ED478348 2003-08-00 Mathematics

Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC

Digest.

ERIC Development Team

www.eric.ed.gov

Table of Contents

If you're viewing this document online, you can click any of the topics below to link directly to that section.

Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest................. 1

NAEP REPORTS OF RURAL MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT...... 2

CURRENT RESEARCH ON MATH ACHIEVEMENT IN RURAL

AREAS...................................................................... 2

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................ 4

NOTES........................................................................... 6

REFERENCES.................................................................. 6

ERIC Identifier: ED478348

Publication Date: 2003-08-00

Author: Howley, Craig B.

Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools Charleston WV.

Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools.

ERIC Digest.

THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT

ACCESS ERIC 1-800-LET-ERIC

Rural communities need an infrastructure of good mathematics knowledge, according to

ED478348 2003-08-00 Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest. Page 1 of 8
some observers. Moses and Cobb (2001), in particular, argue that mathematical

knowledge will, in the new century, figure as a path to political and cultural power, much

as the capacity to read and write served in the 19th and 20th centuries.

What is the baseline of mathematical knowledge among students in the rural United

States? Poverty in nonmetropolitan areas exceeds that in metropolitan areas (Jolliffe,

2002), and, for this reason, one might reasonably suspect that mathematics

achievement in rural schools is depressed as compared to the national average. Is this

really the case? This Digest assesses the best evidence available and concludes with

recommendations for further action, based in part on conclusions reached by a national

effort to develop new research about mathematics education in rural places.

NAEP REPORTS OF RURAL MATHEMATICS

ACHIEVEMENT

In both 1996 and 2000, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

mathematics scores of students in rural and small-town schools exhibited some

statistically nonsignificant negative differences from the national average at all grade

levels tested. Although nonsignificant differences are sometimes interpreted as

harboring practical significance, absent a consistent pattern in the directionality of such

differences (i.e., positive or negative), such inferences are unwarranted.

Two inferences about NAEP trends do seem warranted, however. First, across 25 years

of testing and regardless of locale definition, there has been little change--increase or

decrease--in the mathematics performance of rural students. Second, with rare

exceptions, the recent performance of rural students at all NAEP grade levels barely

differed from the national average (see Howley, 2002, Table 3). The observed,

nonsignificant differences are small, they sometimes favor rural and small-town schools,

and they harbor no practical implications.

CURRENT RESEARCH ON MATH

ACHIEVEMENT IN RURAL AREAS

NAEP reports consist largely of descriptive data; seldom do they test hypotheses or

develop fine-grained explanations of the accurate descriptions they provide. Only

empirical studies with an explicit base in theory can offer such explanations. The extant

research literature is thin, but three recent quantitative studies provide a surprisingly

comprehensive picture of mathematics achievement among rural students: Haller,

Monk, and Tien (1993); Fan and Chen (1999); and Lee and McIntire (2000).

Haller and colleagues (1993) examined the 1987-1989 mathematics scores of

10th-grade students on tests administered by the Longitudinal Study of American Youth

(LSAY). The Haller team sought to explain the lack of statistically significant findings in

previous inferential studies (not summarized in this Digest) as a possible case of

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 2 of 8 ED478348 2003-08-00 Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest.
inappropriate testing: the result of using norm-referenced tests with reputedly

inauthentic items not deemed to represent higher-order thinking. Rural schools, after all,

offered fewer advanced courses than other schools, and such a shortcoming might yield

deficient higher-order thinking among graduates of rural schools. The researchers

characterized the LSAY math test as more reflective of higher-order thinking.

Haller and colleagues (1993, p. 71) concluded, "While large schools offer more

advanced courses than do small ones, those offerings appear to have no influence on

average levels of student achievement." In other words, according to these researchers,

a more narrow rural curriculum in mathematics did "not" depress higher-order

mathematics thinking (as measured on the LSAY tests). The researchers "did" find a

positive relationship ("r" =+.38) between proportion of students enrolled in more

advanced courses and achievement levels.1

A problem with the Haller study is that national averages obscure a great deal of

variation--specifically regional and state achievement variation--in mathematics test

scores. State and regional variation require critical analysis for several reasons. First,

the ultimate authority for schooling rests with states, and management of their school

systems can differ sharply. Second, regions of the nation exhibit sharp differences in

economies, cultures, ethnicities, and the structure of schooling. Third, despite an

average exhibiting parity of mathematics achievement, rural areas exhibit overall

differences from the national norm that are still important to policy and administration

(e.g., differences in school and district size). Without attention to these sources of

variation, educational research cannot inform improvement efforts. Fortunately, within

this small literature, Fan and Chen (1999) examined the issue of "regional" variation in

mathematics achievement, whereas Lee and McIntire (2000) addressed "state"

variation in their study.

Fan and Chen (1999) examined test scores from the National Educational Longitudinal

Survey (NELS:88) data set. Separate analyses were conducted for 8th-, 10th-, and

12th-grade students. These researchers were concerned primarily to provide a

"systematic" test of the hypothesis of rural deficiency. That is, they were particularly

concerned to overcome five methodological shortcomings of previous studies (i.e.,

sampling issues; inconsistent definitions of locale; and the influences of socioeconomic

status, ethnicity, and school sector [private vs. public] as potentially confounding

variables). Their analyses were carefully executed and comparatively sophisticated. The

results are very simply stated: with careful controls in place, no practically significant

differences between mathematics test scores existed by locale (rural, suburban, and

urban).2

Lee and McIntire (2000) used NAEP 8th-grade data for 1992 and 1996 to investigate

state-level variability in rural versus nonrural mathematics achievement, as well as to

investigate the potential influences of six "schooling conditions" on that variability. This

study, among the three cited, is notable for its exclusive consideration of "mathematics"

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED478348 2003-08-00 Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest. Page 3 of 8
achievement. (The others had included other subjects as well as mathematics.) This

more narrow focus allowed the researchers to make hypotheses about, and to

investigate the variation in, the conditions of mathematics instruction that might

influence rural mathematics achievement at the state level as well as the national level.

The results were somewhat surprising. For the 1996 comparison, the rural mean was

276 and the nonrural mean was 268. With standard errors of 1.92 and 1.80, the implied

standard error of the difference (5.26) indicates a statistically significant difference in

1996, "favoring rural students." The difference, in fact, equates to a respectable effect

size of +.23. This "positive" difference is equal in magnitude to the largest pre-1986

"negative" difference between disadvantaged "extreme rural" and the national average

(see Howley, 2002, Table 3). The 1992 differences were not statistically different (265

rural, 267 nonrural).

A great deal of variation, however, was evident at the state level. In fact, in 7 (of 35)

states, and contrary to the national average, "nonrural" student aggregate scores were

"higher" than those of rural students (Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia).

To account for such variation, Lee and McIntire assessed the influence of six

policy-related "schooling conditions" prospectively evident at the state level. Across the

35 state cases, these six conditions, in regression analysis, account for an impressive

84% of the variation in state-level, NAEP 8th-grade mathematics achievement among

the rural portions of the respective states' populations and 69% for the nonrural portions

(still high). Focusing on three of the conditions, the researchers reported

"Rural students" in states where they have access to instructional support, safe/orderly

climate, and collective support [collegiality] tend to perform better than their

counterparts in states where they don't. (emphasis added) (Lee & McIntire, 2000, p.

171)

The analysis, although comparatively fine-grained, is not sufficient to generalize the

conclusion to future years. Instead, it provides substantial material to inform hypotheses

in subsequent research. In particular, Lee and McIntire's work strongly suggests that the

most interesting and useful work to be done lies below the national level, and can

profitably address issues of state and local context.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the studies reported here use different definitions of rural, it seems likely that

mathematics achievement in rural and small-town schools has converged with national

averages--whether or not scores are statistically controlled for the effects of poverty and

other influences. Key conclusions from this assessment follow:

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 4 of 8 ED478348 2003-08-00 Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest.
* Currently, a national rural versus nonrural mathematics achievement gap does not

exist.

* Currently, neither a national rural versus suburban, nor a national rural versus urban

mathematics achievement gap exists.

* Currently, at the state level, a rural-nonrural achievement gap exists in 40% of the

states--half favoring rural students.

* Conditions of schooling account (variably and somewhat hypothetically) for a large

proportion of the variance associated with the rural-nonrural achievement gap at the

state level.

What do these findings "mean?" Do we need to pay any attention at all to mathematics

teaching and learning in rural places?

Skip Kifer (2001) quite rightly advises that comparisons of "variation" rather than of

"averages" constitute the most important work for researchers. The advice is apt, but to

challenge the charge of inferiority (which persists in the case of rural culture, lifeways,

and talents), the study of averages has practical and theoretical merit. This Digest

provides evidence that charges of rural inferiority in comparison to national averages

are weak.

Regardless of locale, meaningful variability exists at the district, school, and classroom

levels--as well as at the state level. Some of this variability might be random, so that it

harbors few practical implications. But much of it is probably not random. Much of it may

be related to features of locale over which humans might exert some influence for the

common good of more and better mathematics learning (Howley, 2003), including:

* structural features of the educational system (e.g., class size, school size, district size,

and the relationships among them)

* equity of local resources (e.g., income distribution in the community, parity of

instructional resources among district schools, patterns of assignment of the best

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED478348 2003-08-00 Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest. Page 5 of 8
teachers among a district's schools)

* the local culture of schooling (e.g., "embeddedness" of the school in the community

and the community in the school, conceptions of educational purposes and effects)

* intentions of teachers and administrators (e.g., school climate, professional collegiality,

relationships among students and between students and educators)

* adequacy of resources (e.g., school funding levels in view of challenges, tax effort,

staff turnover)

* degree of collective purpose (e.g., student-centered focus, extent of tracking, equity of

educational outcomes)

A good deal of educational scholarship, of course, has considered such issues, but very

little attention has been directed at the influences present in rural places that support

mathematical learning or invoke resistance to instruction in mathematics. Quantitative

studies can and should be informed by such meanings. But rather than seeking simple

differences, future quantitative studies should consider variation, interactions, dilemmas,

and contradictions, for these are the challenges that make practice and improvement

difficult.

NOTES

1. There are numerous explanations for such a result. Indeed, the highest correlations

by far with 12th-grade math achievement in this study are those with prior

achievement--a powerful control variable in this study, and the only one to prove

statistically significant in the regression analyses (see authors' discussion on p. 70).

2. With very large sample sizes, some statistically significant differences will always be

found; effect sizes, however, interpret the degree of influence exerted by such

differences. The few such differences found in this study are associated with very

marginal effect sizes (e.g., a magnitude of about .01).

REFERENCES

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 6 of 8 ED478348 2003-08-00 Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. J. (1999). Academic achievement of rural school students: A

multi-year comparison with their peers in suburban and urban schools. Journal of

Research in Rural Education, 15(1), 31-46.

Haller, E. J., Monk, D. H., & Tien, L. T. (1993). Small schools and higher-order thinking

skills. Journal of Research in Rural Education, (2), 66-73.

Howley, C. B. (2002). Research about mathematics achievement in the rural

circumstance (An ACCLAIM Working Paper). Athens, OH: The Appalachian

Collaborative Center for Learning, Assessment, and Instruction in Mathematics,

Research Initiative.

Howley, C. (2003). Understanding mathematics education in rural context. The

Educational Forum, 67(3), 215-224.

Jolliffe, D. (2002). Rural poverty at record low in 2000. Rural America, 17(4), 74-77.

Kifer, E. (2001). Why research on science and mathematics education in rural schools

is important or the mean is the wrong message. In S. A. Henderson (Ed.),

Understanding Achievement in Science and Mathematics in Rural Schools: Conference

Proceedings (pp. 44-48). Lexington, KY: Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative.

Lee, J., & McIntire, W. G. (2000). Interstate variation in the mathematics achievement of

rural and nonrural students. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 16(3), 168-181.

Moses, R., & Cobb, C. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston:

Beacon Press.

-----

Craig Howley co-directs the ACCLAIM Research Initiative (rural mathematics education)

and is an adjunct professor at Ohio University. He also serves as associate director at

ERIC/CRESS.

This publication was prepared with funding from the Institute of Education Sciences,

U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0027. The opinions

expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of IES, the

Department, or AEL.

Title: Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest.

Document Type: Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs)

(071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073);

Available From: For full text: http://www.ael.org/eric.

Descriptors: Educational Environment, Educational Research, Mathematics

Achievement, Mathematics Education, National Competency Tests, Rural Education,

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED478348 2003-08-00 Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest. Page 7 of 8
Rural Urban Differences, Secondary Education

Identifiers: ERIC Digests

###

[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 8 of 8 ED478348 2003-08-00 Mathematics Achievement in Rural Schools. ERIC Digest.