Mathematics Curricula: Issues of Access and Quality

  • Tamsin Meaney
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)


In the last forty years, it seems that discussions about inequality, power, access and identity have simultaneously become more prominent in mathematics education curricula, whilst also being subordinated to wider neo-liberal discourses of competition and accountability. In this paper, issues to do with access and quality are linked to the mechanism that determines what constitutes mathematics education for specific groups of children. Using Bernstein’s pedagogical device, it is possible to see how the control of official knowledge affects who has access to what kind of mathematics learning opportunities. At the same time, contestation about what should be official knowledge also allows alternative possibilities to be raised. The challenge for those interested in providing higher quality mathematics education to all groups of students is how to make use of the possibility for “unthinkable” knowledge.


Curriculum Equity Neo-liberalism Bernstein Pedagogic device 


  1. Angus, L. (2004). Globalization and educational change: Bringing about the reshaping and re-norming of practice. Journal of Education Policy, 19(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apple, M. W. (1995). Education and power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Atweh, B., & Clarkson, P. (2002a). Globalized curriculum or global approach to curriculum reform in mathematics education. Asia Pacific Education Review3(2), 160–167.Google Scholar
  4. Atweh, B., & Clarkson, P. (2002b). Globalisation and mathematics education: From above and below. In Problematic Futures: Educational Research in an Era of Uncertainty: Proceeding of the Australian Association of Research in Education Conference. Conference held December 1–5, 2002. University of Queensland. Available from:
  5. Atweh, B., Clarkson, P., & Nebres, B. (2003). Mathematics education in international and global contexts. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 185–229). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Au, W. W. (2008). Devising inequality: A Bernsteinian analysis of high-stakes testing and social reproduction in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 639–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Autio, T. (2014). Internationalization of curriculum research. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 17–31). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, J. (1999). Makeover or takeover? The strange death of educational autonomy in neo-liberal England. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernstein, B. B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control (pp. 47–69). London: Collier-Macmillan Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (rev ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Blakers, A. L. (1978). Change in mathematics education since the late 1950’s-ideas and realisation Australia. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 9(2), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonnor, C., & Shepherd, B. (2014). School equity since Gonski: Since bad became worse. Unknown: Need to succeed alliance. Available from:
  14. Cuban, L. (2007). Hugging in the middle. Teaching in an era of testing and accountability, 1980–2005. Education Policy Analysis Archive, 15(1). Available from
  15. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Fey, J. T. (1978). Change in mathematics education since the late 1950’s—Ideas and realisation USA. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 9(3), 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  18. Goodson, I. F. (1989). “Chariots of Fire”: Etymologies, epistemologies and the emergence of curriculum. In G. Milburn, I. F. Goodson, & R. J. Clark (Eds.), Re-interpreting curriculum research: Images and arguments (pp. 13–25). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  19. Government of Nepal. (2016). School sector development plan 2016–2023. Kathmandu: Ministry of Education, Government of Nepal.Google Scholar
  20. Gravemeijer, K., & Terwel, J. (2000). Hans Freudenthal: A mathematician on didactics and curriculum theory. Journal of curriculum studies, 32(6), 777–796.Google Scholar
  21. Howson, G. (1974). Mathematics: The fight for recognition. Mathematics in School, 3(6), 7–9.Google Scholar
  22. Howson, A. G. (1978). Change in mathematics education since the late 1950’s-ideas and realisation Great Britain. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 9(2), 183–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jahnke, A. (2012). The process of developing a syllabus: Reflections of a syllabus developer. Paper to be delivered at the 12th International Congress of Mathematics Education, Seoul, July 8–15, 2012. Available from:
  24. Kamens, D. H., & Benavot, A. (1991). Elite knowledge for the masses: The origins and spread of mathematics and science education in national curricula. American Journal of Education, 99(2), 137–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanes, C., Morgan, C., & Tsatsaroni, A. (2014). The PISA mathematics regime: Knowledge structures and practices of the self. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(2), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klein, D. (2003). A brief history of American K–12 mathematics education in the 20th century. In J. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition: A volume in current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction (pp. 175–225). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  27. Kollosche, D. (2014). Mathematics and power: An alliance in the foundations of mathematics and its teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(7), 1061–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lange, T., & Meaney, T. (2012). The tail wagging the dog? The effect of national testing on teachers’ agency. In C. Bergsten, E. Jablonka, & M. R. Sundström (Eds.), Evaluation and comparison of mathematical achievement: Dimensions and perspectives: Proceedings from MADIF 8 (pp. 131–140). Linköping: Svensk Förening för Matmematikdidaktisk Forskning.Google Scholar
  29. Lange, T., & Meaney, T. (2014). It’s just as well kids don’t vote: The positioning of children through public discourse around national testing. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(2), 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lange, T., & Meaney, T. (2017). The production of “common sense” in the media about more mathematics in early childhood education. In M. Jurdak & R. Vithal (Eds.), Social and political dimensions of mathematics education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Lawton, D. (1984). Curriculum and culture. In M. Skilbeck (Ed.), Readings in school-based curriculum development (pp. 275–289). London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  32. Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: Testing times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Llewellyn, A. (2017). Technologies of (re)production in mathematics education research: Performance of progress. In H. Straehler-Pohl, N. Bohlman, & A. Pais (Eds.), The disorder of mathematics education: Challenging the socio-political dimensions of research (pp. 153–169). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loughland, T., & Sriprakash, A. (2016). Bernstein revisited: The recontextualisation of equity in contemporary Australian school education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(2), 230–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McConney, A., & Perry, L. B. (2010). Science and mathematics achievement in Australia: The role of school socioeconomic composition in educational equity and effectiveness. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McMurchy-Pilkington, C., Trinick, T., & Meaney, T. (2013). Mathematics curriculum development and Indigenous language revitalisation: Contested spaces. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(3), 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin, D. B., Gholson, M. L., & Leonard, J. (2010). Mathematics as gatekeeper: Power and privilege in the production of power. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 12–24. Available from:
  38. Meaney, T. (2000). The process of valuing in mathematics education. Paper presented at International Congress of Mathematics Education 9, Working Group—Social Justice in Mathematics Education, July 2000. Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  39. Meaney, T. (2014). Back to the future? Children living in poverty, early childhood centres and mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(7), 999–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meaney, T., & Lange, T. (2012). Knowing mathematics to be a teacher. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 14(2), 50–69.Google Scholar
  41. Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method (A. E. George, Trans.). New York: Frederick A. Stokes.Google Scholar
  42. Morgan, C., & Xu, G. R. (2011, July). Reconceptualising ‘obstacles’ to teacher implementation of curriculum reform: Beyond beliefs. Paper given at Mathematics Education and Contemporary Theory Conference. Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.Google Scholar
  43. Nakawa, N. (2013). Current situations in pre-primary and primary mathematics in Kathmandu, Nepal. Tokoyo Future University Research Bulletin, 6, 121–139. Available from:
  44. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  45. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results. Learning trends: Changes in student performance since 2000 (Vol. 5). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  46. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: Excellence through equity: giving every student the chance to succeed (Vol. II). Paris: OECD. Scholar
  47. OECD. (2015). Improving schools in Sweden: An OECD perspective. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  48. OECD. (2016). Country note, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), results from PISA 2015: Sweden. Paris: OECD. Available from:
  49. Otterstad, A. M., & Braathe, H. J. (2016). Travelling inscriptions of neo-liberalism in Nordic early childhood: Repositioning professionals’ for teaching and learnability. Global Studies of Childhood, 6(1), 80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ozga, J., & Jones, R. (2006). Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge transfer. Journal of Education Policy, 21(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Östh, J., Andersson, E., & Malmberg, B. (2013). School choice and increasing performance difference: A counterfactual approach. Urban Studies, 50(2), 407–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pais, A. (2014). Economy: The absent centre of mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(7), 1085–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  54. Román, H., Hallsén, S., Nordin, A., & Ringarp, J. (2015). Who governs the Swedish school? Local school policy research from a historical and transnational curriculum theory perspective. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy2015(1). Available from:
  55. Romberg, T. A. (1993). How one comes to know: Models and theories of the learning of mathematics. In M. Niss (Ed.), Investigations into assessment in mathematics education (pp. 97–111). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Secada, W. G. (1989). Agenda setting, enlightened self-interest, and equity in mathematics education. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(2), 22–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shrestha, M. M., Tuladhar, B. M., & Koirala, S. P. (2012). National framework for mathematics: Pres-school to grade 12 (proposed). Kathmandu: Council for Mathematics Education, Nepal Mathematics Society, Nepal Mathematics Centre.Google Scholar
  59. Singer, M. (2008). Balancing globalisation and local identity in the reform of education in Romania. In B. Atweh, M. Borba, A. Barton, D. Clark, N. Gough, C. Keitel, C. Vistro-Yu, and R. Vithal (Eds.), Internationalisation and Globalisation in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 365–382). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Sirotnik, K. A. (1988). What goes on in classrooms? Is this the way we want it? In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (pp. 56–76). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sleeter, C. (2008). Equity, democracy, and neoliberal assaults on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1947–1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith, C., & Morgan, C. (2016). Curricular orientations to real-world contexts in mathematics. The Curriculum Journal, 27(1), 24–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tatto, M. T., Peck, R., Schwille, J., Bankov, K., Senk, S. L., Rodriguez, M., … & Rowley, G. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 Countries: Findings from the IEA teacher education and development study in mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  64. Taylor, G., Shepard, L., Kinner, F., & Rosenthal, J. (2003). A survey of teachers’ perspectives on high-stakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost. Santa Cruz: University of California.Google Scholar
  65. Tyler, R. W. (1987). The five most significant curriculum events in the twentieth century. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 36–38.Google Scholar
  66. Wake, G. D., & Burkhardt, H. (2013). Understanding the European policy landscape and its impact on change in mathematics and science pedagogies. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 851–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Walker, D. F. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development. School Review, 80(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Valero, P., & Meaney, T. (2014). Trends in researching the socioeconomic influences on mathematical achievement. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(7), 977–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Norway University of Applied ScienceBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations