ࡱ>  [ ߄bjbj 7ΐΐz, ( 1118iD1S1,RRRRRRR$TWVRR4R / / /rR /R / /ro9To:+]c1&9oRR0S9W,TWo:Wo:0 " /+GdRR).SW : Embedding Mathematics in the Elementary Teacher Education Curriculum Network Laura J. Jacobsen  HYPERLINK "mailto:ljacobsen@radford.edu" ljacobsen(at)radford.edu Radford University ABSTRACT This paper is based on ethnographic research approached with a view of mathematics teacher education as embedded within the teacher education program on the whole. I describe preservice elementary teachers contextualizations of mathematics in the program as well as their place-based characterizations of the value and (ir-)relevance of coursework and fieldwork to teaching. Drawing on these results, I speculate that popular NCTM Standards-based reform visions, and related standards-based approaches in other disciplines, may produce divisions between philosophy and practice that sometimes function in an unacceptable way to sort and rank schools. I introduce and suggest the need for a mathematics education in the public interest that critically analyzes pressing social, political, and economic issues. Finally, I raise challenges to popular approaches and assumptions of mathematics teacher education research and suggest that a networks-based research approach may be one possible avenue for critically examining mainstream approaches toward, and implications of, mathematics teacher education. INTRODUCTION Since the report A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) claimed the United States was threatened by a rising tide of mediocrity (p. 5), the move in education has been toward increased setting of standards. Standards-based education aims to help all children achieve at the highest levels and to help the United States be more internationally competitive. Debate over standards-based education, and over how it should be defined, has been intense and ongoing. Teacher education programs have been a part of the standards movement, with many programs working to prepare preservice teacher education students to teach using standards-based best practice approaches. Standards-based teacher education is based on assumptions that standards can be universally applied and good teaching similarly identified and described across all school classrooms. For example, No Child Left Behind [NCLB] claimed that researchers have scientifically proven the best ways to teach reading (USDOE, 2002, p. 1), adding that the need exists for the same in mathematics. NCLB further explained for classroom instruction, That means using only research-based teaching methods and rejecting unproven fads (p. 1). In recent years of increasing emphasis on standards, reports stemming from a range of perspectivessuch as What Matters Most (National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future [NCTAF], 1996), Teaching Certification Reconsidered (The Abell Foundation, 2001), No Dream Denied (NCTAF, 2003), and Teaching at Risk (The Teaching Commission, 2004), to name a fewhave generally placed teachers and teacher education at the source of educational reforms. Among other similar suggestions that have been made, the widely cited Teaching for Americas Future (NCTAF, 1996) report indicated, A caring, competent, and qualified teacher for every child is the most important ingredient in education reform (p. 3). That report emphasized the development and assessment of teachers knowledge and skills as a centerpiece for achieving Americas goals. Based on ethnographic research approached with a view of mathematics teacher education as embedded within the teacher education program on the whole, this paper describes one particular limitation of standards-based teacher education. I describe preservice elementary teachers contextualizations of mathematics in the teacher education program as well as their place-based characterizations of the value and (ir-)relevance of coursework and fieldwork to teaching. Drawing on these results, I speculate that popular National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] Standards-based reform visions, and related standards-based approaches in other disciplines, may produce divisions between philosophy and practice that sometimes function in an unacceptable way to sort and rank schools. I introduce alternative approaches to mathematics education that attend to the question, What is the purpose of schooling? and that incorporate critical analyses of pressing social, political, and economic issues. Finally, I raise challenges to popular approaches and assumptions of cognitive and situative perspectives on mathematics teacher education research and suggest that a networks-based research approach may be one possible avenue for critically examining mainstream approaches toward, and implications of, mathematics teacher education. RESEARCH ON TEACHER LEARNING Cognitive and situative perspectives dominate research on teachers learning. For about the past 25 years, investigations of teachers beliefs and knowledge have been very common in teacher education literature. Commonly investigated topics include preservice teachers prior beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes, changes in these constructs in association with program coursework and fieldwork, and connections between stated beliefs and teaching practices (e.g., Borko & Putnam, 1996; Clift & Brady, 2005). Research based on cognitive perspectives generally can be associated with assumptions that preservice teachers prior knowledge or prior conceptions impact much of what they experience in the teacher education program as well as the ways in which they eventually teach (e.g., Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1992). The major question regarding learning to teach in cognitive psychology is how knowledge and beliefs change over time as novice teachers learn to teach and experienced teachers attempt to make changes in their teaching practices (Borko & Putnam, 1996, p. 673). From situative perspectives, learning represents a process of changing participation in socially organized activity (Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Situative perspectives argue that knowing and learning are situated in physical and social contexts, social in nature, and distributed across persons and tool (Putnam & Borko, p. 12). From a situative perspective, understanding teacher learning requires examining the relationship between what people know and the settings in which they know (Greeno, 1997). Researchers give attention to how different settings for teacher learning afford different kinds of knowing (Putnam & Borko). Peressini et al. (2004) presented a conceptual framework for studying the process of learning to teach mathematics from a situative perspective. In their Learning to Teach Secondary Mathematics study, Peressini et al. conceptualized beginning teachers learning to teach as a trajectory through the multiple contexts of teacher education (p. 71). One novice teacher they studied, Mr. Hanson, completed his student teaching in a wealthier and less diverse district surrounding his university and his first year of teaching in Rose Tall Middle School, located in a diverse, mostly working class suburban school district with over a fourth of its 600 students Hispanic. Peressini et al. interpreted Mr. Hansons very different instructional practices between student teaching and his first year teaching as an interaction between his developing professional identity and the affordances and constraints of these two settings (p. 82-83). They offered as a possible explanation for the discrepancies in his instruction to center on the relationship between Mr. Hansons evolving identity as a teacher and two very different teaching situations (p. 87), explaining the sociocultural context and the demands placed on Mr. Hanson at Rose Tall Middle School to be at odds with his developing professional identity. Ebby (2000) and Mewborns (2000) dissertation research similarly represent examples from mathematics education that drew on situative perspectives. Ebby and Mewborn conducted similar studies in that each looked across a mathematics methods course and a field experience to examine preservice elementary teachers ways of connecting these experiences. Mewborn searched for the characteristics of activities that enabled preservice teachers to reflect on mathematics teaching and learning in a field experience centered on and encouraging reflection on childrens thinking and its impact on instruction. Ebby described how students tied together and learned from particular groupings of coursework and fieldwork in a teacher education program that consciously aimed to integrate these two contexts (p. 71). Mostly working from cognitive and situative perspectives, teacher education research has focused heavily on preservice teachers learning in particular course or field placement experiences or in a paired coursework and fieldwork experiences. Very little research has looked beyond these individual and paired experiences to examine how beliefs or meaning-making are shaped and reshaped over time (Clift & Brady, 2005). In my research, I did not view preservice teachers cognitions to be developmental and based on some fixed prior knowledge or conceptions, as in some cognitive studies. I also did not view preservice teachers learning as situated in particular course or field contexts. Studies examining these issues can be very valuable, but they tend to do little to position preservice teachers experiences and learning either in the teacher education program in general or in broader socio-political geographies. I aimed to address both of these things in my own research. Details are provided below. Introduction to My Study Ironically, all over the world, candidates voices are rarely used to ascertain whether their teacher education program achieves its goals. (Korthagen, Loughran & Russell, 2006, p. 1035) My research drew upon a networks-based perspective (e.g., Latour, 1987, 2005; Nespor, 1994) and focused on relations and on movements between associations. Specifically, with special focus on my own field of mathematics education, I tried to understand preservice teachers ways of producing and re-producing program meanings and relevance. I considered the relations preservice teachers drew between their various experiences as characterizing the meaning and relevance of the program and program activities. Because I thought of preservice teachers ways of participating in, shaping, and making meaning of activities as being coordinated with other distant activities (cf., Nespor, 2006), I tried to identify patterns and differences in how preservice teachers described relationships between activities, and to consider the political nature of these relationships. In my research, I thought of spaces and times not as frames of reference inside of which events occur, but instead, as produced and constituted through activity (e.g., Lefebvre, 1991; Massey, 1993; Soja, 1985). Such a view does not imply that there are no physically bounded spaces or time schedules (e.g., classrooms, or a one-hour class meeting, respectively). A simple explanation of what this view means for researchers is that we focus not within these bounds, but instead on the relationships that extend activities and their meanings to others elsewhere. Drawing from this premise, for example, when I took field notes in certain courses (which were physically bounded in classrooms and in time across a 15-week semester), I listened to and looked for how preservice teachers related particular courses or course activities both to other things in these courses (e.g., to what the textbook or instructor said) and also to things elsewhere. Since in this way courses and activities had no clear boundaries, I took less interest in things such as the impact of particular courses and more interest in how preservice teachers described these courses and activities in relation to others elsewhere. In my research, I did not view the social as a domain within which people participate and things take place. Rather, I drew upon Latours (1987, 2005) actor-network theory description of the social as a moment in time detectable by tracing movements from one association to the next. These and related networks-based ideas helped me address my established research interests in elementary teacher education while also explicitly attending to my ontological view that the world works in socially, politically, and economically integrated ways. I aimed to design my project from the perspective that to understand mathematics teacher education activities, we must understand how they are connected to and shaped by others across space and time, and that further, the ways activities are connected and shaped can never be independent of broader, global issues (e.g., Callon & Law, 1997; Latour, 1987, 2005; Law, 1999; Nespor, 1994). I defined the teacher education curriculum network as my research unit of analysis. Latour (1999) suggested of actor-network theory, It is a theory that says that by following circulations we can get more than by defining entities, essence, or provinces (p. 20). With special attention given to mathematics education, I examined not bounded entities such as people or courses, but instead, relations and movement. I do identify groups, such as preservice teachers, but my interest is not in defining them or their cognitions. Instead, I am interested in the relations between and beyond the preservice teachers, their courses, the program, schools, and so forth. My study focused on how knowledge and curriculum were