Advertisement

The National Context

Chapter

The activity system at the national level is linked to the school activity system by a nested hierarchical relationship. In fact, the school activity system itself is nested within the national system and acts as ‘subject’ in it. This inclusive hierarchical relationship between the two systems implies that the national system affects the school system and is affected by it, though to a lesser degree. As in the school activity system, the object of the math education activity in the national context is the learning of math. However, in the national system, ‘school’ plays the role of ‘subject’ (compared to ‘student’ in the school system) within the community of the schools of a country (compared to ‘school community’).

Keywords

Education System Foreign Language Private School School Climate Mathematic Achievement 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Astiz, M. et al. (2002). Slouching towards decentralization: Consequences of globalization for curricular control in national education systems. Comparative Education Review, 46, 66–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bankov, K. et al. (2006). Assessing between-school variation in educational resources and mathematics and science achievement in Bulgaria. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 36, 447–473.Google Scholar
  3. Darling-Hammond, L. et al. (2003). Building instructional quality: ̋inside-out̏ and ̋outside-in̏ perspectives on San Diego’s school reform. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy: A research report. ERIC document (ED499088).Google Scholar
  4. Desmond, C. (2002). The politics of privatization and decentralization in global school reform: The value of equity claims for neoliberalism at the World Bank and in El Salvador ERIC document no. ED468518.Google Scholar
  5. Hook W., Bishop W., & Hook, J. (2007). A quality math curriculum in support of effective teaching for elementary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jurdak, M. E. (1989). Religion and language as culture carriers and barriers in mathematics education. In C. Kietel (Ed.), Mathematics, education and society (science and technology education, Document Series No. 35) (pp. 12–14). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  7. Marks, G. (2006). Are between- and within-school differences in student performance largely due to socioeconomic background? Evidence from 30 countries. Educational Research, 48, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ma, X., & Klinger, D. (2000). Hierarchical linear modelling of student and school effects on academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 25, 41–55.Google Scholar
  9. Opdenakkar, J. et al. (2002). The effects of schools and classes on mathematics achievement. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 13, 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. PISA. (2005). School factors related to quality and equity: Results from PISA 2000. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationAmerican University of Beirut (AUB)BeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations