{"content":[{"text":"2","bbox":{"left":0.102941,"top":0.063641,"width":0.008169999999999997,"height":0.016842999999999997}},{"text":"HOWLEY, LARSON, ANDRIANAIVO, RHODES, AND HOWLEY","bbox":{"left":0.271931,"top":0.063641,"width":0.456695,"height":0.016842999999999997}},{"text":"other rural places. Although one might hope that this research \n would distinguish between reforms that primarily implicate \n structural changes and those that implicate changes in cur- \n riculum content, actual reform initiatives tend to conﬂ ate \n the two. Moreover, as a number of leadership theorists and \n researchers continue to maintain, signiﬁ cant structural re- \n forms may be needed in order to support curricular reforms \n with sufﬁ cient depth to respond meaningfully to national and \n state content standards (e.g., Lunenburg, 2002).","bbox":{"left":0.102941,"top":0.109095,"width":0.382433,"height":0.138056}},{"text":"Recent Curriculum Reforms in Rural High Schools","bbox":{"left":0.514706,"top":0.110395,"width":0.333137,"height":0.015416999999999986}},{"text":"The standards released by the National Council of \n Teachers of Mathematics (1989, 2000) redeﬁ ned the pur- \n poses and methods of mathematics education. These stan- \n dards, moreover, served as the model for content standards \n in mathematics designed by state departments of education \n (Joyner & Bright, 2001). In general, the standards support \n curricula that emphasize concepts and meaning rather than \n rote learning, they promote integrated rather than piecemeal \n treatment of mathematical ideas, and they encourage all \n students’ engagement with high-level mathematics. The \n standards also emphasize an approach to pedagogy that \n ﬁ ts with constructivist theories of learning. This approach \n positions mathematical knowledge as an active and socially \n mediated process by which children construct mathematical \n ideas from their experiences of the world (Ross, 2005). \n At the high school level standards-based curriculum \n includes a core that integrates concepts traditionally pre- \n sented in courses in algebra, geometry, and statistics and \n probability, and it also includes elective courses that extend \n beyond the core (NCTM, 2000). The expectation is that all \n students will complete the core, and that electives will be \n made available for those students interested in engaging in \n more advanced study (NCTM, 2000). The standards also \n implicate the use of inquiry-based approaches to pedagogy, \n such as those focusing on mathematical argumentation, mod- \n eling of quantitative relationships, solution of open-ended \n problems, and generation of multiple solutions. \n According to many writers, standards-based math- \n ematics education constitutes a major departure from the \n traditional approach to curriculum and pedagogy. As a conse- \n quence, much of the literature about reform of mathematics \n education concerns itself with the education of new teachers \n and the re-education of practicing teachers (e.g., Lachance, \n & Confrey, 2003). Despite the constructivist premises \n incorporated into new mathematics standards as well as \n notable efforts to prepare teachers to use methods consistent \n with these premises, the changes that many schools make \n in response to new mathematics standards sometimes draw \n on traditional (and perhaps counterproductive) approaches, \n such as ability grouping, direct instruction, and increased \n emphasis on classroom testing (e.g., Mussoline & Shouse, \n 2001; Rowan, Harrison, & Hayes, 2004; Sztajn, 2003).","bbox":{"left":0.102941,"top":0.290914,"width":0.38250799999999996,"height":0.638055}},{"text":"The small body of empirical literature from 1990- \n 2006 that discusses curriculum modiﬁ cations in rural high \n schools reveals two prevalent approaches. One focuses on \n generic reform strategies, resembling those often used in \n suburban and urban high schools. The other approach has \n a more localized focus, responding to the circumstances \n confronting particular rural communities. A third approach, \n which entails the incremental improvement of traditional \n pedagogy, is rarely presented as a reform even though the \n rural educators who use it may do so with the explicit aim \n of improving curriculum and instruction. \n Reforms responsive to state and national standards. \n Perhaps the clearest examples of the adoption of generic \n reforms in rural high schools can be seen in studies of \n schools that have implemented Comprehensive School \n Reform Demonstration Projects. These projects, which are \n sponsored by the US Department of Education, incorporate \n research-based approaches intended to help schools meet \n state and national standards. \n Carlson (2000) conducted case studies of ﬁ ve rural dis- \n tricts that adopted CSRD projects; and in two of the districts, \n high schools were implementing the reforms. He reported \n that, at Crossover High School, staff had adopted the Accel- \n erated Schools model, which addressed “curriculum align- \n ment and promoting teamwork and cooperation among staff \n members” (p. 31). Data from Crossover suggested that some \n efforts had been made to prepare teachers for the change but \n that many teachers did not see a need for the reform. Teacher \n resistance seemed to be less of a problem at Liberty High \n School, which had adopted the Effective School Model. The \n aims of this project were similar to those of the Accelerated \n Schools project adopted at Crossover. Both projects focused \n on curriculum alignment and improved teamwork; in ad- \n dition the project at Liberty involved the creation of “two \n advanced placement courses and ﬁ ve or six honors courses” \n (p. 41). At the end of the ﬁ rst year of the project, consultants \n reported to Carlson that teamwork had been improved and \n that curriculum alignment was underway. Other parts of the \n reform project had yet to be implemented. \n Other studies also indicated that improved collegiality \n and increased curricular coherence resulted from efforts \n at rural high schools to adopt reforms that responded to \n state and national standards. In an evaluation of reforms \n of mathematics and science at Cocke County High School \n in Tennessee, researchers found evidence suggesting that \n participation in the Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative \n (ARSI) had increased educators’ attentiveness to state stan- \n dards (Horn, Oliver, & Stufﬂ ebeam, 2000). The high school \n staff had, for example, conducted an audit to investigate the \n extent to which the curriculum was aligned with state stan- \n dards, and teachers had also participated in ARSI-sponsored \n professional development that emphasized inquiry as a peda-","bbox":{"left":0.514706,"top":0.13941,"width":0.38251,"height":0.78957}},{"text":"Reform of Mathematics Education","bbox":{"left":0.102941,"top":0.261898,"width":0.224657,"height":0.015417000000000014}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}