Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

DEFINING GENDER ISSUES AND EQUITY

IN EDUCATION

A gender issue refers to a classroom practice or policy that

differentiates the learning experience in ways that limit

opportunities for females and males in the classroom. Each

gender issue or gender-related issue addresses educationally

relevant processes and skills. The field of gender equity in

education refers to educational practices that are fair and just

toward both males and females, are free from bias or fa-

voritism, show preference toward neither gender, and show

concern for both genders (adapted from Klein, Ortman, &

260

Gender Issues in the Classroom

Friedman, 2002). The topic of gender issues in the classroom

addresses the following questions: What are the attributes of

gender equitable classroom environments? How does the so-

cialization of girls and boys promote gender stereotypes in

the classroom? How are gender stereotypes supported by the

classroom teacher? In what ways do classroom gender issues

limit opportunities for social and academic advancement for

girls and boys? Amidst an array of widely varied responses to

these questions is the understanding that an awareness of the

role of gender in learning and behavior can help educators to

avoid the trap of limiting children’s growth by making and

acting upon stereotypical assumptions about individual stu-

dents’ abilities and development.

Furthermore, it is understood that a study of gender-

equitable classroom practices addresses the content of the

formal curriculum and the curriculum of classroom interac-

tions that give tacit messages to females and males about

their roles in the classroom community and the larger formal

curriculum. Hence, gender issues move researchers to ex-

plore the study of the formal curriculum, the content of cur-

ricular materials, classroom interactions as curriculum (also

called the hidden curriculum), the ways in which the materi-

als are taught, and the evaded curriculum, the things that are

not taught in our nation’s schools (American Association of

University Women Educational Foundation, 1992).

Informing the field of gender equity in education and con-

sequently the areas relating to classroom gender issues is the

understanding that classroom communities create social and

academic climates that are diversified by socioeconomic

class, ethnicity, and geographic region. Because social inter-

actions in classrooms emerge from dominant cultural con-

structs in specific communities, attention to diversity is

imperative for the understanding of the full range of gender

issues in the classroom. Profound changes in school demo-

graphics have demanded that the field of gender equity in ed-

ucation examine the impacts of changing communities on

gender relations and gender equity in classrooms. Studies re-

lating to diverse environments and considering schools and

communities of learners that differ from the dominant White

middle-class model are emerging in the research literature

and are addressed in this chapter.

Gender Equity in Education and the Law

Key United States civil rights laws focus on prohibiting dis-

crimination on the basis of sex, race, and national origin as

well as age, religion, and disability. Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of

sex in education programs or activities receiving federal

financial assistance; this key civil rights statute makes it

illegal to treat students differently or separately on the basis

of sex. Modeled on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and

national origin, it differs from Title VI, which applied to all

federal financial assistance, by being limited to education

programs that receive federal financial assistance (Klein et

al., 2002). Also included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was

Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination in ed-

ucation on the basis of sex, race, and national origin.

At the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women

held in Beijing in 1995, the Platform for Action to raise the

status of women around the world was adopted by representa-

tives from 189 countries, including the United States. Included

in this platform were provisions for the advancement of gen-

der equity in education, with an entire section devoted to reso-

lutions on that topic. The declaration specifically states

Education is a human right and an essential tool for achieving the

goals of equality, development and peace. Non-discriminatory

education benefits both girls and boys and thus ultimately con-

tributes to more equal relationships between women and men.

Equality of access to and attainment of educational qualifications

is necessary if more women are to become agents of change.

(United Nations, 1995, summary, p. 1.)

Sexual Harassment and the Law

Under the guidelines established by the Office for Civil

Rights (OCR), sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimi-

nation prohibited by Title IX of the Education Amendments

of 1972. The regulation implementing Title IX, Section

106.31 outlaws sexual harassment as a form of disparate

treatment that impedes access to an equitable education.

OCR identifies two types of sexual harassment in schools—

quid pro quo and hostile environment. Quid pro quo sexual

harassment occurs when a school employee causes a student

to believe that he or she must submit to unwelcome sexual

conduct to participate in a school program or activity. It can

also occur when a teacher suggests to a student that an

educational decision such as grades will be based on whether

the student submits to unwelcome sexual conduct. Hostile

environment harassment occurs when unwelcome verbal or

physical conduct is sufficiently severe, persistent, or perva-

sive that it creates an abusive or hostile environment for the

affected student (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). On

May, 24, 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts

can be liable for damages under federal law for failing to stop

a student from subjecting another to severe and pervasive

sexual harassment, hence denying its victim of equal access

to education guaranteed under Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972 (as reported in Greenhouse, 1999).

Gender Issues Facing Educators

261

Gender-Equitable Learning Environments

While implying quality education and equal opportunities

and access for all students, gender equity differs from gender

equality.  Equality sets up a comparison between males and

females and asks the question Are they receiving the same

education? (AAUW, 1998). Gender equity poses a different

question for the classroom dynamic: Do students receive the

right education to achieve a shared standard of excellence?

Gender equity asserts that males and females do not need the

same things to achieve shared outcomes. Gender equity is not

sameness or equality; it is equity of outcomes—equal access

to achievement and opportunity. Hence, equitable education

addresses the needs of girls and boys rather than questions

whether each receives the same thing (AAUW, 1998).

The field of gender equity in the classroom began as an

outgrowth of the women’s movement of the 1970s and fo-

cused on the damaging effects of holding male achievement

and accomplishment as the norm against which females are

measured. This led to a deficit model that emphasized girls’

inabilities to perform as well as boys on various standardized

tests throughout the precollege experience. Early work in

gender equity challenged this deficit model because it sug-

gested that there was something wrong with the girls that

needed to be fixed or remedied. This situation prompted re-

searchers to explore learning environments for girls and boys

while they were participating in the same classroom with the

same teacher (Klein, 1985; Sadker & Sadker, 1982). What

they found (in predominantly White middle-class class-

rooms) was that the problems were not internal to the girls;

rather, they were situated in the external learning environ-

ment. Early studies then revealed that classroom practices

routinely favor the academic development of boys (discussed

later in this chapter), and interventions were developed

to provide more equitable learning environments for girls

(Clewell, Anderson, & Thorpe, 1992; Greenberg, 1985;

Logan, 1997; Saker & Sadker, 1984; Sanders et al., 1997).

Although these interventions helped individual girls to

achieve in areas in which they were lagging, this deficit

model inferred that girls would be successful if they just ac-

quired the same strengths as the boys. This view has shifted

to conceptualize equitable learning environments as those

that capitalize on the strengths of all individuals—both boys

and girls—and invite each to adopt behaviors that help each

gender cultivate strengths not usually developed due to so-

cialization practices and stereotyping.

The field of gender equity in education generally ac-

knowledges that equitable classroom environments have the

following attributes in common (AAUW, 1992, 1995, 1998;

McIntosh, 2000):

• Classrooms are caring communities where individuals

feel safe and where understanding is promoted among

peers.

• Classrooms are free from violence and peer or adult

harassment.

• Classrooms have routines and procedures that ensure

equal access to instructional materials and extracurricular

activities.

• Classrooms have a gender agenda referring to the decon-

struction of gendered expectations for students and en-

couraging full participation of each student including the

expression of nonstereotyped behaviors. 

• Classrooms address the evaded curriculum by exploring

those who have been omitted and by integrating evaded

topics such as sexuality, violence, abuse, and gender

politics.

• Classrooms address the lived experience of students by

providing assignments or projects that develop all students’

capacities to see their life experience as part of knowledge,

wherein students are authorities of their own experience

and contribute to the classroom textbooks by creating

“textbooks of their lives” (McIntosh & Style, 1999).

GENDER ISSUES FACING EDUCATORS

Gender equity research beginning in the 1970s and con-

tinuing through the early 1990s consistently reported a series

of behaviors that characterized coeducational classrooms in

predominantly White middle-class communities (AAUW,

1992; Becker, 1981; Brophy, 1981; Klein, 1985; Lockheed,

1984, 1985; Sadker & Sadker, 1982, 1994). These behaviors

revealed differential treatment of girls and boys in the same

classrooms, with the same teacher, and experiencing the

same curriculum. Categories of analysis included student-

teacher interactions (both teacher- and student-initiated),

peer interactions, and gender segregation (Lockheed, 1985).

Educational researchers sought to gain insight into co-

educational environments by spending time, observing in

classrooms at precollege grade levels, and documenting

teacher-student interactions and peer interactions in class-

rooms, hallways, cafeterias, and school grounds. These stud-

ies compiled data about the nature of teacher-student and

student-student interactions in both the classroom and more

informal school environments. Field researchers took notes

and made extensive ethnographic reports about the experi-

ence of being in these classrooms. The researchers recorded

and coded interactions by gender and interviewed teachers

and students. Some studies used survey data whereby

262

Gender Issues in the Classroom

students’ hobbies, attitudes, and preferences were recorded

on open-ended and quantitative surveys. One such study of

an independent school in an urban area yielded valuable data

for faculty and administrators about the ways in which their

male and female students were experiencing school and their

lives outside the classroom (Koch, 1996).

When looking at classroom interactions through the lens

of gender, one repeatedly sees similar gendered patterns of

student-teacher interactions, which are elucidated later in this

chapter in detail. However, the repetition of these patterns in

research studies from the 1970s as well as those documented

by the end of the 1990s reveals the consistent pervasiveness

of gender bias in the classroom (Marshall & Reinhartz,

1997); this situation has persisted because classrooms con-

tinue to be microcosms of society, mirroring the gender roles

that teachers and students develop through their socialization

patterns. Both ingrained in our individual identities and me-

diated by social class and ethnicity, gender roles inform much

of the behavior we observe in classrooms. In the following

discussion are common classroom interactions between

teachers and students as they communicate with each other

in formal and informal ways. Instances of gender bias in

teacher-student interactions are often subtle, well intended,

and not designed to limit opportunities for either gender. Sev-

eral researchers have noted, however, that consistent gender-

biased practices can contribute to lowered self-esteem for

girls in ways that can be remedied by intervention strategies

(Chapman, 1997; Sadker & Sadker, 1994).

Changing teachers’ gender-stereotyped behavior requires

prior knowledge of gender issues in the classroom. Teachers

who participate in gender workshops designed to create an

awareness of and an agenda for gender issues in the classroom

tend to promote more equitable classroom settings than do

their peers who have had little or no exposure to the topic. This

participation is differentiated from simple awareness of the

role of gender equity in the classroom. Studies have found that

awareness is not sufficient to change behavior because well-

intended teacher behaviors have been ingrained and practiced

for so many years that teachers automatically respond in cer-

tain ways to boys and girls (Levine & Orenstein, 1994). Be-

cause many teachers have been socialized over their lifetimes

to believe certain stereotypes about genders and have also had

some of the same experiences that their students have had, it is

difficult for them to acquire teaching strategies that call these

belief systems into question.

Gender research results are often described by attributing

behaviors to aggregate groups and disregarding individual

differences within groups (i.e., active girls, silent boys). This

trend toward describing female groups and male groups as a

whole—disregarding individual differences—is changing as

education researchers explore differences within groups and

build an understanding of how race and class mediate gender

socialization. Studies addressing gender issues in the class-

room, however, described differences between populations of

girls and boys in the same classroom settings. The results in-

dicated different patterns of classroom interactions and per-

formance for precollege boys and girls. These patterns were

not random; they reflect differing social and academic expec-

tations and opportunities for male and female students. Many

of the differentiated experiences reflect the ways in which

teachers in classrooms reinforce group stereotypes about stu-

dent skills and opportunities (AAUW, 1998).

The Hidden, Formal, and Null Curriculums

These teacher behaviors are components of what researchers

have termed the hidden curriculum—the tacit messages stu-

dents receive from the daily practices, routines, and behaviors

that occur in the classroom. The hidden curriculum of the

school’s climate are “things not deliberately taught or insti-

tuted, but which are the cumulative result of many uncon-

scious or unexamined behaviors that add to a palpable style or

atmosphere” (Chapman, 1997). An example of these types of

behaviors can be seen in elementary school environments—

for example, when teachers assign girls the task of recording

on the board during a demonstration lesson in science while

boys are required to set up or assemble the accompanying

materials. This fine-motor/gross-motor distinction is one of

many types of gendered expectations that can lead to differ-

entiated outcomes.

In middle school, extracurricular computer clubs are often

dominated by middle-grades boys. No one questions the

absence of girls. This lack of taking notice is another exam-

ple of the ways schools communicate a hidden curriculum.

