The myth of gender bias in school
Categories: Preschoolers, Kids 5-7, Kids 8-11, Teens & tweens, Development, In the news, Education
You know that old saying about the glass being half full? Well, for some time now, speculation has been that when that glass is half full for girls, it's half-empty for boys. Ever since the passing of Title IX, which bans discrimination in education based on gender, a theory has floated that boys are in crisis. Is there any truth to this theory? Well, it depends on whose research you study.
A recent Wall Street Journal examines this crisis in further detail. A recent study by the American Association of University Women contends the boy crisis is a myth. After considering data from the 1970's on it was concluded that both sexes did better on test scores or remained stable. In addition, both sexes are more likely than ever to complete high school and obtain a higher learning degree.
According to the report, when girls do well, boys also do well. According to one colleague at the Postsecondary Education Opportunity, which focuses on gender bias in higher education, however, boys are less prepared than girls for college in addition to incarceration and suicide rates increasing for men.
Another study conducted by the American Association of University Women looked at National Assessment of Educational Progress test scores and found that the gender gap in scoring has narrowed over time. That study also indicated location and other socio-economic factors were a higher factor in determining test scores for students than gender. That study did find, however, a gender gap that favored women on college campuses, part of which can be attributed to more mature women going back for degrees over their male counterparts.
Is gender bias real or is it perceived? Even if it's not real, doesn't a perception mean that it's still a problem? if gender bias exists, then it exists most likely everywhere, and the classroom is no different. I would wager parents and not researchers are more equipped, in some ways, to weigh in on whether or not the bias exists.
Have you experienced gender bias with your son or daughter? If so, please explain, and let us know if anything was done about it (if it was addressed).
Pic of gender-biased autos by Brian Sawyer.
Recent Posts
- Feist's Sesame Street appearance (7/19/2008)
- Minnie Driver set to be a chubby mommy (7/19/2008)
- Dad called pervert for taking pictures of his own kids in public (7/19/2008)
- Gas containers must now be child resistant (7/19/2008)
- Fertility goes Brave New World (7/19/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Holly 5-20-2008 @ 9:52PM
There was definitely a gender bias against girls when I went to school in the 80s and 90s. There was only cheerleading and volleyball for girls. Boys had multiple sports. But my senior year, things started improving and additional sports were added for females. At that time, there was also the attitude that women could go to college, but after that, they should stop working and raise a family. I don't believe that is the attitude anymore either.
But, I am very thankful to those who brought gender-equality into the educational system. Messages to young girls that they are "less-than" males is hurtful and detrimental to their futures.
Reply
bill dayers 5-21-2008 @ 3:25AM
Boys/men sport programs bring in all the money.
No one comes out to see (much less) pay to see women
play as much as they pay to see men play.
Men's football, basketball, and baseball are the reason colleges
stay in the financial black.
Untill women bring in the bucks, it will always be gender biased.
Don't blame the university, blame society.
Jessica 5-21-2008 @ 11:05AM
I am a high school teacher and went to a training last year by a well-known doctor and researcher who is promoting single-gender classrooms. The research definitely supports the idea that boys are now falling behind. Girls are doing slightly better, but neither are where they should be in this country. I wish that more people would look into single gender classrooms. It takes a lot of nonsense out of the classes and allows the teacher to focus on the needs of that gender in the classroom as well as the research supported learning styles of each gender.
Reply
Kristi 5-21-2008 @ 1:54PM
Is there really a gender bias, or are boys just seeing more competition from girls? The university I attended admitted a sickeningly large percentage of high school valedictorians and salutatorians. (I graduated 3rd). Faced with that many "bright" classmates, most of us felt darnright average. That is a very sobering reality check.
The point of my metaphor is: perhaps 30 years ago boys were "big fish" in a smaller pond than they are today. If we continue to give boys and girls equal access to academics, sports, and other opportunities, eventually we will stop having these gender discussions because there will be no reason to study why one group is doing better than another.
Reply
Aaron Matthews 5-21-2008 @ 1:57PM
I have two view points about this matter, one as a teacher and one as a parent and neither are optimistic for the boys.
Let me explain about my godson, Matt. Matt's only 10 years old but faces an uphill battle in school. It's not because he's ornery or academically deficient - he's never had a detention or even a B on his report card, but he is in fact a boy.
I'll start with the easy ones - athletics. Matt and my son, Sam,started playing ice hockey in first grade and still play now. When they get to high school, they and their friends will never get a chance to play for their school. Twenty years ago, and periodically since, the ice hockey teams have asked for dual seasons. The boys would pay for ice, pads, uniforms, and transportation and the schools could pay for coaches and refs. The schools turned them down. Magically, swimming asked for the schools to allow dual seasons and for the schools to pay for everything and the schools accepted - because more girls swim. Then there's lacrosse. This year girls' lax is sanctioned - and completely funded and get a state championship. Boys on the other hand have to pay for pads, coaches, refs, transportation, and even to rent the fields from the schools to play, and even though they were around longer and have more teams willing to play, the schools refuse to sanction them. In most schools, the hockey and boys' lacrosse players cannot put up fliers to recruit and their games are not listed on the schedule because they aren't "official" school sports. Then there's field hockey. Yes, Matt plays field hockey and has since second grade. In this case, the team is there, it's just one small boy that wants to play. There are no entanglements of cost of pads or a whole team - but he's a boy. So no matter how small he is, he is not allowed to play for the school because he is a boy. Yes, in middle school the girls are bigger they can go play on the boys' basketball team, football team, or even wrestle (even if the boys complain about being grabbed by the girls - the schools don't care) No matter what though, NO BOYS ALLOWED on girls' teams. Even if there is space and the boy is a 7th grader playing on VARSITY.
Then comes education. You see Matt is a stereotypical boy - above average in science and math, average in English. In English, Matt was reading a 6th grade book in 1st grade, but it was called Vampirates. Yes, it was a book about Vampire Pirates. The teacher decided that just the name scared the girls, so he wasn't allowed to read it. Instead she suggested a sports book, but in her classroom she had an autobiography of Wilma Rudolph or Allie's Basketball Dream. From before, Matt's not interested in running or basketball, but there he was reading a book he didn't have much interest in just to get through it. As for Science, well our district runs some great science programs - for girls ONLY. One was for the Challenger Space Program in the high schools. Now, boys could go - but they would have to join the AFROTC and pay for it themselves, whereas the girls got to go for free. So in fact, the city kids that spend an hour on the bus to come out to our school were told to pony up if they wanted to go while the affluent girls who got Benz's for their 16th birthday and two professional parents got to go. When I was teaching science, I was approached by a group because my female students were performing so well on standardized test. When they asked for me to join a committee, I accepted but then was tossed because my secret to getting the girls to learn was treating them like scientists instead of like girls. Somehow the females in the group thought this was sexist of me. I should be "considerate" of the difference and change my teaching to better suit the girls - even at the expense of the boys and the girls themselves. In October, a group even went before the House Subcommittee on Science and Technology to push for Title IX controls to be enacted on math, physics, and engineering. That means if a girl wants to be a social worker, the schools will have to throw money at her to try the STEM subjects, and if she doesn't want to they'll start blocking boys from studying them. Nothing is said about the disparity in education, social work, fine arts, or even biology and veterinary sciences. It's a one way street against the boys.
The boys are in fact succeeding in spite of the challenges the schools put in front of them, much like the girls did 50 years ago. If you look at the girls' test scores, the too increased from year to year. The AAUW does not point that out. If you use their logic, that the boys are doing fine so there is no crisis, then similarly the girls were doing fine so there was no need for Title IX or even to remove the barriers they faced in STEM subjects. The AAUW throws a fit when the girls aren't represented as the AAUW expects. Somehow if a girl decides she likes English more than math, it's the math teacher's fault for not encouraging her more so they throw more money and programs at the girls. On the other hand, if the boys AREN'T ALLOWED do the reading they want or AREN'T ALLOWED get in the science programs they want or AREN'T ALLOWED to play the sports they want because of their gender, thats perfectly OK because they're just boys. - and the schools are listening to them.
What these groups don't get is that it's NOT A CRISIS OF ACHIEVEMENT IT'S A CRISIS OF OPPORTUNITY - Just like with the girls 50 years ago.
The problem is we raise our sons to deal with it. It's time to stop just dealing with it and start demanding equal rights. Too many groups like AAUW marginalize the men as sexist and just fighting against women and continue to push a the sexist agenda and justify the discrimination the boys face. Men can only do so much, we need the mothers to start realizing their sons are facing obsticles just like they did and then go fight for their sons.
Reply
Paul 5-23-2008 @ 12:56PM
As a former science and math teacher, I'll concur there is systemic bias against boys in those areas, so much so that it is in fact outright discrimination.
Most colleges and universities run summer science programs for girls that are free or reduced cost. There are female-only awards and prizes at the district, regional, and state science fairs. Finally science teachers are evaluated on how well they teach to females as governed by research pushed by the AAUW. I know for a fact the English teachers in my district are not judged on how well they include the boys, even though there is a larger gender gap on that side of the building.
Each one of these is an example of schools' "Greater than or Equal" methodology for gender equality. In sports it's they have to have equal numbers, but it's acceptable to have greater numbers in fine arts. They're pushing for equal test scores in science, but the skewed test scores in English are fine. Basically whenever there is a perceived difference, if it favors the boys then the boys are limited or the girls are given special considerations, but if it favors the girls it is listed as acceptable.
Now, even according to the AAUW's own research, there is a much bigger correlation to Socio-economic background, but then the money and the focus is on girls. If the schools were truly trying to fight the affects of historical inequities, they'd spend more time, effort, and money or the economically disadvantaged and the minorities rather than the girls. As it stands, when there are opportunities the recipients are most likely to be white, middle- and upper- class girls while the lower SEC boys, especially the minorities are over looked.
Reply
Tammy 5-29-2008 @ 10:25PM
First, it's not to much of a crisis but still it's something to think of. Girls are offered more programs because they actually want to go to them. I go to school with many boys and if there was a science or reading program they wouldn't even be near the sign-up sheet, while me and my friends would sign up quickly.
Second, in school the teachers will have academic contest between the boys and girls. We (Girls) usually(Most of the time) win
but, the boys are only a few points behind.
We're pretty evenly matched. The only thing is I don't believe most boys want to learn. The main excuse I know is "I can't do that much homework because I have football(or other sport) tonight". Girls usually don't use this excuse. Not saying that I don't love sports, I actually like sports a lot, but most boys I know say the way they're getting in to college by a sports scholarship. They don't even think about the possibility of their grades effecting any way of getting into college.
Boys are very intellegent when they want to be. Most famous people are men.
Reply
Aaron Matthews 6-04-2008 @ 10:34PM
First, according to Title IX, desire doesn't mean anything. That's why so many boys sports get cut for no other reason than girls don't want to play. If anything, according to prevailing Title IX thinking, your school should remove the no boys allowed designation and in fact make No girls allowed science classes. I'm sure you'd be ok with that since it's just equality right?
Second, that might be the case at your school, but statistics don't bare that out in either case. The first thing to check out the number of degrees awarded in the STEM subjects. Women's group are more than willing to point out that this is because of rampant sexism - even to the point of trying to get Title IX quotas applied to Math, Engineering, and Physics ONLY. The second thing to check out is a study by the NSTA that when equalized for available pool, boys are more likely to a) take science classes, b) be involved in science extra curriculars (clubs) and c) enroll in more science enrichment programs.
Not only that, you seemed to miss that most boys have to participate in sports more just to make the team due to increased competition due to fewer opportunities as mandated by Title IX. On top of that, most boys (correctly) see homework as busy work. Why do the homework if you can get A's on the tests? If a boy knows the material, but skips his homework, he gets a zero. If a girl does the homework nice and pretty, but is only limitedly proficient, she might get a low C. Is that an accurate assessment of knowledge? No. It's an assessment of effort. Besides, the teachers won't take sports as an excuse, but they'll take PMS as an excuse, even if the girl has PMS for 3 weeks out of a month. Don't worry, I'm sure you don't see that as sexist because it benefits the girls
No wonder the boys didn't do as well in the competitions at your school, they didn't seem to get the same attention you did, precious.
You were wrong about that boys are intelligent when they want to be. Boys are nearly equally as intelligent as girls, with a slight edge to the BOYS. The fact that the girls "routinely" beat the boys in fact shows the boys were not being served by the schools as they should be. I think you meant to say boys can succeed when they want, and you would be right - but then again girls could have to back in the 60's. Either way you'd be ignoring the sexism each gender would face.
Stop making excuses. It might be hard for you to understand, but sexism is wrong, even if it is directed at the boys.