constructed, linked, and transformed in one 5-year elementary teacher education program. With special interest in mathematics education (see description of Research Methods), I examined connections and distinctions that preservice teachers made between their undergraduate and graduate program components, their in-major and core curriculum courses, and their coursework and fieldworkand I looked at how the program helped preservice teachers to do this. I addressed the questions: (1) how do preservice elementary teachers characterize relationships between teacher education program components, and how do those characterizations vary or change, and (2) how do preservice elementary teachers explain the value or relevance of coursework and fieldwork to teaching. This paper describes preservice teachers contextualizations of mathematics in the program but primarily addresses the second question. I focus in particular on tensions produced between preservice teachers experiences in the program and in schools and on the relevance, and irrelevance, that preservice teachers assigned to the program. The Program In this 5-year teacher education program, preservice teachers generally completed the Early Childhood Education [ECE] option of an undergraduate Human Development major in  EMBED Equation.DSMT4  years, followed by a  EMBED Equation.DSMT4  year Elementary Education graduate program in the Department of Teaching and Learning. Preservice teachers exited the combined program with their masters degrees (MAED) and endorsement for licensure in grades preK-6. As often recommended for teacher education programs (e.g., Goodlad, 1990; Peterson et al., 1995; Tom, 1997), the program used a cohort group organization in which preservice teachers took many of their courses together across the 5-year time span. Preservice teachers had field placements in either preschools or elementary schools almost every semester of the 5-year program. In their fifth year, half completed elementary school field placements in Lewiston County surrounding the university and half completed elementary school field placements in Bremont City (population approximately 100,000; located about 45 miles from the university). Preservice teachers then switched school districts for student teaching. Some faculty indicated this switch to be partly a reflection of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educations [NCATE] emphasis on diversity. The NCATE (2002) Standard for Diversity states, for example, that preservice teachers need experiences that include working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse candidates, and diverse students in P-12 schools (p. 29). Elementary Education faculty member Dr. Norene Joseph (all names are pseudonyms), also a supervisor of student interns and student teachers, described the strategy: A lot of us have felt like our students arent prepared to teach in the changing diversity of schools in this day and age. We felt like socioeconomic status, inclusion [programs in] schools, and racial and ethnic diversity, second language issuesthere were all these things that we didnt feel like our students were getting enough of. The large majority of preservice teachers I worked with (63 out of 69) identified themselves on a survey as European American/White. These demographics are not unusual in teacher education. Although school enrollments in the United States have become increasingly diverse, with the percentage of public school students who were White decreasing from 68 to 55 percent between 1988 and 2008 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010), incoming teachers remain predominantly non-Hispanic White, middle-class, monolingual females having limited experience with students of backgrounds different from their own (Hollins & Guzman, 2005; National Education Association, 2004; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). Sharp demographic divides between children and teachers have contributed to widespread suggestions that teacher education programs face pressing and long-term needs to address cultural gaps and to prepare teachers to teach children of diverse racial, ethnic, and social class backgrounds or in urban schools (e.g., Banks & Banks, 2001; Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2000; Nieto, 2000). Recommendations for ways to make teacher education programs more responsive to multiculturalism, diversity, or social justice issues almost always advocate infusing these issues in all aspects of programs and even across whole universities. However, the prominence of these topics across entire programs has been little observed in teacher education. A more common response than widespread changes to such calls from teacher education programs has been to add on diversity or multiculturalism courses and leave the rest of the program intact (Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Zeichner & Hoeft, 1996). The provision of an urban field placement in the program I studied represented one of this programs concerted attempts to prepare preservice teachers for diverse schools. Like initiatives at other universities, these diverse field experiences appeared to be more of a program add-on than integrated across the program as a whole (Burant & Kirby, 2002; Canning, 1995; McCormick, 1990). Introduction to Research Methods Data collection for this ethnographic study included: Online demographics survey for preservice teachers Copies of preservice teachers schedules, transcripts, and other artifacts 13 interviews with faculty 52 interviews with preservice teachers (and many informal conversations) 28 were with graduate preservice teachers Approximately 200 hours of fieldnotes in and outside of courses. The majority (approx. 125 hours) were in mathematics and mathematics methods courses because I have a special interest in that field. This paper only minimally uses field notes. I did not teach or supervise any of my study participants during or after my study. Interviews Interviews generally lasted 45 to 60 minutes and were loosely structured. Interviews with preservice teachers addressed their overall program experiences, their experiences with particular coursework and fieldwork, their social and academic relations, their past experiences with schooling, and so forth. Because of my special interest in mathematics education, I generally asked additional follow-up questions about mathematics coursework and fieldwork that I sometimes did not ask about other program coursework and fieldwork. Faculty interviews addressed their goals for courses, their choices of course texts, what kinds of preservice teachers they had, how their courses fit into the program, and their role and collegial ties in the program. Reflexive Design To remain familiar with the data, I revisited my interviews and fieldnotes regularly. For example, of the 65 interviews I conducted, I personally transcribed 46 of the interviews, which allowed me to reflect on what I learned from preservice teachers. I almost always typed up hand-written field notes within 24 hours of observations (cf., Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). I thought of participants as co-researchers (Erickson, 1986) and used their suggestions to help generate new questions and focus my attention for future interviews and observations. Data Analysis and Writing I indexed interviews using descriptive categories that included as little analysis as possible, in a manner similar to Beckers (1998) suggestion for writing fieldnotes. I stored these indices using Excel software, which helped me locate places in transcripts where participants talked about particular topics or ideas. When I revisited transcripts, I jotted many notes to myself, and I reviewed these notes throughout the project, also making notes about my notes, similar to the process Dey (1993) referred to as annotating data (p. 88). Also for data analysis, I pulled out many transcript chunks (sometimes 1 paragraph; sometimes 1 or 2 pages) in which preservice teachers drew various distinctions or connections between their coursework and fieldwork experiences and then sorted those into piles where preservice teachers gave similar explanations for how or why coursework and fieldwork were related. I jotted notes based on my sorting. contextualizing mathematics in teacher education In this section, I introduce preservice teachers understandings of the mathematics education philosophy supported by their program, as contextualized within the teacher education program philosophies on the whole. The modeling of program emphases is also addressed. Teacher Education Program Philosophies Emily: [In] all my classes [laughs], undergrad and graduate.All our teachers seem to share the same philosophy on, you know, student-directed learning, integration of subjects, constructive guidance and discipline. Gosh, what are some of the other ones? [Pauses 6 seconds] I should know all these.If I would ask somebody else in my major, What are your views on, you know, discipline?, Im sure they would spit out the same thing as mejust because our classes all use the same texts and stuff that kind of support that philosophy. But I mean I think it is good. I mean its research-basedBut it is just very kind of idealizedIt makes you strive to be the best teacher ever. But then you have to kind of find the meeting point between the reality of the school system and then your philosophy as a teacher.Im sure if everybody in our major wrote what our philosophy of learning was, then Im sure they would all be very much the same. Laura: What about philosophies of teaching math? What would you say would be peoples views on that? Emily: Investigative approach! [Laughs] Im pretty sure. The investigative approach. You know, a problem or game as the introduction. Not worksheets over and over. Not just writing a problem on the board showing kids how to do it and then having them practice it. It would be more of a just, you know, giving them a task and then having them use something, use their math skills. You know, not say, Use this to solve it. But kind of them thinking for themselves, Okay, what do I need to be able to solve it? Its more meaningful, I think. More engaging, more thought provoking. Investigative approach. [Laughs] Looking across a number of teacher education programs, Goodlad (1990) and colleagues noted that methods courses at the elementary level generally included repetition and communicated several overlapping and relatively well-known approaches to teaching. This was similarly the case in the program that I studied. Preservice teachers largely expressed that teacher education courses and faculty communicated clear and consistent recommendations for teaching. They described program emphases in similar terms used by faculty and in the mission statement. From overlapping content and ideologies, preservice teachers came to identify particular things communicated to them across much of the 5-year programsuch as how Emily named student-directed learning, integration of subjects, constructive guidance and discipline, and the investigative approach. Introduced in Emilys comment from above, is how preservice teachers also constructed the relevance for these idealized philosophies by positioning or testing them with the reality of school systems. The meeting point Emily identified between the reality of the school system and her philosophy as a teacher can perhaps be thought of as helping her define the programs relevance in school systems. The term Emily used for mathematics instruction called the investigative approach came from and was used and described extensively in the Math Methods course textbook, Fostering Childrens Mathematical Power (Baroody, 1998), from which Paul assigned most in-class assignments and homework. The texts author Baroody, and also Paul, described the investigative approach to be an NCTM Standards-based (1989, 2000) approach. In an interview, Paul summarized the approach as inquiry-based and activity-based and interdisciplinary and interconnected. Paul usually referenced and supported Baroodys investigative approach several times during each class meeting and drew comparisons and contrasts to skills, conceptual, and problem-solving approaches. Paul regularly provided recommendations for teaching based on the investigative approach. Students commonly linked the investigative approach with ways they were learning to teach science, social studies, and language arts. Content-specific graduate courses were also tied back to students undergraduate experiences in Early Childhood Education. Preservice teachers often interpreted inquiry-based and child-centered course ideas to represent what they should try to do in future classroomsexperiencing those ideas as closely interconnected. The important point is that mathematics instruction was regularly connected ideologically by students to instruction in other subjects as well as to good teaching in general: Weve gotten a lot of inquiry-based, child-centered instruction, which is great.Its such an exciting thing to be able to not do worksheets, but have the children discover things on their own. Thats something that Ive found has been true in all the classes, especially math and science classes.Its kind ofshoved down our throats a little bit. (Marian) Typically not referenced in students making of ideological connections across the program were foundations (also see Goodlad, 1990) and core curriculum courses, among others. Modeling of Program Emphases In the program I studied, preservice teachers and faculty alike reported the regular