Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology
DEFINING GENDER ISSUES AND EQUITY
Download 9.82 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Gender Equity in Education and the Law
- Sexual Harassment and the Law
- Gender Issues Facing Educators 261 Gender-Equitable Learning Environments
- GENDER ISSUES FACING EDUCATORS
- The Hidden, Formal, and Null Curriculums
- Gender Issues Facing Educators 263
- Gender Issues in the Classroom: The Gaps
- Sports and Physical Activity
- Course Taking and Testing
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
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 |
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling