<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<item>
  <id>06083482</id>
  <dt>a</dt>
  <an>2012e.00272</an>
  <augroup>
    <au>Rossi Becker, Joanne</au>
  </augroup>
  <ti>Commentary on the chapter by Dowling and Burke, ``Shall we do politics or learn some maths today? Representing and interrogating social inequality''.</ti>
  <so>Forgasz, Helen (ed.) et al., Towards equity in mathematics education. Gender, culture, and diversity. Berlin: Springer (ISBN 978-3-642-27701-6/hbk; 978-3-642-27702-3/ebook). Advances in Mathematics Education, 111-114 (2012).</so>
  <py>2012</py>
  <pu>Berlin: Springer</pu>
  <lagroup>
    <la>EN</la>
  </lagroup>
  <ccgroup>
    <cc>C60</cc>
    <cc>U20</cc>
  </ccgroup>
  <utgroup>
    <ut>social inequality</ut>
    <ut>school textbooks</ut>
    <ut>mathematics lessons</ut>
    <ut>critical mathematics education</ut>
    <ut>commentary</ut>
  </utgroup>
  <cigroup>
    <ci>ME 2012e.00849</ci>
  </cigroup>
  <ligroup>
    <li>doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27702-3_10</li>
  </ligroup>
  <abgroup>
    <ab>Summary: This article posits the following conundrum: Is it possible to structure a mathematics lesson that integrates questioning of social inequality with worthwhile mathematical material? {\ P. Dowling} and {\it J. Burke} [ibid., 87--103 (2012; ME 2012e.00849)] answer this question negatively. They conclude that a lesson must either privilege mathematics, providing all students with appropriate and rigorous mathematical content, or a lesson must privilege political motivations, providing for a full and extensive discussion of critical issues; according to the authors, it is not possible to accomplish both goals at the same time.  This article is a commentary on {\it P. Dowling's} and {\it J. Burke's} article [loc. cit.].</ab>
    <rv></rv>
  </abgroup>
</item>