The high schools often offer advanced placement (AP)

science courses in chemistry and physics that have more

males than females enrolled. When school administrators or

teachers are not asking Where are the girls?, the message is

that they are not expected. Similarly, when advanced place-

ment language arts courses are underenrolled by boys, their

absence needs to signal that the school needs to examine the

issue. When teachers tend to focus the microscope for the

female students who seek help, but the same teachers encour-

age the male students to figure it out for themselves, they

show another example of the implementation of the hidden

curriculum (Koch, 1996; Sanders et al., 1997). In short, the

hidden curriculum comprises the unstated lessons that stu-

dents learn in school: It is the running subtext through which

teachers communicate behavioral norms and individual

status in the school culture—the process of socialization that

Gender Issues Facing Educators

263

cues children into their place in the hierarchy of larger soci-

ety (Orenstein, 1994).

The hidden curriculum is distinguished from the formal

curriculum, which consists of subject-matter disciplines and

the ways they are taught and tested. The importance of the

formal curriculum cannot be overstated: “I think the main

message any school delivers about what counts is delivered

through its curriculum” (McIntosh, 1984, p. 8). The informal

curriculum is comprised of activities that include athletics,

school government, and extracurricular activities. The infor-

mal curriculum includes the social messages that males and

females receive as they participate in school activities beyond

the formal classroom environment. The null curriculum—

also referred to as the evaded curriculum—refers to what is

missing from all other curricula—not as a result of a con-

scious decision to include it, but merely because it never

occurred to anyone to consider whether it should be there

(Chapman, 1997). The evaded curriculum, examined later in

this chapter, refers to absences in the curriculum that often

include social topics and subject matter content that explores

the experiences of females.

Gender Issues in the Classroom: The Gaps

The last decade witnessed the publication of several research

reports that examined the lives of girls and boys in precollege

environments. These reports were commissioned by the

American Association of University Women (AAUW) Edu-

cational Foundation and contribute to an important fund of

data on gender issues in the classroom and beyond. In 1998,

the foundation assessed developments in Grades K–12 edu-

cation through the lens of gender and noted gaps that persist

despite educators’ increased awareness of the problem of

gender stereotyping in schools. To assess the achievement

and risk factors, several of the glaring gender gaps in educa-

tion are summarized in the following discussion; underlying

issues and causes are revealed in subsequent sections of this

chapter.

Risks for Girls

Girls are more vulnerable to widespread sexual violence and

harassment that interferes with their ability to learn. One out

of every five girls says that she has been sexually or physi-

cally abused; one in four girls shows signs of depression. The

teen birth rate dropped by 17% percent among African

Americans between 1991 and 1996 and by more than 9%

among non-Hispanic Whites. There was no similar decline in

birth rate for Hispanic teens.

Dropout Rates

Boys repeat grades and drop out of school at a higher rate

than do girls; however, girls who repeat a grade are more

likely to drop out than are boys who are held back. Not only

is being held back more harmful to girls, but dropping out

also is: Girls who drop out are less likely to return and com-

plete school, and dropout rates among females are also corre-

lated strongly with lower-income families and higher rates of

pregnancy. Dropout rates are especially high among Hispanic

girls. In 1995, 30% of Hispanic females age 16–24 had

dropped out of school and not yet passed a high school equiv-

alency test. In contrast, dropout rates for White students

and Black males have remained stable. Dropout rates for

Hispanic males and Black females have declined.

Risks for Boys

Boys are more likely than are girls to be labeled problems in

need of assistance, to fail a course, or to repeat a grade. Boys

are more likely to be identified for special education pro-

grams and are more likely than are girls to be labeled for their

entire school career. Boys are more likely to gain social status

through disruptive classroom behavior, which leads to school

failure. Boys are more likely than are girls to engage in high-

risk behavior (experimenting with drugs and alcohol), and

they are more prone to accidents caused by violence. In

school, boys’ misbehavior is more frequently punished than

is that of girls. More than 70% of students suspended from

school are boys.

Sports and Physical Activity

Girls are twice as likely to be inactive as boys, and male high

school graduates are more likely than are females to have

taken at least 1 year of physical education. Research links

physical activity for girls to higher self-esteem, better body

image, and lifelong health. Classroom teachers are urged to

recognize the importance of encouraging both girls and boys

to participate in organized physical activity.

Boys outnumber girls in team sports, whereas girls out-

number boys in performing arts, school government, and lit-

erary activities. Poverty is the largest barrier to participation

in sports or extracurricular activities, which are linked to bet-

ter school performance.

Course Taking and Testing

Girls take English courses in greater numbers than do boys—

except in remedial English, where boys outnumber girls.

Furthermore, girls outnumber boys in crucial subjects like