Inequality in mathematics education remains one of the most persistent and socially consequential forms of educational injustice. Large-scale assessments consistently demonstrate substantial achievement gaps in mathematics between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. These differences appear early, persist throughout schooling, and correspond to several years of learning (Baucal, 2012a; OECD, 2023). Students from low-SES families are disproportionately represented among those performing below basic proficiency levels and are less likely to aspire to mathematics-related educational pathways or careers (Baucal et al., 2006; Baucal, 2012b; Saw et al., 2018). Unequal access to mathematical success therefore affects far more than achievement, shaping students’ possibilities for social mobility, while simultaneously contributing to the reproduction of existing social hierarchies (Jorgensen et al., 2014).

Traditional explanations of these disparities have often relied on deficit-based frameworks, attributing lower achievement to individual, familial, or cultural shortcomings thus shifting responsibility away from educational institutions (Gorski, 2012). In contrast, sociocultural and sociopolitical approaches emphasize how mathematics education itself produces and sustains inequality (Lerman, 2000). Drawing on Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, researchers have highlighted the misalignment between the cultural capital of students from low-SES backgrounds and the norms governing school mathematics (Bourdieu, 1984; Zevenbergen, 2005). Mathematics classrooms operate as social fields structured by particular forms of language, interaction, and valued knowledge, privileging students whose dispositions align with these expectations (Jorgensen et al., 2014; Lerman, 2020). In contrast, students from disadvantaged backgrounds often enter school with a “virtual school bag” that lacks the forms of capital most valued in mathematics education, placing them at a structural disadvantage (Thomson, 2002).

These structural dynamics shape not only achievement but also students’ relationships with mathematics. The concept of mathematical identity provides a lens for understanding how inequalities are lived and internalized through everyday educational experiences (Grootenboer & Zevenbergen, 2008). Rather than framing disengagement as a lack of ability or motivation, mathematical identity foregrounds issues of belonging, recognition, and meaning within the mathematical community (Daragh, 2013). Students’ self-perceptions as mathematics learners develop through participation in classroom practices and through feedback from significant others, including teachers and parents (Wenger, 1998; Anderson, 2007).

For students from low-SES backgrounds, several interrelated processes contribute to a weaker mathematical identity. The gap between school mathematics and their everyday experiences and future life worlds limits opportunities to imagine themselves as participants in mathematics and to perceive the subject as personally relevant (Anderson, 2007; Mićić, 2024). Lower achievement—rooted in structural misalignment rather than ability—reinforces perceptions of incompetence and exclusion, which are further shaped by teachers’ lowered expectations and subtle institutional messages about who belongs in mathematics (Jorgensen et al., 2014). In addition, students from low-SES backgrounds often lack access to models of successful mathematics learners within their families. When parents and other significant adults are not perceived as competent or successful in mathematics and are unable to provide schoolwork assistance, students may implicitly learn that mathematics is “not for people like us,” limiting the development of a positive mathematics identity (Mićić & Jovanović, 2025).

Importantly, these processes are likely to vary across educational stages. As mathematical content becomes more complex and instruction shifts from class teachers to subject teachers, both the nature of instructional support and the extent to which parents can effectively support their children’s mathematics learning change, reshaping students’ experiences of recognition, expectations, and belonging in mathematics.

Drawing on sociocultural perspectives on mathematics identity, this study examines parental and teacher-related processes as mediators of the relationship between socioeconomic status and students’ mathematics identity, and tests whether these mediating pathways differ between Grades 4 and 5, a transitional period marked by increasing mathematical demands and a shift from classroom-based to subject-based instruction.

The study was conducted as part of a larger research project titled “Co-constructing mathematics motivation in primary education - A longitudinal study in six European countries”. The sample for the study comprised 985 Serbian students attending Grade 4 (G4; n = 497, M_age = 10.25) and Grade 5 (G5; n = 488, M_age = 11.22) of primary school, along with one of their parents. Students were recruited from 49 primary schools. The student sample was approximately gender-balanced (52% girls), while participating parents were predominantly mothers. Students and their parents completed several questionnaires developed within the project, from which the measures used in this study were derived. Mathematics identity (MI) was assessed using a six-item scale grounded in symbolic interactionism and sociocultural perspectives (see Radišić et al., 2024). The scale captured students’ self-perceptions as mathematics learners and their perceived recognition as a “math person” by significant others, including family members, peers, and teachers (e.g., “My teacher thinks of me as a math person”). Students’ perceived teacher support consisted of four items (e.g., “Teacher encourages you to think about how you have solved a task and got the answer.”) capturing the extent to which students perceive their mathematics teachers as supportive and responsive to them personally, signaling teachers’ expectations and confidence in students’ mathematical potential. Parental support was assessed using four items (e.g., “My parents support me when I have difficulties learning mathematics”), capturing the extent to which parents provide help and encouragement related to their child’s mathematics learning, including assistance with homework and monitoring of schoolwork. Parental mathematics self-efficacy was assessed using four items (e.g., “Mathematics is easy for me”), capturing parents’ confidence in their own mathematical competence and their perceived ability to engage with and support mathematics-related tasks. Mathematics achievement was measured using a standardized score based on 14 curriculum-aligned TIMSS mathematics tasks, adjusted separately for G4 and G5. Socioeconomic status was operationalized as a composite indicator based on parental education, employment category, and the number of books in the household. All study variables were modeled as standardized factor scores. The measurement models demonstrated good reliability and satisfactory factorial structure across grades. Multi-group structural equation modeling was used to examine parental and teacher-related mediation of the relationship between socioeconomic status and mathematics identity across Grades 4 and 5, controling for mathematics achievement and gender as covariates, with indirect effects estimated via bootstrapping.

