The barriers for change are many and deeply rooted in strong beliefs about traditional teaching practices involving paper-and-pencil calculations, administrative reliance on standardized tests, and parental expectations on rote homework (NCTM, 1989; Romberg & Carpenter, 1986; Scholz & Niess, 1995). Collectively, these factors create a political framework in which policy decisions shaping the nature and scope of school changes are made. Hence, the decision to implement radical changes in the schools aligned with current reforms is not an easy one (Gray & Herr, 1995; NCTM, 1989; Newmann, 1991; Wirth, 1992).
Bridging traditional academic/vocational turfs is another problem magnified by reliance upon segregated professional development practices that inhibit a sense of community (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1994; Little, Erbstein, & Walker, 1996; NCES, 1996; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Schmidt, Finch, & Faulkner, 1992). Further, models and strategies for integration have already been identified, but practitioners seem to use them without regard to local circumstances and needs. This indicates a lack of big-picture understandings and confusion about the meaning and applications of integration (Bottoms & Sharpe, 1996; Grubb, 1996; Stasz et al., 1994). Therefore, it is not surprising to see the proliferation of commercial curriculum products and the lack of locally developed, NCTM Standards-based, integrated mathematics curricula. Commercial texts may be helpful in complementing integration efforts but can not substitute internal and external collaboration, understanding of specific curriculum needs, and the nuances of everyday implementation that only a sense of community can provide (Kruse et al., 1994; Stasz et al., 1994). A related issue concerns the preservation of curriculum rigor. Some educators fear increased standards will produce higher dropout rates, increased enrollment in remedial and basic courses, and watered-down curriculum (Gray & Herr, 1995; Porter, Kirst, Osthoff, Smithson, & Schneider, 1994; Wirth, 1992).
Collectively, these issues and concerns suggest that linking the NCTM Standards to emerging career-oriented curriculum is not a matter restricted to the mere development and implementation of integration efforts. The implications are far reaching, ranging from school restructuring notions to the more mundane classroom problems. While integration of mathematics and career curricula appears a natural evolution of both educational reforms, there seems to be a limited number of promising systemic efforts currently underway at both the secondary and postsecondary level.