use of modeling in graduate methods courses. This helped to clarify the programs philosophy for preservice teachers. Methods courses immersed preservice teachers in tasks that provided experience with ways of learning that program faculty also recommended they use with children. Often based upon suggestions that teachers teach much as they were taught (e.g., Howey, 1996; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Tom, 1997), modeling has been an important concept and widespread practice in teacher education in recent years (Grossman, 2005)where faculty use those instructional approaches they support preservice teachers to similarly use in school classrooms. In his suggestions for redesigning teacher education programs, Tom (1997) listed faculty modeling of programmatic emphases as the first of five conceptual principles. NCATE (2002) also recommended that faculty model best professional practices as part of its six unit standards comprising a broad conceptual framework for teacher preparation. The Mathematical Sciences Education Board (National Research Council, 1989) is one of many groups to have posited a need for modeling in teacher education program coursework. Preservice teachers described themselves as learning, and experiencing as students, some of the programs recommendations for best ways to teach these subjects. For example, describing experiences in a Math Methods course taught by Dr. Paul Dalton, Veronica explained: Paul is not standing in front of us and saying, Okay, this is this new subject thatIm teaching you guys so youll just know. Hes saying, Im going to show you this. This is the way that you can teach your students. He shows us kind of in the way that he would show his students, too.Hell give us a problem and we have to figure it out on our ownkind of inquiry-based content. I feel like Im not learning more about any of these subjects [themselves], morehow I can teach it the best. Many graduate students made similar comments to Veronica. It was common for them to connect the modeled approaches back to program discourses related to inquiry-based instruction or the investigative approach in mathematics. However, students also commonly suggested faculty modeling and these program discourses to typify ideal instruction that may or may not be possible in real schools. Place-Based Relevance of Program Philosophies This section describes place-specific relevancies, and irrelevancies, of program emphases, as communicated by the preservice teachers. I focus on how preservice teachers negotiations of the relationship between their learning in the program and their experiences in schools created certain tensions for them. I describe tensions between program and school philosophies and cultures and provided and produced curriculum and agendas. I also describe the sometimes no-place relevance of program emphases. The topics I address overlap heavily; I sort them only to facilitate my communicating about important issues and concerns expressed by preservice teachers. Program and School Philosophies and Cultures Preservice teachers mostly expressed a desire to teach in program-supported ways, but at times questioned its possibility. Introduced in Emilys comment from the previous section is how preservice teachers constructed the relevance to teaching for these idealized philosophies by positioning or testing the philosophies with the reality they experienced in schools. As Emily indicated, preservice teachers looked for meeting points between program coursework and school experiences. I use Donnas quote below to begin pointing out the place-based relevance that preservice teachers sometimes ascribed to program emphases: My two roommates are in Bremont City, and they talk a lot aboutsome of the teachers expectations.Im worried about the teaching styles.I cant speak for all of them, but theyre morevery direct. Its I guess a culture issuevery direct in their teaching. Whereas in Lewiston County I felt like they shared a lot of the same beliefs that Our University emphasizes in education. I felt like it was easier for me to do what I wanted to do. My cooperating teacherwas real flexible, and I dont know if Im going to have that same amount of flexibility next semester [for student teaching in Bremont City]. I know a lot of schools are also pushing for that accreditation, too, in Bremont City. So the culture of the school is something thats a concern of mine, and the styles of instruction. Preservice teachers flexibility to carry out instruction in ways the program supported varied dramatically, depending on school cultures and policies. For example, different instructional approaches taken by cooperating teachers, or different school discipline policies or expectations regarding classroom management, at times set up contradictions between program ideas and school practices. The way the school is run, they want everything to be quietId be upset if I was in that kind of schoolteaching. Because I would feel very frustrated about what I could doThe program has showed me how important it is to have inquiry learning andhow important it is for kids to discuss things and teach them how to work in groups and teach them how to do all these things.Then to get in this school was like, Whoa! This is so different from what we learned. I dont know what is going on here. (Meredith) Merediths placement was in an urban district and in a school struggling to succeed on state standardized tests related to No Child Left Behind [NCLB]. At the time of our interview, Meredith had been at this placement for over two months, and typical among preservice teachers, Meredith wanted to relate what she was learning in the program to what she was experiencing in a real classroom. But preservice teachers observed some cooperating teachers or schools to incorporate closer approximations of program emphases than others. The mismatch between Merediths expectations for how she wanted to teach and the ways she believed it possible to do this in her current urban placement produced frustration for her. She also explained: At my elementary school, their philosophy on education is very different from what they teach at Our University, and even than what Im guessing is done in Lewiston County. Its just very authoritarian at the school Im at. Although Meredith described the program to prepare her to teach in an authoritarian school, she also indicated that she did not want to teach at that kind of school. Meredith described herself as being inspired by hearing in her graduate courses about different strategies and many good ideas for getting children excited about learning. She explained how she would like to plan a lesson like those she had learned about in courses, but that she had never seen the kinds of things she learned about in the program in a school classroom. Meredith described as one problem with her kindergarten field placement classroom the fact that it was an open classroom where children needed to remain quiet. Related to her learning in the program, Meredith suggested these kinds of expectations for a quiet classroom to go against everything that I think is developmentally appropriate for kindergarteners. Meredith and other preservice teachers experienced different kinds and levels of tension between program recommendations and school philosophies and cultures, depending on their particular placement. The Shaping Curriculum in Socio-Political Contexts section of this paper communicates my analysis of which schools or classrooms tended to be marginalized in connection with these differences. Provided and Produced Curriculum and Agendas This section uses examples from my discussion with graduate preservice teachers Bobby and Wendy to highlight differences preservice teachers experienced, learned about, and described regarding school agendas. Agenda setting by teachers. I have suggested that the program I studied largely treated instruction as context-independent. Preservice teachers described that they learned strategies for teaching that could be applied across various school contexts. The program also supported preservice teachers to have a sense of agency over their own teaching, across school contexts. What separates good teachers from mediocre teachers is that they want to take that extra effort, that extra step to make the lesson a little bit more enjoyable, a little bit more engaging to students[The program] has really emphasized that if you put the effort and you put the work towards it, you can kill two birds with one stone in terms of giving a good lesson that students are really engaged and they get something out of it and youre teaching the [standards] at the same time.Theyve really just done a good job of saying, The power is in your hands. Its up to you whether or not you want to have really good lessons and everything or if you just want to sit back and give [students] worksheets. (Bobby) Preservice teachers discussed and became well aware of the existence of state standards and standardized testing in their teacher education methods courses. Generally speaking, the program also taught them that teachers work within a standards-based system but still ultimately maintain power over instructional decisions. Bobby indicated learning many teaching techniques in his courses that he then also applied to his teaching in his fourth-grade field placement. Describing the Content Literacy methods course, Bobby explained: Every time I come out of that class, I have the biggest grin on my faceand thats a Wednesday at like 8:00 after its been a long day. Just because Im like, Now I cant wait to get into school tomorrow and try some of these different things that Ive learned. Partly because he could identify ways to apply his learning from the Content Literacy course in schools, Bobby explained that the Content Literacy course was important and applicable to his current teaching and to his future. He suggested learning about in the program and being excited about how to get kids actively engaged and learning. Bobby further described how his own learning from the instructional modeling by faculty in methods courses also made him want to teach in program-supported ways. For example, he described that his Science Methods professor actively involved him in learning and thinking about electricity, and that he and other preservice teachers in that class had come to the conclusion about five other topics just by what wed learned on electricity. From that experience, Bobby indicated being soldright then and there on making his future lessons interesting and worthwhile for students. He knew it would be difficult in terms of time management and resource management, but he wanted to ensure similar learning experiences for students in his future classrooms. Agenda setting by standards, texts, and time. In their methods courses, preservice teachers created lesson plans aligned with the programs philosophies. Some preservice teachers explained the varying feasibility of carrying out these kinds of lessons in schools. We learned in Science [Methods], Oh, you wouldnt follow a textbook. You just look at the [state standards] and you make your activities from the resources you have. But in my school, there is a science bookIn math, there is a math bookAnd youre supposed to follow it exactly so that every kid is on the same page when they move on to the next grade level. Everything that we learned [in the program]I dont see how you would get through a school year if you took that much time. (Wendy) As did Wendy, some preservice teachers described how schools provided set curricula in some or all subject areas. They described the difficulty of producing innovative lessons aligning with program recommendations, addressing specific grade level state curriculum standards, matching up with required textbook sections and assignments, and being reasonable to complete within their sometimes rigidly-structured time schedules. Bobby shared with me an experience where all fourth-grade teachers at his field placement met on a planning day to discuss how they would teach three upcoming stories in their reading classes. Below is an interview transcript beginning with Bobbys reaction to their planning: After it was all said and done, I was like, Do you guys incorporate, like, social studies or math or science or anything into this? And theyre just like, Bobby, thats a great idea.But were going to tell you the truth. Its difficult to do that all the time. And I was going in with the impression that we were going to do a little bit of everything every single day. But they were just like, I hate to burst your bubbleIf you can do it, great. We applaud you. Strive for the stars. But in our schedule, we just cant do it if we want to get this stuff across.That really came down to preparation for the [state standardized tests].It was an eye opener. This explanation illustrated a tension between Bobbys program-learned view of teachers as curriculum shapers (see previous section) and his learning in schools about the significant role of time and state standards in shaping curriculum and teachers decisionsparticularly in some schools. I asked Bobby whether he saw any implications for this description in terms of what kind of school he might teach at in the future. He explained: Ive done a lot of substitute teaching back home [in a large urban area]. Ive seen different degrees of [emphasis on state standards] being implemented in each of the schools....