The theoretical landscape editor's reaction to part I

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationMapping Equity and Quality in Mathematics Education
PublisherSpringer Netherlands
Pages123-127
Number of pages5
ISBN (Print)9789048198023
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2011

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The theoretical landscape editor's reaction to part I'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Secada, W. G. (2011). The theoretical landscape editor's reaction to part I. In Mapping Equity and Quality in Mathematics Education (pp. 123-127). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9803-0_9