The selected model showed acceptable fit to the data (χ²(19) = 43.26, RMSEA = .051, CFI = .954, TLI = .902, SRMR = .040). In both grades, SES was positively associated with parental mathematics self-efficacy (G4: β = .27; G5: β = .28) and parental support for learning mathematics (G4: β = .15; G5: β = .21), suggesting that families with higher socioeconomic resources are more likely to feel confident in mathematics and to engage in mathematics-related support. Parental support was positively related to students’ perceived teacher support (G4: β = .41; G5: β = .26), indicating a spillover between family-based support and students’ experiences of teacher support at school. In G5, but not in G4, parental support (β = .13) and parental mathematics self-efficacy (β = .17) were positively associated with achievement, suggesting that parental involvement and confidence become more consequential as mathematical demands increase. Across grades, students’ MI was predicted by perceived teacher support (G4: β = .27; G5: β = .28), parental mathematics self-efficacy (G4: β = .09; G5: β = .13), and mathematics achievement (G4: β = .28; G5: β = .31), highlighting the combined role of recognition, achievement, and family-based resources in identity formation. Indirect effects analyses showed that SES–MI associations were mediated by parental and teacher-related processes in both grades. In G4, the total indirect effect was modest (.11) and primarily involved parental support and perceived teacher support, with achievement included as a parallel control pathway. In G5, indirect effects were somewhat stronger (.15) and more differentiated, reflecting an expanded role of parental mathematics self-efficacy and perceived teacher support. The results suggest that as schooling progresses, SES shapes mathematics identity increasingly through parental and teacher-related processes, highlighting these processes as key leverage points for reducing socioeconomic inequalities in mathematics education.

Anderson, R. (2007). Being a mathematics learner: Four faces of identity. Mathematics Educator, 17(1),7–14. Baucal, A., Pavlović-Babić, D., & Willms, J. D. (2006). Differential selection into secondary schools in Serbia. Prospects, 36, 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-006-9011-9 Baucal, A. (2012a). Ključne kompetencije mladih u Srbiji u PISA 2009 ogledalu (Youth key competences in Serbia, PISA 2009 in mirror). Institute for psychology, Faculty of Phylosophy and SIPRU, Belgrade. Baucal, A. (2012b). Uticaj socio-ekonomskog statusa učenika na obrazovna postignuća: direktni i indirektni uticaji. Primenjena psihologija, 5(1), 5-24. DOI: 10.19090/pp.2012.1.5-24 Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Harvard University Press. Gorski, P. C. (2012). Perceiving the Problem of Poverty and Schooling:Deconstructing the Class Stereotypes that Mis-Shape Education Practice and Policy. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(2), 302-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2012.666934 Grootenboer, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). Identity as a lens to understand learning mathematics: Developing a model. Navigating currents and charting directions, 1, 243-250. Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp. 19-44). Ablex. Lerman, S. (2020). Socioeconomic class and socioeconomic status in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 785–790). Springer. Jorgensen, R., Gates, P., & Roper, V. (2014). Structural exclusion through school mathematics: Using Bourdieu to understand mathematics as a social practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87, 221-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9468-4 Mićić, K. (2024). A sociocultural perspective on the development of mathematical competence in girls and boys: Students’ mathematics identity as both a resource and a barrier. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Belgrade. Mićić, K., & Jovanović, O. (2025). Social class and gender in an equation of students’ mathematics identity. Nastava i vaspitanje, 74(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.5937/niv74-56181 OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5a3db202-en Radišić, J., Krstić, K., Blažanin, B. Mićić, K., Baucal, A., Peixoto, F., & Schukajlow, S. Am I a math person? Linking math identity with students’ motivation for mathematics and achievement. EurJPsychol Educ 39, 1513–1536 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00811-y Saw, G., Chang, C. N., & Chan, H. Y. (2018). Cross-sectional and longitudinal disparities in STEM career aspirations at the intersection of gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Educational Researcher, 47(8), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18787818 Thomson, P. (2002). Schooling the rustbelt kids: Making the difference in changing times. Allen & Unwin.