[In some schools], they teach the material, but they teach it the way they want to teach it.And then [other schools have] explicit lesson plans, like just teach about this, this, and this, and like, This is in the chapter, but dont go over it because its not on the [state standardized test].So Ive seen schools that will teach the children and Ive seen schools that will teach the [state standards]. And I want to teach the children and get the [standards]. Bobby explained that he thought he would be prepared to teach in an area focused on childrens grades on standardized tests. However he indicated, I just dont think that I would enjoy it. I think it would be frustrating. It would definitely limit my abilities as a teacher to get the subject material across to students in the manner I wanted to do it. In todays world of NCLB and high-stakes testing, curriculum and instruction choices in schools are highly politicized and significant. Not surprisingly, all of the preservice teachers I spoke with identified differences between how different schools and teachers made various curricular and instructional choices. According to preservice teachers, some schools or classrooms supported them to apply the context-independent instructional strategies promoted by the programand at times part of prior goals preservice teachers had for themselves and for their teaching before entering the program. Other school settings produced more frustrating, or limiting conditions for applying particular instructional strategies. Shaping curriculum in socio-political contexts. In my data analysis, I investigated whether trends existed in how preservice teachers produced distinctions between schools, and if so, then which schools were marginalized by these distinctions. This section communicates the trends I identified. I begin with an explanation Emily offered of the program and of her field placement experiences: One thing all our courses just stress [is] the integration of learning, which I think is good because it aids knowledge transfer and helps kids do the same thing in different contexts and apply the same skill strategies in different contexts.But when you get into the school system, youve got a lot of kids being pulled out by specialists.Our school [in Bremont City] is very blocked off. Like this is your readingand its basal readers and their school bought them so they have to use them.Then youve got your math and then youve got your science or social studies.I think my teacher could integrate it. Likereading I mean, you can do anythingany subject area in your reading time, instead of using just the basal readers, round robin reading. But I dont know. Ive heardthe schools putting a lot of pressure on the teachers to do it that way. I guess because theyre not accredited and they just are feeling a lot of pressure to teach that way? Im not really sure why they do it. ButI wonder if I were out and if I got a job at that school, how my philosophy, the philosophy thats been ingrained in my head through this program, like how it would mesh with theirs, and how you resolve those issues. Certain facets of schoolssuch as blocked off or non-integrated curriculum, basal readers, or the pressures of accreditation and accompanying emphasis on state standardized testscreated circumstances where preservice teachers reflected on or questioned either their own philosophy or the possibilities for applying program philosophies to school realities. In talking to me about their plans or concerns for future teaching, preservice teachers almost always made connections of some kind back to their experiences in program coursework or fieldwork. Preservice teachers used program-related philosophy or best practices as a frame of reference for the program for interpreting some fieldwork activity, but the philosophies had limited utility for helping preservice teachers make close and supporting connections between program and school experiences. For example, for Emily, such a focus, ingrained in her head through the program, produced issues that she would need to resolve if she were to take a job at that school. Preservice teachers distinguished between the contexts and instructional opportunities offered in various field placements or experienced in their own pasts. They sometimes also compared and contrasted these opportunities with program recommendations. Preservice teachers described how different economic resources and social dynamics at field placements helped coordinate different kinds of field experiences where certain kinds of instruction seemed more or less possible. I asked Alena to compare the kinds of things she was doing in her student teaching in mathematics this semester, compared to in her field placement prior to student teaching. She explained: Alena: This time I think it's more direct instruction just becausesupplies-wise, last semester I had all of these boxes [of manipulatives] that I could borrow from other teachers, and my teacher had some.There was more of it for my kids to use. But this time I feel like we don't have that many. So that is a major problem. [Also] the emphases they put on things is different. Bremont City is really [state standardized test]-oriented. They kind of have to be. Last semester, Wright Elementary [in Lewiston County] was very relaxed.School size makes a big difference. Wright was 200 kids. Here [in Romley Elementary in Bremont City] it's 700 kids.It comes off negative, but Bremont City is a lot more discipline oriented, like behavior management oriented.Wright was morecommunity was a strong part of it. Romley Elementary is going through a lot of changes construction-wise, and they have no playground.Kids [sic.] have no free time basically, you know, recess.I am having more bad behavior [that I] have to change.I have to adapt myself more to this classroom, like not [my] philosophy, but to change the way I do things here more so than I did at Wright. Alena described every minute to be planned out at Romley Elementary, where children talked and socialized very little during the day. She explained how her cooperating teacher considered talking in class or out of turn to be a behavioral problem, and how her principal maintained a presence in the schools hallways and similarly expected all teachers to closely monitor student behavior. Alena indicated that at her previous placement in Wright Elementary in Lewiston County, children did not fear or view as bad a visit to the principals office since everyone loved the principal. On the contrary, Alena described a visit to the principals office in Romley Elementary to mean business. She explained how she and other student teachers placed at Romley sensed and talked about a lack of classroom community there and described children becoming bored given they had every minute planned out and no time to talk and share their stories. Together, the student teachers at Romley contrasted this school norm with their learning in the teacher education program: We all were talking about that because I guess its just the way all of us have been through this program and we understand how important it is to belike the teacher and the children have to be one unit, you know, together[Here], the kids have no break, you know? They come in and then they are expected to do work. Our principal makes them have silent lunch sometimes so they cant talk and eat. And then they come back to class and they are expected to work again. Alena described silent lunches to be times where children were supposed to absorb everything they had learned during the day. Worth noting is that those same schools where ingrained, program-supported investigative and inquiry practices receive the most support might also tend to be those same types of schools preservice teachers attended when growing up. I feel like now that Ive been in Bremont City, then my next class [in Lewiston County] will be really easy.I dont even think thats because Ive gotten one [placement] out of the way. I think [its] because Bremont City was just such an eye opener for me for the type of kids that I was dealing with and the issues that were going on from day to day.Lewiston County reminds me a lot of the area I want to teach in.I feel like its a very similar playing fieldlike thats where Im more comfortable.Bremont City justits inner city. Ive never dealt with an inner city situation before. I didnt go to school in an inner city. And I want a school much more like in [sic.] Lewiston County. Its just whats comfortable and what youre familiar with. (Valerie) During her student teaching the following semester in Lewiston County, Valerie maintained the difficulty of teaching in Bremont City for her, compared to in the county. She explained, for example, how her Bremont school used a very direct method of management, and how she and other student teachers discussed generally having a better experience in the county than in the city. Valerie suggested having to be almost mean and strict in her Bremont classroom in order to be more effective with the children, and found this kind of teaching to be more difficult for her to carry out. She described her impression that cooperating teachers in Lewiston County were more helpful and more of a model for them and could provide them with more resources. She indicated that she enjoyed her field experience in Bremont City, but found the student teaching environment in Lewiston County to be more pleasant. Valerie further explained how in her Cooper Elementary student teaching placement, there were less severe behavioral problems and more support from the principal. Urban or inner city contexts might not feel as comfortable to Valerie or other preservice teachers as the more familiar or more pleasant Lewiston County contexts. Related suggestions, such as of having to address more behavioral problems in urban schools, have not been uncommon among preservice teachers. For example, in Gilberts (1997) study, almost half of participants said they would not teach in an urban school. Gilberts participants believed a traditional basic skills curriculum was necessary in urban schools due to pupils disruptive nature and lack of literacy, and further, violence was the primary association preservice teachers made with urban contexts. In my study, the main program emphases provided a discourse that preservice teachers used to reflect on and evaluate their work in field placements and also teaching in general. The programs treatment of instructional methods as mostly context-independent seemed to serve for some preservice teachers to force a divide between philosophy and practice. That is, what they wanted to do with their teaching might be more or less disjoint from what they could actually do. This division was more noticeable and problematic for preservice teachers in certain field placements, such as in Romley Elementary, than in other school settings. In general, when schools had limited financial resources or manipulatives, or were more discipline- or test-oriented, in some sense, this teacher education programs recommendations proved invalid and preservice teachers faced a problem of how to adjust or rewrite instruction accordingly. In my study, preservice teachers associated schools in lower income areas, or with greater accreditation pressures, with greater levels of program invalidity. The types of distinctions preservice teachers constructed between program ideas and schools served at times and in different ways to make the program appear flawed for being ideal, or teachers flawed for using practices other than inquiry, or schools flawed for emphasizing standardized test scores, or preservice teachers themselves flawed for their difficulties in doing what they described the program to be recommending. To the extent that some field placements were better aligned with program emphases, the produced flaws were context-dependent and politically and socially charged. Further, critical interpretations of political and social difference were limited in program discourses and practices. As other preservice teachers also pointed out, Emily explained, We need a class on just classroom management, just classroom management. It was common for preservice teachers to talk about needing to know more about these types of context issues so that they could teach in the ways they wanted to teach. This research lends support to the need for mathematics teacher educators to consider how and to what their work is linked and how to help students use multiple frames of reference, beyond inquiry (or best) practices, to interpret fieldwork. Particularly in times of standards-based education emphasizing a de-contextualized pedagogy, important questions are: What and whose political and social purpose does the production of context serve, and what can or should be mathematics teacher educators roles in helping more substantively integrate curriculum? Discussing the control of knowledge in classrooms, McNeil (1986) looked at studies addressing the questions, What kinds of knowledge do schools make accessible? (p. 158) and How is school knowledge a product of the ways of knowing students encounter in school? (p. 158-159). McNeil suggested that classroom management is not a technical skill but instead interconnected with how both knowledge and ways of knowing are made available in school: Teachers patterns of knowledge control wererooted in their desire for classroom control (p. 159). Related suggestions serve to question the ways that classroom management, for example, with seemingly limited ties to various interrelated program courses, discourses, and practices, at times was produced as independent from content-area teaching in this program. No-Place Relevance of Program Philosophies I have suggested a place-based relevance of the teacher education program, although this sometimes translated into a no-place-based relevance among preservice teachers. That is, sometimes preservice teachers did not believe any schools policies would align with the kinds of recommendations being made by the teacher education program. Wendy explained how policies at some schools required preservice teachers to teach in ways contrary to how they had been taught in the program. This led her to question the usefulness of the idealistic program: I dont feel like any school is really going to be like our program. My sister [who graduated from this same program] was telling me how idealistic it is and she said when you get out in the classroom, the stuff that weve learned.a lot of it is thrown out the window. Lewiston County might be pretty close to some of the principles we learned, but not really either because it depends on your [cooperating] teacher. My teacher was very direct instruction, and thats everything that we learned against [in the program]. Wendy defined sharp contrasts between the programs recommendations and her observations of school policy and classroom instruction. I heard many comments similar to Wendys, describing a sense of disconnect between program-based learning and learning and observations in schools in general. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS Mathematics Education and the NCTM Standards For many years, researchers have suggested various forms of classroom or knowledge management and instruction to be stratified across social classes (e.g., Anyon, 1980; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Knapp & Woolverton, 2003; Moses & Cobb, 2001; Oakes et al., 2004; Secada, 1992; Tate, 1997). Content and pedagogies weak in cultural relevance for students or stemming from Eurocentric perspectives may contribute to race and class divisions in access to knowledge (e.g., Atweh et al., 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lubienski, 2002; Rodriguez & Kitchen, 2005; Tate, 1995). Mathematics, often regarded as the most abstract subject removed from responsibilities of cultural or social awareness (Boaler & Staples, 2005, p. 32), has been associated with such stratification. With the NCTM (1989, 2000, 2006, 2009) providing much of its guidance, the current reform movement in mathematics education supports a shift in the nature of mathematics instruction toward a more problem- and student-centered approach in which students conjecture, test, and build mathematical arguments. Regarding student learning, research has been largely supportive of reform practices of the kind supported in the U.S. by the NCTM. In a comparative study of two schools in England, Boaler (1998) suggested that students who receive project-based instruction learn more, and different, mathematics than students receiving traditional skills-based instruction. In the U.S., relatively consistent evidence also exists that students using reform curricula perform equally well on tests of mathematical skills and procedures as comparison students using traditional curricula, and perform better on tests involving mathematical concepts and problem solving (Schoenfeld, 2002; Senk & Thompson, 2003). Despite many potential advantages of NCTM Standards-based curricula in comparison to traditional curricula, a number of educators have also suggested limitations to Standards documents (1989, 2000)among them, educators such as Apple (1992), Gutstein (2006), Gutstein and Peterson (2005), Lubienski (2002), and Secada (1996). Based on her study, Lubienski pointed out how lower socio-economic students did not experience the feelings of empowerment from whole-class discussions and open-ended problems (2002, p. 119) that standards-based reformers might anticipate. She explained how the sociocultural lens she used in her work helped her to see the hidden culture-laden assumptions embedded in particular kinds of instructional approaches and in the NCTM Standards (2000). Among other important issues and challenges Lubienski called for mathematics educators interested in equity to consider was the following: When we understand ways in which a particular discourse differs from students more familiar discourses, we must be prepared to grapple with dilemmas about whether the discourse we are promoting is inherently valuable as an end in itself or is simply an arbitrary, value-laden means (perhaps a relatively White, middle-class means) to an end. (p. 120) Lubienskis (2002) criticism of Standards-based reforms (NCTM, 1989, 2000) focuses largely on multicultural considerations of discourse and the NCTMs general oversight of such considerations. Others have focused more on the absence in the Standards of a critique of societal inequities (e.g., Apple, 1992; Gutstein, 2003, 2006). For example, Apple (1992) explained: One searches in vain among the specifics of what teachers should know for a substantive sense of social criticism and for a more detailed understanding of the complex and contradictory roles that mathematical knowledge may plan in an unequal society. (p. 425) Related discussions of how, in addition to deepening students understanding of academic content, mathematics educators might more deliberately challenge social inequities and injustices have been limited. However, we might learn from works of authors such as Frankenstein (1989, 1995), Gutstein (2006), Skovsmose (1994), and the numerous authors who proposed and provided related examples in the edited text, Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers (Gutstein & Peterson, 2005). My research, by pointing out some of the place-specific relevancies of teacher education program knowledgesuch as knowledge about the investigative approach (Baroody, 1998) and the Everyday Mathematics (UCSMP, 1997) curriculum materialshelps raise additional questions for mathematics education regarding the adequacy of popular NCTM Standards-based (1989, 2000) reform visions. For example, we must ask ourselves where we prepare students to teach, or perhaps to want to teach, in our support for Standards-based and despatialized reforms or in our ways for helping or not helping students define and understand relations between their mathematics coursework and their fieldwork in diverse, multi-ethnic, and often under-funded schools. With mathematics education recommendations for change as they currently are (e.g., NCTM, 1989, 2000), when we work to help preservice teachers learn to enact reform visions for good teaching, where do we prepare them to do this? Unknowingly, in what ways might we potentially be supporting the very educational inequities we task ourselves to reduce, or helping to move the best teachers to have interest in the best schools? Such concerns clearly have implications extending beyond mathematics to other disciplines and more generally to re-designing teacher education programs and educational reforms. In education, we sometimes treat classrooms and schools as contexts for good teaching or for reform rather than as part of the reforms themselves (cf., Nespor, 2002). But with any fragmentation of curriculum or limited reference to its politics, overlooked can be such things as the sense of connection to the power relations and structures being produced and in which teachers and students are always participating, to the kinds of things educators might need to be critical of if we have interest in taking on social injustices, or to how kids are being socially positioned for their presents and futures. Might we need to give more attention, both in how we write proposals for reform and in how we carry out program planning and instruction, to the social, political, and economic issues helping to coordinate mathematics curriculum and instruction in diverse schools? Equity and Social Justice Perspectives in Mathematics Education Equity and social justice agendas in mathematics education have been becoming increasingly central in recent years. Recommendations for how to achieve equity goals almost always include requirements for setting high expectations and providing strong support for all students (e.g., Moses & Cobb, 2001; NCTM, 2000). But despite many strengths, reform documents such as the NCTM Standards (1989, 2000) still do not go far enough. A small but growing number of researchers and projects have provided alternatives to traditional and reform approaches and emphases in mathematics education. Numerous progressive, multicultural, and social justice educators have suggested educators must adjust practices and curriculum to increase mathematical participation and success of diversifying student populations. Consortiums such as the Center for the Mathematics Education of Latinos/as [CEMELA] and MetroMath provide theoretical and practical guidance to achieve these results, as do texts such as Rethinking Mathematics (Gutstein & Peterson, 2005), Relearning Mathematics (Frankenstein, 1989), and Maththatmatters (Stocker, 2006). Further, projects such as Dartmouths Mathematics Across the Curriculum project and Indiana Universitys Mathematics Throughout the Curriculum project have suggested a need for greater interdisciplinarity and a strengthened mathematical infrastructure in the undergraduate curriculum. Quantitative literacy projects such as Quantitative Reasoning in the Contemporary World at the University of Arkansas have strong potential to help students make connections between quantitative information and their lives and interests outside of school. These projects help students to understand the relevance and interconnectedness of mathematics with other subjects and with the real world. Disparities and unequal access to mathematics course taking, achievement, and career fields remains a serious problem for American schools and society (Oakes et al., 2004; Secada, 1992), and one that must be remedied. Secada summarized: Along a broad range of indicators, from initial achievement in mathematics and course taking to postsecondary degrees and later careers in mathematics-related fields, disparities can be found between Whites and Asian Americans on the one hand and African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians on the other; between males and females; among groups based on their English language proficiency; and among groups based on social class. (p. 623) The problem we face is not one to be addressed using deficit models involving fixing people. To close gaps in generalwhether they are associated with gender, race/ethnicity, or social classwill require not only educating students with mathematics knowledge, for example, but also rewriting learning objectives to necessarily include feminist perspectives, culturally relevant content, and social justice emphases that help students understand and challenge dominant power relations. Mathematics teacher education has a critical role to play in preparing teachers to put at center stage goals to support equity in mathematics teacher education and to diversify student interest and participation in mathematics. These goals must also resonate with broader public interest goals to improve educational and social conditions both in the U.S. and abroad. While internationally there is considerable interest among mathematics educators in social justice, the literature on mathematics teacher education for social justice is nearly non-existent (Gates & Jorgensen, 2009). Among the limited existing literature is research such as DeFreitas and Zolkowers (2009), which described how social semiotics tasks may enhance teachers preparation to teach for diversity as well as their disposition toward mathematics and beliefs about the relationship between mathematics and social justice. Boylan (2009) emphasized the connection between emotionality and mathematics teaching for social justice, suggesting the need to create space for dialogue about emotional aspects of mathematics teaching and about sometimes oppressive and alienating mathematics classroom practices. However, practically speaking, almost no attention has been given thus far to preparing preservice teachers to teach mathematics for social justice. This is problematic. One possible alternative to popular approaches in mathematics education may be to re-center the discipline on public interest needs. Drawing from theoretical and practical ideas for social justice in mathematics education, the Mathematics Education in the Public Interest [MEPI] project for which I am Principal Investigator (National Science Foundation award number DUE-0837467) strives to improve the quality and relevance of mathematics education for all learners. MEPI has goals to support equity and social justice, to diversify student interest and participation in mathematics, and to broaden and enrich the ways mathematics is viewed as a discipline. Gutstein (2006) proposed an exploratory orientation toward building mathematics curriculum with integrated components of community knowledge, critical knowledge, and classical knowledge. The twelve characteristics of the Connected, Equitable Mathematics Classroom proposed by Goodell and Parker (2001) also support similar emphases in the rethinking of mathematics. MEPIs foundation rests on an assertion that mathematics curriculum and instruction can be improved by maintaining overlapping objectives that: (1) incorporate NCTM Standards-based (2000) reform practices, (2) are more culturally relevant and responsive (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1995), (3) make use of individuals and groups funds of knowledge (e.g., Civil, 2007; Moll & Gonzales, 2004), (4) engage learners more fully, more meaningfully, and more responsibly with their communities (e.g., Hart et al., 2007), and (5) explicitly aim to achieve social justice locally and globally (e.g., Frankenstein, 1989; Gutstein, 2006). The MEPI project is still relatively new and growing, but for a summary of some of our research conducted to date, see Jacobsen and Mistele (2010, in press), Spielman (2009), and Mistele and Spielman (2009). Challenges to Cognitive and Situative Perspectives As described earlier in this paper, a current popular emphasis across disciplines in teacher education research has been on beliefs and their relation to practices (e.g., Borko & Putnam, 1996; Carter 1990; Clift & Brady, 2005). Research has suggested that preservice teachers resist coherent [teacher education program] messages when they find it difficult to engage in recommended practices (Clift & Brady, p. 331). I gave examples of research based on cognitive and situative perspectives, such as in describing Peressini et al.s (2004) interpretation from a situative perspective of Mr. Hansons very different instructional practices between student teaching and his first year teaching as an interaction between his developing professional identity and the affordances and constraints of these two settings (pp. 82-83). If we view facets of a teacher education programs irrelevance in schools almost exclusively as failures of teacher education programs, or as the result of various affordances and constraints of schools, or as problems of preservice teachers resistance, we treat program ideology as independent of what happens in particular schools. That is, we treat ideology and content-area teaching methods as something preservice teachers should be able to learn and more or less directly transfer into any classroom of choice in any rural, suburban, or urban school. Through such a line of thinking, we identify educational and research problems to be ones of teachers, teaching, and teacher education programsor of the training and testing of teachersas though each of these act as independent agents and alone can accomplish equity (cf., Cochran-Smith, 2004a, 2004b). Such a placement of teachers and teacher education programs at the source of educational reforms has been popular in recent years of increasing emphasis on standards. For example, the widely cited Teaching for Americas Future (NCTAF, 1996) report indicated, A caring, competent, and qualified teacher for every child is the most important ingredient in education reform (p. 3). That report emphasized the development and assessment of teachers knowledge and skills as a centerpiece for achieving Americas goals. With underlying assumptions typically being that standards can be universally applied and good teaching can be identified and described in similar ways for classrooms anywhere, as currently conceived, standards-based reports and agendas generally depend on a despatialized view of teaching. For example, Delandshere and Petrosky (2004) suggested that national professional and accreditation standardsat the core of the teacher education-based reform, have also objectified and codified teaching, which presumably makes it possible to compare teaching performances across contexts, schools, and states (p. 9). They encourage assumptions that reforms can occur within teacher education programs or by focusing almost exclusively on instructional improvement in methods courses in disciplines (cf., Cochran-Smith, 2004a). My research is relevant to ongoing discussions highlighting potential limitations of these types of assumptions (e.g., Beyer, 2002; Cochran-Smith, 2004b; Delandshere & Petrosky, 2004; Gruenewald, 2003; Gruenewald & Smith, 2007) by describing ways that preservice teachers learning involves much more than what takes place in particular courses or field placements or even in a teacher education program in general. Largely overlooked by standards-based emphases in teacher education, and also by cognitive and situative research perspectives, is attention to place and to the socio-political geographies of schooling. Very little attention is given to teacher education programs different kinds of relationships with schools, and further, to how different groups are positioned differently in relation to knowledge and its movement (cf., Nespor, 1994). Indexing Context: Multiple Frames of Reference Some researchers have pointed out the lack of a robust theoretical framework for research in mathematics teacher education and teacher education in general (diSessa, 1991; Eisenhart, 1991; Lubienski, 2002; Mewborn, 2005). The time is ripe for considering new research possibilities, and particularly possibilities that are socially and politically sensitive and that centrally concern themselves with and address social justice and equity issues. The following suggestion by the NCTM Research Committee (2005) represents a position of the kind that has become increasingly popular in educational literature: For researchers to contribute more fully to equity, we may need to break with tradition, expand boundaries, and cross into fields outside mathematics education and outside education.The complexity of teaching and learning, and its intersection with equity and social justice issues, demands more than the narrow confines that any one field can provide. (p. 96) The challenging of academic boundaries has potential advantages in educational research because as Bourdieu reminds us, it is the ability to trespass that may lead to major gains in our understanding (Apple, 1999, p. 165). As indicated previously, in education, we sometimes treat classrooms and schools as contexts for good teaching or for reform rather than as part of the reforms themselves (cf., Nespor, 2002). But with any fragmentation of curriculum or limited reference to its politics, we can overlook such things as the sense of connection to the power relations and structures being produced and in which teachers and students always participate, the kinds of things educators might need to be critical of if we want to take on social injustices, or how kids are being socially positioned for their presents and futures. I find Masseys (1993) suggestion regarding place helpful in providing a visual of preservice teachers engagement in school classrooms: If one moves in from the satellite towards the globe, holding all those networks of social relations and movements and communications in ones head, then each place can be seen as a particular, unique point of their intersection (p. 66). My descriptions of some of the place-specific, and socially and politically interconnected, comments made by preservice teachers highlight certain ways that preservice teachers, and their work in field placements, are embedded in social relations extending far beyond the scope of their ongoing activities (cf., Smith, 1999). Any such embedding of relations provides reason for programs to consider including broad attention to socio-political school geographies, to coursework and fieldwork relations, to produced program relevancies, and so forth. Ongoing educational reforms tend to emphasize a de-contextualized pedagogya kind of generic education for anywhere (Gruenewald, 2003, p. 646). An important question is what and whose political and social purpose does the production of context serve? As I have been suggesting, for mathematics teacher educators, teacher educators in general, and teacher education programs, it seemingly remains important to direct attention to how and to what our work is linked. Having awareness of and giving attention to the ways in which students define and shape program relations might help us to contribute to program relevance. We can learn how to help preservice teachers to index context in particular ways or to question more critically the differences that they observe across field placements. In mathematics education, worth considering are questions of what can or should be mathematics teacher educators roles in helping integrate curriculum and context (e.g., foundations topics, classroom management) into program emphases and instruction and to consider place. Suggesting a multiplicity of ideologies and educational agendas to be elaborated and served under the standards umbrella, Apple (1992, 2001) suggested, Of crucial importance is the question of whether our students in teacher education programs will be prepared to understand the ideological and political restructuring that is going on all around them? (2001, p. 195). Apple (2001) refers to issues of competition, markets, and choice on one hand and accountability, performance, objectives, standards, national testing, and national curriculum on the other (p. 184), suggesting his view that they actually reinforce each other as well as conservative educational positions. My research raises the question of how mathematics teacher educators and teacher educators in general might support more substantive contextualizations of program coursework to schools everywhere. How might we help preservice teachers use multiple (e.g., beyond inquiry or best practices), and more socially, culturally, and politically connected (e.g., beyond immediate and specific practical activity), frames of reference for tracing relations across coursework and fieldwork and for thinking about academic content, teaching, and their futures (cf., Smith, 1987, 2004)? Further, how might we continue learning about how preservice teachers shape and re-shape program meanings and relevancies? REFERENCES The Abell Foundation. (2001). Teaching Certification Reconsidered: Stumbling for Quality. Baltimore, MD: Author. Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67-92. Apple, M. W. (1992). Do the Standards Go Far Enough? Power, Policy, and Practice in Mathematics Education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 412-431. Apple, M. W. (1999). Power, meaning, and identity: Essays in critical educational studies. New York: Peter Lang. Apple, M. W. (2001). Markets, Standards, Teaching, and Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 182-196. Atweh, B., Forgasz, H., & Nebres, B. (Eds.). (2001). Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2001). Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Baroody, A. J. (with Coslick, R. T.). (1998). Fostering Childrens Mathematical Power: An Investigative Approach to K-8 Mathematics Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Becker, H. S. (1998). Tricks of the Trade: How to Think About Your Research While Youre Doing It. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Beyer, L. E. (2002). The Politics of Standardization: Teacher Education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 28, 239-245. Boaler, J. (1998). Experiencing school mathematics. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2005). Transforming students lives through an equitable mathematics approach: The case of Railside School. Retrieved June 20, 2005, from  HYPERLINK "http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/pubs.html" http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/pubs.html Borko, H., Peressini, D., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., Willis-Yorker, C., Wooley, C., et al. (2000). Teacher Education Does Matter: A Situative View of Learning to Teach Secondary Mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 35, 193-206. Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to Teach. In Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee. New York: Macmillan. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books. Boylan, M. (2009). Engaging with issues of emotionality in mathematics teacher education for social justice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(6), 427-443. Burant, T. J., & Kirby, D. (2002). Beyond Classroom-Based Early Field Experiences: Understanding an Educative Practicum in an Urban School Community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 561-575. Callon, M., & Law, J. (1997). After the individual in society: Lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(2), 165-182. Canning, C. (1995). Getting From the Outside In: Teaching Mexican Americans When You Are an Anglo. High School Journal, 78, 195-205. Carter, K. (1990). Teachers knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan. Civil, M. (2007). Building on community knowledge: An avenue to equity in mathematics education. In N. Nassir & P. Cobb (Eds.), Improving access to mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom. (pp. 105-117). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on Methods Courses and Field Experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 309-424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004a). The Problem of Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 295-299. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004b). The Report of the Teaching Commission: Whats Really at Risk? Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 195-200. DeFreitas, E., & Zolkower, B. (2009). Using social semiotics to prepare mathematics teachers to teach for social justice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(3), 187-203. Delandshere, G., & Petrosky, A. (2004). Political Rationales and Ideological Stances of the Standards-Based Reform of Teacher Education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 1-15. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Routledge. diSessa, A. A. (1991). If we want to get ahead, we should get some theories. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. I, pp. 229-239). Blacksburg, VA: Christiansburg Printing. Ebby, C. B. (2000). Learning to Teach Mathematics Differently: The Interaction Between Coursework and Fieldwork for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 69-97. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Frankenstein, M. (1989). Relearning mathematics: A different third R radical maths. London: Free Association Books. Frankenstein, M. (1995). Equity in mathematics education: Class in the world outside the class. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 165-190). New York: Cambridge. Gates, P., & Jorgensen, R. (2009). Foregrounding social justice in mathematics teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(3), 161-170. Gilbert, S. L. (1997). The Four Commonplaces of Teaching: Prospective Teachers Beliefs about Teaching in Urban Schools. The Urban Review, 29, 81-96. Goodell, J. E., & Parker, L. H. (2001). Creating a connected, equitable mathematics classroom: Facilitating gender equity. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education (pp. 411-431). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for Our Nations Schools. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On Claims That Answer the Wrong Questions. Educational Researcher, 26, 5-17. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425-476). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619-654. Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (2007). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. New York: Routledge. Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37-73. Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. New York: Routledge. Gutstein, E., & Peterson, B. (Eds.). (2005). Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social justice by the numbers. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 197-219. Hollins, E. R., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 477-548). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Howey, K. (1996). Designing coherent and effective teacher education programs. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 143-170). New York: Macmillan. Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating Teachers for Diversity: Seeing with a Cultural Eye. New York: Teachers College Press. Jacobsen, L. J., & Mistele, J. M. (2010). Please dont do Connect the dots: Mathematics lessons with social issues. Science Education and Civic Engagement: An International Journal, 2(2), 5-11. Jacobsen, L. J., & Mistele, J. (in press). Mathematics education: What is the point? In B. Atweh, M. Graven, W. Secada, & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education. New York: Springer. Knapp, M. S., & Woolverton, S. (2003). Social class and schooling. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 656-681). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking Theory and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, 28, 4-17. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing Fundamental Principles for Teacher Education Programs and Practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020-1041. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our Lives: Preparing Teachers to Teach African American Students. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 206-214. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 15-25). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Law, J. (1999). After ANT: complexity, naming, and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1-14). Malden, JA: Blackwell Publishing. Lefebvre, H. (1991/1974). The Production of Space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lubienski, S. T. (2002). Research, reform, and equity in U.S. mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2&3), 103-125. Massey, D. (1993). Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place. In J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, & L. Tickner (Eds.), Mapping the futures: Local cultures, global change (pp. 59-69). McCormick, T. E. (1990). Collaboration Works! Preparing Teachers for Urban Realities. Contemporary Education, 61, 129-134. McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of Control: School Structure and School Knowledge. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Mewborn, D. S. (2000). Learning to teach elementary mathematics: Ecological elements of a field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 27-46. Mewborn, D. S. (2005, October). Framing our work. In G. M. Lloyd, M. Wilson, J. L. M. Wilkins, & S. L. Behm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Roanoke, VA. Mistele, J., & Spielman, L. J. (2009). The impact of Math for Social Analysis on math anxiety in elementary preservice teachers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 12(4), 93-97. Moll, L. C., & Gonzalez, N. (2004). A funds-of-knowledge approach to multicultural education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 699-715). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the algebra project. Boston: Beacon Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The Condition of Education. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from  HYPERLINK "http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010" http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010 National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for Americas Future. New York: Author. National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. (2003). No Dream Denied: A Pledge to Americas Children. Washington, DC: Author. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). NCATE Unit Standards. Retrieved July 18, 2003, from  HYPERLINK "http://www.ncate.org/2000/unit_stnds_2002.pdf" http://www.ncate.org/2000/unit_stnds_2002.pdf National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum Focal Points. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009). Focus in High School Mathematics: Reasoning and Sense Making. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Committee. (2005). Equity in school mathematics education: How can research contribute? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 92-100. National Education Association. (2004). Assessment of Diversity in Americas Teaching Force: A Call to Action. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from  HYPERLINK "http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/diversityreport.pdf" http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/diversityreport.pdf Nespor, J. (1994). Knowledge in Motion: Space, Time, and Curriculum in Undergraduate Physics and Management. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Nespor, J. (2002). Networks and Contexts of Reform. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 365-382. Nespor, J. (2006). Finding patterns with field notes. Complementary methods for research in education (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Nieto, S. (2000). Placing Equity Front and Center: Some Thoughts on Transforming Teacher Education for a New Century. Journal of Teacher Education 51, 180-187. Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180-187. Oakes, J., Joseph, R., & Muir, K. (2004). Access and achievement in mathematics and science. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 69-90). New York: Jossey-Bass. Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332. Peressini, D., Borko, H., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., & Willis, C. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Learning to Teach Secondary Mathematics: A Situative Perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 67-96. Peterson, K. D., Benson, N., Driscoll, A., Narode, R., Sherman, D., & Tama, C. (1995). Preservice Teacher Education Using Flexible, Thematic Cohorts. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22, 29-42. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say About Research on Teacher Learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4-15. Rodriguez, A. J., & Kitchen, R. S. (2005). Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: Promising strategies for transformative pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sands, D. I., & Goodwin, L. D. (2005). Shared Responsibility for Teacher Preparation: An Exploratory Study of the Match Between Skills of Clinical Teachers and Those Required of Their Teacher Candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 817-828. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making Mathematics Work for All Children: Issues of Standards, Testing, and Equity. Educational Researcher, 31, 13-25. Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 623-660). New York: Macmillan. Secada, W. G. (1996). Urban students acquiring English and learning mathematics in the context of reform. Urban Education, 30(4), 422-448. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (Eds.). (2003). Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What Are They? What Do Students Learn? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a philosophy of critical mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer. Smith, D. E. (1987). The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Smith, D. E. (1999). From womens standpoint to a sociology for people. In J. L. Abu-Lughod (Ed.), Sociology for the twenty-first century: Continuities and cutting edges (pp. 65-82). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Smith, D. E. (2004). Womens perspective as a radical critique of sociology. In S. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 21-53). New York: Routledge. Soja, E. W. (1985). The spatiality of social life: Towards a transformative retheorisation. In D. Gregory & J. Urry (Eds.), Social relations and spatial structures. New York: St. Martins Press. Spielman, L. J. (2009, September). Mathematics Education in the Public Interest: Preservice teachers engagement with and reframing of mathematics. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter for the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA), Atlanta, GA. Stocker, D. (2006). Maththatmatters: A Teacher Resource Linking Math and Social Justice. Ottawa, ON: CCPA Education Project. Tate, W. F. (1995). Returning to the root: A culturally relevant approach to mathematics pedagogy. Theory Into Practice. 34(3), 166-173. Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 652-679. The Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action. New York: Author. Tom, A. R. (1997). Redesigning Teacher Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP). (1997). Everyday mathematics. Chicago: Everyday Learning Corporation. Zeichner, K. M., & Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization for cultural diversity. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 176-198). New York: Macmillan. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 111-156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  Note: Laura J. Jacobsen has also published under the name Laura Jacobsen Spielman.  Details available at  HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov" http://www.ed.gov.  Paul used these terms in similar ways to their incorporation in the Baroody text.  More about the need for multiple frames of references is included in a separate section later in this manuscript.  The Equity Principle is the first of six principles for school mathematics contributing to the vision of the NCTM Standards (2000). Other principles refer to curriculum, teaching, learning, assessment, and technology.  Reminder: Laura Jacobsen has also published under the name Laura Jacobsen Spielman.      PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 50 LMNO`abcdxcRcRDRcR:h OJQJ^JhCJOJQJ^JaJ h h CJOJQJ^JaJ)jh h CJOJQJU^JaJ#h|h 5CJOJQJ^JaJh|5CJOJQJ^JaJ*jh7|0J5CJOJQJU^JaJ#h|h|5CJOJQJ^JaJh|hY+OJQJ^Jh|OJQJ^J&h7|h5;CJ OJQJ^JaJ &h7|hQk5;CJ OJQJ^JaJ MNObc! " # 0 H $$da$gd $d`a$gd $da$gd $da$gd $da$gd $da$gd l  A ^ g l z   X Y vvfvZKhh::::;<²গymm]mQhCJOJQJaJh8Nh8N6CJOJQJaJhA&CJOJQJaJha9ICJOJQJaJ"h8Nh8N5;CJOJQJaJh8Nh CJOJQJaJh8NCJOJQJaJhQh,@z6CJOJQJaJhQh,@zCJOJQJaJhQh8NCJOJQJaJh8Nh8NCJOJQJaJ h8Nh8N0JCJOJQJaJU!u&)---j.k.170:<ZAfA3D@HIIML $da$gd $d^a$gd $$da$gd $d`a$gd $d`a$gd <<<?@@XAZABB+B,B-B.BDBEB\B]B^B_B1FָkU@)j-hazh CJEHOJQJUaJ+jɆ'> hazh CJOJQJUVaJ)jhazh CJEHOJQJUaJ+j'> hazh CJOJQJUVaJ%jhazh CJOJQJUaJhazh CJOJQJaJhazh8NCJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJhh8NCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh8Nh8NCJOJQJaJ1FFIIIJKBKFKL5LP PQQQQQQQST^T6V:VLW]WWWYYiZ瀞}uibVbh_.CJOJQJaJ hazh h%CJOJQJaJhazh 6h_CJOJQJaJ"hazh 5;CJOJQJaJhazh CJOJQJaJh 0JCJOJQJaJh%CJOJQJaJ *hazh~,FCJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJhazh CJOJQJaJ hazh 0JCJOJQJaJMLQQQQ/R{RRR SSST^TLW]WYY[U]V]!$a$gd  $a$gd $ & Fda$gd $ & Fda$gd $da$gd $$da$gd $d7$8$H$`a$gd iZnZ\T]U]V]]]]'^`^a^^?`@`U`y`bedŶvj[O[>[>[/hHVhazCJOJQJaJ hWhaz0JCJOJQJaJh}CJOJQJaJhWhazCJOJQJaJhWCJOJQJaJhoXhWCJOJQJaJhoXhazCJOJQJaJhoXhaz5CJOJQJaJ"hoXhaz5;CJOJQJaJhHVh CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJhHVh CJOJQJaJhazh CJOJQJaJhazh 6CJOJQJaJV]]^^kbb8e9e'j}moZq[q r(ravxzz$d7$8$H$^a$gd $^a$gd $d`a$gd $a$gd $0^`0a$gd $da$gd $$da$gd ed8e9e&jjjjjkk>lm m{m}mppeqhq r(rUrr񳞳~n~n~^O@hWhpCJOJQJaJhoXhpCJOJQJaJhoXhaz6CJOJQJaJhoXh}6CJOJQJaJhoXh}CJOJQJaJ hoXhaz0JCJOJQJaJ)jhoXhaz0JCJOJQJUaJhoXhazCJOJQJaJhphaz6CJOJQJaJhphHVCJOJQJaJ *hWh}CJOJQJaJhphazCJOJQJaJr ssavwwwz{{{{e~~|}#$TYop֎ُÕӷwwkwkkZZwwwZ h}h}0JCJOJQJaJh}CJOJQJaJh}h}6CJOJQJaJh}h}CJOJQJaJ"hWh}5;CJOJQJaJhWh CJOJQJaJhWCJOJQJaJhWhHV6CJOJQJaJhWhWCJOJQJaJhWhpCJOJQJaJhWhHVCJOJQJaJ#z{{{e~~} $%pq$d7$8$H$^a$gd $d7$8$H$a$gd $d^a$gd $$da$gd $da$gd ĕŕڗ809'(ԡ=ĩũ)HI$d^a$gd $$$d1$7$8$H$^a$gd $da$gd $#d^#a$gd Õĕ˜(9ev0]GNPW&'féĩ.GH7U9@d^26Ӥ㕅hoXh}6CJOJQJaJhoXh}CJOJQJaJ#h}h}0J6CJOJQJaJh}CJOJQJaJ h}h}0JCJOJQJaJh}h}6CJOJQJaJh}h}CJOJQJaJh}0JCJOJQJaJ4IV7,Z $da$gd $d^a$gd $d7$8$H$^a$gd $8d^8`a$gd $d7$8$H$`a$gd $d7$8$H$a$gd +,ZemaRaChgnh CJOJQJaJhgnh}CJOJQJaJh}CJOJQJaJ#h}h}0J6CJOJQJaJh}h}6CJOJQJaJh}h}CJOJQJaJ#jhF:0JCJOJQJUaJhoXhW6CJOJQJaJhoXhWCJOJQJaJ hoXh}0JCJOJQJaJhoXh}CJOJQJaJhoXh}6CJOJQJaJZ!hlmd $^a$gd $d`a$gd %$d1$`a$gd $d7$8$H$a$gd $d^a$gd $da$gd $$da$gd !