In this penultimate section, two commentaries on the ICMI Study 24 volume as a whole are presented. These reflections are included from two leading scholars in mathematics education research with a keen interest in school mathematics curriculum reforms, Anjum Halai and Paola Valero, who did not participate in the ICMI Study 24 conference. These prominent researchers from different backgrounds, were invited to react to the study volume by providing critical commentaries and to consider gaps between, the findings and discussions raised by ICMI Study 24, and the reality of school mathematics curriculum reforms in the broad diversity of contexts.

Anjum Halai and Paola Valero bring two very different perspectives and reflections on the volume given the contexts of their own research and experiences, which spans different continents of Asia and Africa, and South America and Europe, respectively. They draw attention to particular issues and aspects that are arguably, under-represented in this volume on school mathematics curriculum reforms.

Anjum Halai, in her reaction, foregrounds the critical issue of language in mathematics curriculum reforms and draws attention to the fact that many learners and teachers of mathematics participate in teaching and learning in schools in languages other than their home or first languages. She presents the case of Pakistan but this is the case for many countries, especially in the former colonies such as is found in most regions in Africa (a context that is under-represented in this volume). She points to the issue of equitable access for all learners to the mathematics content and processes in the classroom, and argues that the language of implementation of mathematics curriculum reforms serves as a gatekeeper in accessing the curriculum content, which potentially marginalises students from diverse language backgrounds.

Paola Valero offers a cultural–political reading of school mathematics curriculum reforms in her commentary on the volume. Her reflections take different vantage points on mathematics education research in this area, highlighting both insider and outsider perspectives and thereby demonstrating the value of deeper and extended theoretical analyses of school mathematics curriculum reforms (an aspect identified as needing development in this volume). She emphasises that the study of the transformations of the mathematics curriculum needs to embrace the inseparability of the curriculum from its context and that exploring the cultural politics of the mathematics curriculum reforms requires engaging in interdisciplinary research with scholars from other educational disciplines or social sciences.

These reflections and commentaries signal in a real and concrete way that this volume has opened an important and overdue conversation in mathematics education scholarship and has only made the tip of the proverbial iceberg visible. Much more research and focused work is needed in the study of all aspects of school mathematics curricula reforms, especially at macro system levels.