Framing School Mathematics Challenges Inside and Outside Metropolitan Areas

Background/Context: The problems that school district leaders identify and how they frame them have consequences—for both policy implementation and the ways that teachers respond. Although that is likely true in all community contexts (from rural to urban, inside and outside metropolitan centers), the influence of broader discourses associated with accountability reforms centered around state standardized testing may not be uniform across those contexts. Purpose/Objective/Research Question or Focus of Study: In this article, we report the results of an interview study we conducted with leaders in 50 school districts across the U.S. state of Missouri, in which we investigated what they identified as—and how they framed—their districts’ most salient problems related to mathematics. Guiding our analysis were the following questions: (1) What do those who oversee school districts’ mathematics instruction and curriculum identify as mathematics-related problems, and how do they frame those problems? (2) Do leaders’ identification and framing of problems differ with respect to districts’ size and proximity to metropolitan centers? (3) If so, to what extent are institutional factors, including mathematics achievement, economic resources, the presence of a mathematics-specific leader, and the district’s pedagogical commitments, predictive of leaders’ identification and framing of problems? Research Design: In 50 school districts in Missouri, sampled from different categories of size and proximity to metropolitan centers, we interviewed the district leader most responsible for overseeing mathematics curriculum and instruction about their mathematics-related challenges. We also collected contextual information from governmental websites, including population data, student achievement rates, student racial and economic demographics, and district economic resources (i.e., per-pupil expenditures). Through qualitative analysis we identified what leaders identified as their most pressing challenge and how they framed that challenge. Through regression analysis we identified which community and district characteristics were predictive of leaders’ problem identification and framing. Conclusions/Recommendations: Our results point to meaningful differences in leaders’ identification and framing of problems related to whether they work within metropolitan areas. In particular, we argue that leaders in nonmetropolitan districts appear more likely to adopt the frame offered by the “corporate model of schooling,” defining and framing problems around improvement in standardized test scores, whereas leaders in metropolitan areas are more likely to define problems in terms of equity and the ways that students experience school mathematics. And leaders from smaller districts were more likely to employ a strictly “management” framing of outcomes-related problems, describing responses focused exclusively on changing district programs and structures (rather than a “learning” frame that foregrounds supporting and developing staff). Institutional factors predictive of leaders’ identification of problems concerning equity and student experience included per-pupil expenditures, higher rates of test proficiency, commitment to inquiry-based pedagogy, and the presence of a district mathematics leader.