&*68>BN(/8"Wϼzk\L\L\L\L\L\h{khgn6CJOJQJaJh{khgnCJOJQJaJh{khoCJOJQJaJhohoCJOJQJaJhohgnCJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJh}E[CJOJQJaJhJCJOJQJaJhgnhgnCJOJQJaJho h".4hoh,@zCJOJQJaJhgnh}5CJOJQJaJhQ5CJOJQJaJW[gjE1Zc W壔sgsWsh{kho6CJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJh{khoCJOJQJaJ"h ho56CJOJQJaJh{kh CJOJQJaJhazCJOJQJaJ)jh{khgn0JCJOJQJUaJ h{khgn0JCJOJQJaJh{khgn6CJOJQJaJh{khgnCJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJWcQoi @c!$*%' $a$gd $$da$gd $ d^a$gd $ da$gd $da$gd $d`a$gd 4Kh~#I.bcmh i   @*Mȸ쨕ȸwlȸ`T`h0nCJOJQJaJhy:CJOJQJaJh{khoOJQJh{kh.4CJOJQJaJh{kh-_CJOJQJaJ%h{kh-_B*CJOJQJaJphh{kho7CJOJQJaJh{kho6CJOJQJaJh{khoCJOJQJaJ(h{kho6B*CJOJQJaJph%h{khoB*CJOJQJaJph(Eah !ƴueueueueueuTuEuhQhQCJOJQJaJ hQh,@z0JCJOJQJaJhQh,@z6CJOJQJaJhQh,@zCJOJQJaJhoXh,@zCJOJQJaJh{kh,@zCJOJQJaJ"h h56CJOJQJaJ"h h,@z56CJOJQJaJh{khmtXCJOJQJaJhmtXCJOJQJaJhy:CJOJQJaJ#jhy:0JCJOJQJUaJ!!k""B#Z###$$*%*(.()d*+,,114⩡sdUDUDU h8@|hQ0JCJOJQJaJh8@|hQCJOJQJaJhQhQCJOJQJaJh{khQCJOJQJaJh{kh|6CJOJQJaJh{kh|CJOJQJaJh hQ5h,@zCJOJQJaJhQh,@z6CJOJQJaJ hQh,@z0JCJOJQJaJhZOeCJOJQJaJhQh,@zCJOJQJaJhQh|CJOJQJaJ'(()9,/ 4m9n9y99Q::k;;{<==7>>$0d^`0a$gd $d^a$gd $d7$8$H$`a$gd $d`a$gd $da$gd $^a$gd 4 45677l9m9n9x9y999999,:@:B:E:Q:^:f:::ŶxhxYIYIYxhh8@|h"Xg6CJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h}E[CJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|h]5CJOJQJaJh8@|h x5CJOJQJaJh8@|h CJOJQJaJhQCJOJQJaJh8@|hoXCJOJQJaJh8@|hQCJOJQJaJh8@|hQ6CJOJQJaJ::::::;S;k;x;;;;;;;;;<d<{<<<<<<<=*=2===== >>5>D>L>>>>>>>>ಢsh8@|h.4CJH*OJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|6CJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|CJOJQJaJh8@|h}E[CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJ->>>?????"@#@$@~@@@@@AA%A-AEAgAAAAAAAkBΧ񘉘yyyjZjKh8@|hyCJOJQJaJh8@|h"Xg6CJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h}E[CJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJ h8@|h0JCJOJQJaJ+jR h8@|hCJOJQJUaJ%jh8@|hCJOJQJUaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJ>?$@ AAABlCDD`E]F`GGPHII1JdK#LLKMMN$#d^#`a$gd $0d^`0a$gd $hd^h`a$gd kBBBBBBB?C]C^C_CaCbClCCDD DD$D,DDDDDDDDE;E`EEѲѲуssѲѲ`%h8@|hyB*CJOJQJaJphh8@|h"Xg6CJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJOJQJaJh8@|h}E[6CJOJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h}E[CJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|hyCJOJQJaJh8@|hy6CJOJQJaJE'F]FwFFFFFF;GIG^GrG{GGGGGGGGG%HAHBHCHEHGHOHPHHǸǩǸljljǸljljxgXh8@|hyCJOJQJaJ h8@|h.40JCJOJQJaJ h8@|h}E[0JCJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJh8@|h}E[CJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJ%h8@|hyB*CJOJQJaJph+h8@|hy6B*CJOJQJ]aJphHHHHI$I,IIIIIIIIIJ0J1JJ#KdKpKxKKLLLLLOLWLvLLLLLMJMKMdMѲѲ²ѓѲѲ²tteh8@|h~CJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|6CJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|CJOJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h}E[CJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|hyCJOJQJaJh8@|hy6CJOJQJaJ'dMMVNNNO7O9O;OIOXO`OOOOOOOPPPPPQ3QCQKQvQQQQQQQRmRRѲѲsdsdh8@|hCJOJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|h0n6CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|hy6CJOJQJaJh8@|hyCJOJQJaJh8@|h~CJOJQJaJh8@|h~6CJOJQJaJ$NIOOP5QQR6SSRTTbU%V1WWaX%YYZ^[\\.]$hd^h`a$gd $#d1$^#`a$gd $0d^`0a$gd RR$S&S(S6S`SSSTBTDTFTRTgTTT=UbUUVVV%VV W0WҳueueuVFVh8@|hh6CJOJQJaJh8@|hhCJOJQJaJh8@|hy6CJOJQJaJh8@|hyCJOJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJh8@|h 6CJOJQJaJh8@|h CJOJQJaJh8@|hZOe6CJOJQJaJh8@|hZOeCJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|6CJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|CJOJQJaJ0W1WWWWWWWX=X@X_X`XaXXYYY%YYYYYYYeZZZ񔳄teUeh8@|h"Xg6CJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJOJQJaJh8@|hmtX6CJOJQJaJh8@|h0n6CJOJQJaJh8@|hmtXCJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJh8@|hhCJH*OJQJaJh8@|hh6CJOJQJaJh8@|hhCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJZZZZZ<[R[S[T[V[[[[\\\\\_\\\\\\\]]!]#]-]9]A]R]u]{]|]}]]ѲѲѲѲѓѲѲr²ar h8@|h0n0JCJOJQJaJ h8@|h.40JCJOJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJh8@|hh6CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJH*OJQJaJ%.]}]^^__+```~aGbb>ccdefggnhhwiYj$d^`a$gd $0d1$^`0a$gd $0d^`0a$gd ]]^^"^b^^^^^^^^__$_Z_a_____+`8`E`\``````````Iakamana~a²ѡ²²²²сqqh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJ h8@|h.40JCJOJQJaJ h8@|h0n0JCJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJOJQJaJh8@|h"Xg6CJOJQJaJ'~ab9bGbXb`bbbbbbbc"cccccccRdgdidddoeҳҳóҤucuTh8@|hmtXCJOJQJaJ"h8@|h8@|6CJH*OJQJaJh8@|h8@|6CJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|CJOJQJaJh8@|h"Xg6CJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|hh6CJOJQJaJh8@|hhCJOJQJaJoeeeeeefLfOfQffffg.g6gOgPg\gdg;paQAp2h8@|h%CJOJQJaJh8@|h0n6CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|h"Xg6CJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJOJQJaJh8@|hyCJH*OJQJaJh8@|hy6CJOJQJaJh8@|hyCJOJQJaJ$h8@|hyCJOJQJaJmH sH h8@|hmtXCJOJQJaJh8@|hmtX6CJOJQJaJdggglgqgrgggggggh;hMhlhhhhh&i.i]iuiiiiii(j)j*jWjXjjjjj kkBkϾ񯟯񯟯ve񯟯 h8@|h.40JCJOJQJaJ+j h8@|h.4CJOJQJUaJ%jh8@|h.4CJOJQJUaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJ h8@|h%0JCJOJQJaJ%jh8@|h%CJOJQJUaJh8@|h%CJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJ'YjjXkkAl mnnnEppq[r2sstJuEvvw6xx-yy$hd^h`a$gd $0d^`0a$gd BkVkXkkkk+lAlllll m,m4mym{mmmmmnnnn$n|nnnnnnӴrrarQQh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJ h8@|h}E[0JCJOJQJaJ%jh8@|h}E[CJOJQJUaJh8@|h}E[6CJOJQJaJh8@|h}E[CJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|6CJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|CJOJQJaJh8@|hh6CJOJQJaJh8@|hhCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJnnnnn.o]oooop7p8p:pEpppppnqqqqqqq.rLrMrNrPrrrs%s&s's)ssssssss ttstttttó⤔ҳҳҳҳh8@|h"XgCJH*OJQJaJh8@|h"Xg6CJOJQJaJh8@|h"XgCJOJQJaJh8@|hB<6CJOJQJaJh8@|hB<CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJ3tttt3uJuiuquv6v7v8v:vWv_vvvvvvvMwwwx࢒o]oN>8"ݲ6Cϴ8"ݲ䴳ϴ#8B<0J6CJOJQJaJ#h8@|h.40J6CJOJQJaJ h8@|h0n0JCJOJQJaJh8@|hB<6CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJ h8@|h.40JCJOJQJaJx$x&x(x5x6xSxdxexxxxxxy-y:yByyyyyyzϾ}m}^N^?h8@|h8@|CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJh8@|h~6CJOJQJaJh8@|h~CJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJ#h8@|h.40J6CJOJQJaJ h8@|h0n0JCJOJQJaJ h8@|h.40JCJOJQJaJ h8@|h0JCJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJh8@|h6CJOJQJaJzKzzz4{V{W{{{||||C}R}f}}}2~F~H~J~~~~ѲѣrbrSCSCSCSCSh8@|h6CJOJQJaJh8@|hCJOJQJaJh8@|hy6CJOJQJaJh8@|hyCJOJQJaJ"h8@|hmtX6CJH*OJQJaJh8@|hmtX6CJOJQJaJh8@|hmtXCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJh8@|hB<6CJOJQJaJh8@|hB<CJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|CJOJQJaJh8@|h8@|6CJOJQJaJyzW{|R}}X~fHh }[dgd7|gdgngdaz$0d^`0a$gd $0d1$^`0a$gd (0Rdqy H؀ۀ݀hióäudYH!jhrhy0JOJQJUh7|hyOJQJ!jh7|hy0JOJQJUh8@|h xCJOJQJaJh8@|hB<CJH*OJQJaJh8@|hB<6CJOJQJaJh8@|hB<CJOJQJaJh8@|h~6CJOJQJaJh8@|h~CJOJQJaJh8@|h.46CJOJQJaJh8@|h0nCJOJQJaJh8@|h.4CJOJQJaJi  }~Z[\]քׄلڄۄ܄݄ބ˿˳˯|qmhKah h CJaJjh h CJUaJhY+hY+CJaJmHnHuh jh UjhUhhyCJOJQJaJ hwhy hy6hyjhy0JUhrhy0JOJQJjhrhyOJQJUhrhyOJQJ&ۄ܄݄ބ߄$0d^`0a$gd $a$dgd7| ބ߄h8@|h xCJOJQJaJ5 01h:pro/ =!"#$% -Dd ThB  S A? 2,Vh nfcd%sD!`!k,Vh nfcd%r @K|xcdd`` @c090)0X,P1=F (`d?3%$ l›B2sSB\]G1ܘ!+(|-M[fҊ L PӔ2-k:n@$S ^0X1xFL9_Ll Pa.VIQv0^f0x{8Crg^E^˪wK|0xTKo@M[(& Su<(hD.xS"$7:i G@pp/̉ʙ0qZ#Ufwۙvf6 q->ǯ`(a%ǫ=-sܿ%0x<Xz 5i7X 7',&,|0ku 8?m?4̦5S s>t; Q=#'-u1}SKxCv]kh2&5LCk" \w>q]K)^(*/c䔜tOpSY1F CGwH0/m0#Tm00 9%v 8 Q:C ;O2<GI~49ŒZ?UJ: W>mamk4 zDE &(^$|[F_εގ+"t8Rъ8c b'{'o.Ex Y %W-*kآ+s ^P,lcTxVh.Ks+^PZhjzTw}LNN@%,I6jb*{谻GU@A掐v{Dx)GM^#;*|ۣ5I}2&f' P5W+ V?͐,r}+K[8$bi`h 3LƃbrxQ y3tY#-p`> gz~3,/"}/NsDz]ngBys$kl!_(o A!|`!8_&U O rDyK yK Xhttp://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/pubs.htmlDyK yK \http://www.ncate.org/2000/unit_stnds_2002.pdf  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~    !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>Root Entry FP%]c  Data WordDocument7ObjectPool|]cP%]c_1042777568 F|]c|]cOle CompObjUObjInfo  !"#$%&'()+FMathType 5.0 EquationDNQEEquation.DSMT4DSMT5MacRomanTimesSymbolCourierMT Extra!/ED/APG_APAPAE%B_AC_AE*_HA@AHA*_D_E_E_A  3  12Equation Native _1042777801 F|]c|]cOle CompObj UFMathType 5.0 EquationDNQEEquation.DSMT4DSMT5MacRomanTimesSymbolCourierMT Extra!/ED/APG_APAPAE%B_AC_AE*_HA@AHA*_D_E_E_A  1  12ObjInfo Equation Native  1TableWSummaryInformation(Oh+'0  8 D P \hpxRadford UniversityNormalPaul53Microsoft Office Word@,^(@=I@P+@ [c2m8A՜.+,D՜.+,DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObj*y< hp  Radford UniversityRy  TitleP 8@ _PID_HLINKSA$:a3http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/diversityreport.pdf!JX.http://www.ncate.org/2000/unit_stnds_2002.pdf! %http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010!yh ,http://www.stanford.edu/~joboaler/pubs.html!;mailto:ljacobsen@radford.edu!% http://www.ed.gov/!  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qj& 666666666vvvvvvvvv66666>666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH F`F NormaldCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List 6U@6 |0 Hyperlink >*B*phD@D ] List Paragraph ^m$44 7|0Header  H$6!6 7|0 Header CharCJaJ4 @24 7|0Footer  H$6A6 7|0 Footer CharCJaJ>@R> 7| Footnote TextCJaJ<a< 7|0Footnote Text Char@&@q@ 7|Footnote ReferenceH*.)@. , Page NumberB'B ,0Comment ReferenceCJaJ<< ,0 Comment TextCJaJ:: ,0Comment Text Char@j@ ,0Comment Subject5\FF ,0Comment Subject Char5\NN ,0 Balloon TextdCJOJQJ^JaJNN ,0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJJOJ Style3 $d6CJOJPJQJaJLOL Style2!$$da$CJOJPJQJaJN+"N #} Endnote Text"dCJOJPJQJaJF1F "}Endnote Text Char OJPJQJ>*A> }Endnote ReferenceH*^oR^ oDefault %7$8$H$)B*CJOJQJ_HaJmH phsH tH PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] `e |UjH|{ +++.Y A <1FiZedrÕW!4:>kBEHdMR0WZ]~aoedgBkntxziބ߄MLV]zIZ'>N.]Yjy߄c:+:-:D:\:^:77"8q___a)bWbeef|X::XXXX $'.!lX@  @ 0(  B S  ?H0(   OLE_LINK3 OLE_LINK4 _Toc530320496 _Toc131073726 _Toc135556308%%LOLO|..\O\O)| M M jMLdv|BLdv|>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonName }   tyMRU^'uy   <&E&G&O&&&** //112222u;|;??HHkIqI&K0KOOPP@RJRSSp]w]bc]cdcud~diikkkkllxx9> ޹ n{glkx=HKS[emwR(\(}111133345 55 577$8)8/888>8G8k8q8 999999::l;r;<<= =>>AA1838DDEE5[E[[[E\I\]]]]t^z^ffffffggiiii[jdjjjojuj~j]kckll?oEoqqWs[sssssHxPx[x`xxxyyzz{||||||||||||||CGYY [%[*[/[x\\].]dd1^.Tlty111+233344$4{4444[5]576K666777877$88 9,9-9A9B99999::j:::l;;<<<J=`=q=]>~>>>`?z?{????@@P@u@v@@A+A,AAAA1B8BdCwCCC#DVDWDwDDDDDD5EKEcEEEFFFGG H H]HHHIII|JJJKLLLLLL MbMMMM%NLNMNNNOCOOOOaPPQQ!R[T[U[[[[[\\]]n]]]]d^^^_-_6_9___``n`````%a?a@awaaaaYbbbbb c cCcXccccccAdddz||||||||||||||333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333MNabc"#6%6%%%IITUUUssl1m1l;l;P@P@HxHxzzzgzhz||||||||||||||||MNabc"#6%6%%%IITUUUssl1m1l;l;P@P@HxHxz|N?S*eZUMNlw,+h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(88^8`o(() ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHN?SwUMNl*eZ                  .M                 a 4q=q[x}n "%EjstHNbg Y+jI*JQY^deix`+CCIA`ahi -/JN5VHJ:RloJh9_CaL?XZy(D7~E l  G L# T Sm  A Tk p @r x .5 " H W g  x ) 9 X o ~ \iZo+6\hn;]>9^n? 4;lG )T8Sli%,5 6F`jach(D37:NS.G`9(A5Ekm .HVaagn  ^<Sc)f@j} y/$<_=y 9 R$=-f3ais 0s`v[a"%/.4wgoB!3>?MdP 5 . Z !!h+!!% )%<%C%K%L%& &&& &&&3&ZE&N&W&h&-k&t&^'sJ'a'(D((l)(.("B(C( E(E(Z(0\(h(v(w(2)2;)E)G)W)Y)t)n*$*/*;*X@*`*c*d*jl*Bz*+2+O5+F+H+[+,,,cE,PY,xZ,p,,-><-O?-C-d- .%...GS.^.X_.e.r.z$/z9/sD/D/E/M/n/y~//0T0;%0)101030C0N0111=1X1^1v1 2/2F2KN2AO2P2]2\h2Dv2 3"3K3(o3u4O4P5X55m 5^5t56z6p66:6<6R67/7 7#7&L7V78'%8?8GM8y89A999X9pi9::5:F:w:|:;;(;[;h;<S"<1<B<$n<t<j>u> ?^?#?B?QD?U? @k@F#@Y@`AL[B`BCg%C0)C,CGp^GqG!LHzPHXH{HI I\1Ia9IJ6JUJWJZJYgJzkJYKDKfRKL(L&=LLL|pL'rLM`:M@MFvM|MnNvNeN N N8N8NSNSN-kNmNwN)|N9O'O]OiOjOPPz"Pi8P]PkPyPMQ~Q Q7QQQdQ%$RCRccRSSHS[SM~STTPT tTU(/UBUMTUU]U^UVhU VVSVW W?W/W5WJX? X X$X3XEGXSXmtXY,#Y'Y-(YKY8vY{Y"|YTZysZvZ[z [([a-[4[C:[@[}E[J[j[z['"\%\U.\5\l\}\&~\h]]]J5]Yj]Tk]^^/^aC^tM^XW^___D_r_-_;_ ```"`.`a3aRab@b$b=b}CbOb$Rbhbcc3c9dFd"Hd4Jd~de/e)GeZOe]egeneueff .f8f7@fHfukftf2tf&|fgh g0Cg"Xgfg'h=haFh`hii3i;iOij[j)jf9j ;j$Ajkjmjrj~jkkkkkk'k1kKkQk5Ykhuk{k#lFlyil*m[HmLmfZmem0nq3n4nFnVnrno AoBSoemopoxopp66p]pn`p`pwpwp|pj.qg[q>|qrssbBsRIsMsQshspsqws tt!t{:tFtRt]titkt u u_u.uxluv v|-vDvQv`nvzv'}vhwLwmwywzwJx<x x xDkx)yJyR}y5z,@z[z { {E{ N{X{DY{= |N||8@|sI|Y|}}(};@}T}d}d}~6[~az}=[_ CF= N#XBsG )6?OiqtwsaAw_(8:T7|zz')1[^1fMQm xyL,iV[i Q hsD~1.9DmMrU2RWs&!)l7@CGmh%4ep"PZ 2St+#}FRs1pw= #F-<L8O]wlz(p3Gho;xWz.I1]`~gDzH\]`Yh!c+?RV6w pduw-#7PjAtXY4_f8tUr N !+s5JQ0U^Iefguv<)/=?B+VAOjyc""4A_y4M^%._Yev}%  0#29"y*y/&N9gVCg #K4TVY f +'08Rux9@F4z?@L_v|?|_ Sh+gNvl c0%MIZCq*L?W]_i\$(h),YY5fjD|-:h\z1+=wEE]_lQx2+,TxR`Kahk~pRV]+u c1ce&o>pv|!/5K\^*)^vq*y:?CMW]^v'3j5Limlu`]f$PBg|O@?]m^>ckU7pVZl E *%6.2>rTmJK- ,b:]uuZ/cg.kkq(,O]j Yfgr#&7 ?EUi yG{d6ESYv=J3hsB|"(rJpx}T"w,yubAFHOxIOpRUf;%-&OMp\!GH|7K:a2doyj >?>Kcnq| YLE8\B\0e&(!-P#YGYg LE&IkSpeG'0?AYM`z.8Aubz) 6DEGHUKZ 9AT|_&fje9c;C 0JcdZjmHV(X C89m\n|'d>Z qz/?zzz@NNNN|@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial7.@ Calibri5. .[`)Tahoma?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA BCambria Math"1h$&F5rm8A28C2!n0Ry{ 2qHX $P|2!xxRadford UniversityPaul