funding formulas. The authors show that these definitions often identify different districts, and they investigate how summary data on district demographics, staffing, revenues, and expenditures vary across these different definitions. Based on the findings in this report, the authors recommend the following: (1) States should consider incorporating a "small" school district component into support systems, either for the first time or in addition to other components; (2) States should reevaluate (or evaluate for the first time) which definitions determine eligibility for funding; and (3) Researchers should consider the geographic context of their research and which definitions of rurality are most appropriate. The pandemic has had significant consequences for rural students, who often lacked internet and other supports necessary to learn from home. It is crucial that policymakers understand how state and federal definitions of rurality affect their understanding of rural districts' needs and resources to support students who are often already at a disadvantage.