The Theoretical Landscape

Editor's Reaction to Part I
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Through much of the late twentieth century, notions of equity and quality in school mathematics were closely tied to interpreting the common finding of socio-demographic group-based differences in mathematics achievement. The often-virulent nature/nurture debates were grounded in psychological theories of individual difference (Jensen 1972); whereas sociological theories of social and cultural capital sought to explain inequalities in how society distributes its desiderata (Bowles and Gintis 2002). Explanatory theories that invoked constructs, such as the “culture of poverty” (Lewis 1965; Office of Policy, Planning and Research 1965; see Wilson’s critique 2009) and even intervention studies, such as Subtracting Bias, Multiplying Options (Fennema et al. 1981) were grounded in one or another of these disciplines and thereby constrained by their discursive practices. Not surprisingly, work from the 1960s through 1980s is often criticized for “blaming the victim.”

Keywords

Mathematics Education Cultural Capital Mathematics Achievement Sociological Theory Discursive Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). The inheritance of inequality. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fennema, E., & Leder, G. (Eds.). (1990). Mathematics and gender. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Association, 14, 51–71.Google Scholar
  4. Fennema, E., Wolleat, P. L., Pedro, J. D., & Becker, A. D. (1981). Increasing women’s participation in mathematics: An intervention study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jensen, A. (1972). Genetics and education. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  6. Lewis, O. (1965). La vida: A Puerto Rican family in the culture of poverty. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  7. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Office of Policy, Planning and Research. (1965, March). The Negro family: The case for national action (Moynihan Report). United States Department of Labor. http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm. Accessed 23 May 2010.
  9. Secada, W. G. (Ed.). (1989). Equity in education. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  10. Secada, W. G., Fennema, E., & Adajian, L. B. (Eds.). (1995). New directions for equity in mathematics education. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  11. Secada, W. G., & Meyer, M. R. (Eds). (1989/1991). Needed: An agenda for equity in mathematics education. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(Special Issue 2), 22–56.Google Scholar
  12. Sells, L. W. (1973). High school mathematics as the critical filter in the job market. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley (as cited in Fennema and Sherman, 1977).Google Scholar
  13. Sells, L. W. (1976). The mathematics filter and the education of women and minorities. ERIC # ED121663 (Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, Massachusetts, February 18–24, 1976).Google Scholar
  14. Wilson, W. J. (2009, January). The Moynihan report and research on the black community. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations