Gender Issues in Education: Gaps, Bias, and Philanthropy

Introduction: The Shifting Gender Gap in Education

The objective of this study is to examine gender issues in education today and to discuss their impacts — or potential impacts — on individuals and society. This study also examines how this issue has been addressed by philanthropy, charitable organizations, and governments.

Initial examination of the gender gap in education appears to show that women receive less education to prepare them for life; however, new reports indicate that male students are falling behind their female counterparts in school and that females are outperforming males in the educational setting. The work of Whitmire (2010) states that the debate surrounding "gender and schooling have taken a surprising turn in the past decade. After years of concern that girls were being shortchanged in male-dominated schools, especially in math and science, there has grown a rising chorus of voices worrying about whether boys are the ones in peril" (p. 1).

Whitmire states that boys are "faring poorly compared to girls" when one considers dropout and graduation rates, along with grades and test scores. He attributes this to the fact that "K-12 schools are shortchanging boys. Far too many boys drop out before earning a high school diploma. Worse, too many boys who do make it through high school are either unprepared for or unmotivated to do college-level work" (Whitmire, 2010, p. 1). A large part of the problem is that the manufacturing jobs boys could enter directly from school — without any college education — and still earn good wages have been "disappearing for years" (Whitmire, 2010, p. 1). Whitmire further notes that conventional wisdom once held that "women need a college degree more than men," and while that was certainly true at one time, it "is no longer" the case (Whitmire, 2010, p. 1).

Gender Bias in Schools and Classroom Dynamics

The work of Chapman (2015), entitled "Gender Bias in Education," relays the following statement from Mulrine (2001):

"Across the country, boys have never been in more trouble: They earn 70% of the D's and F's that teachers dole out. They make up two thirds of students labeled 'learning disabled.' They are the culprits in a whopping 9 of 10 alcohol and drug violations and the suspected perpetrators in 4 out of 5 crimes that end up in juvenile court. They account for 80% of high school dropouts and attention deficit disorder diagnoses." (cited in Chapman, 2015, p. 1)

Chapman states that the discrepancy in performance "is notable throughout Canada. In Ontario, Education Minister Janet Ecker said that the results of the standardized grade 3 and grade 6 testing in math and reading showed '…persistent and glaring discrepancies in achievements and attitudes between boys and girls'" (2015, p. 1). In British Columbia, standardized testing indicates that girls outperform boys at all levels of reading and writing, and in Alberta, testing shows that girls "significantly outperform boys on reading and writing tests, while almost matching them in math and science" (Chapman, 2015, p. 1). Yet the American Association of University Women reported in 1992 that "females receive less attention from teachers and the attention that female students do receive is often more negative than attention received by boys" (Chapman, 2015, p. 1). When gender socialization within schools is examined, evidence of a gender-biased hidden curriculum demonstrates that girls are shortchanged in the classroom, and significant research points to steps that can be taken to minimize or eliminate this bias (Chapman, 2015, p. 1).

Chapman reports that gender socialization in today's schools ensures "that girls are made aware that they are unequal to boys" (2015, p. 1). Specifically, "Girls are praised for being neat, quiet and calm, where boys are encouraged to think independently, be active and speak up" (Chapman, 2015, p. 1). Junior high school girls reported that being popular and well-liked is more important than being viewed as "competent or independent" (Chapman, 2015, p. 1).

Socialization of femininity begins early in the school setting. Girls start at a young age to define their "femininity in relation to boys." One study of a third-grade classroom examined four self-sorted groups of girls: the nice girls, the girlies, the spice girls, and the tomboys. Through interviews, researcher Diane Reay found that "nice girls" was considered a derogatory term indicating "an absence of toughness and attitude." The girlies focused their time on flirting with and writing love letters to boys, the tomboys played sports with the boys, and the spice girls espoused girl-power and played "rate-the-boy" on the playground. Reay's research shows that each group of girls defined their own femininities in relation to boys (Reay, 2001, cited in Chapman, 2015, p. 1).

The work of Myra and David Sadker identifies four types of responses teachers provide to students: (1) praising students; (2) giving positive feedback; (3) remediation and encouragement to correct or expand upon an answer; and (4) criticism for an incorrect answer (Chapman, 2015, p. 1). The Sadkers found that boys were far more likely to receive praise or remediation from a teacher than were girls. Girls were most likely to receive only an acknowledgment response from their teacher (Sadker, 1994, cited in Chapman, 2015, p. 1). Chapman notes that these findings align with a 1990 study conducted by Good and Brophy, which found that "teachers give boys greater opportunity to expand ideas and be animated than they do girls and that they reinforce boys more for general responses than they do for girls" (Marshall, 1997, cited in Chapman, 2015, p. 1).

Additionally, "special services in education appear to be applied more liberally to boys than to girls. Research shows that boys are referred for testing for gifted programs twice as often as girls, which may be because '…giftedness is seen as aberrant, and girls strive to conform'" (Orenstein, 1994, cited in Chapman, 2015, p. 1). Boys represent more than two-thirds of all students in special education programs, and there is a higher proportion of male students receiving diagnoses considered to be subjective. While medical reports indicate that learning disabilities occur in nearly equal numbers in boys and girls, "Rather than identifying learning problems, school personnel may be mislabeling behavioral problems. Girls who sit quietly are ignored; boys who act out are placed in special programs that may not meet their needs" (Bailey, 1992, cited in Chapman, 2015, p. 1).

Gender bias is also reinforced through classroom resources. Using texts that omit women's contributions, tokenize women's experiences, or stereotype gender roles further compounds gender bias in school curricula. Research shows that the use of gender-equitable materials allows students to develop more gender-balanced knowledge, more flexible attitudes toward gender roles, and greater willingness to imitate non-stereotyped role behaviors (Chapman, 2015, p. 1). However, gender-biased texts remain in widespread use in today's classrooms.

A 1990 conference of researchers found that even when texts are specifically designed to align with California's guidelines on gender and racial equity for textbook adoption, there is still an existence of "subtle language bias, neglect of scholarship on women, omission of women as developers of history and initiators of events, and absence of women from accounts of technological developments" (Chapman, 2015, p. 1). Chapman also reports a study by Jones, Evans, Byrd, and Campbell (2000) that used videotaped lesson analysis to demonstrate gender-biased teacher behavior. One teacher reflected: "As a teacher, I was struck by the Sadkers' research on classroom exchanges and was forced to acknowledge the disproportionate amount of time and energy, as well as the different sorts of attention, I give to male students" (Chapman, 2015, p. 1).

Conclusion

The truth is that the information gathered in this study is conflicting in nature. If there is more philanthropic giving at the top eight women's colleges in the United States, the question that arises is why there is still such a gender inequity noted in education — or, perhaps more accurately, whether the gender inequity in education today is undergoing a shift toward greater equality for women and girls than previous research findings have suggested.

Addressing gender inequality in education will require that principals and other heads of schools, colleges, and universities address these issues with their staff, and that education and training be provided to educators who are often unaware of how their instructional practices result in gender inequality. Addressing the gender inequality in education requires the conscious effort of teachers who tend to extend different expectations to male and female students, as well as promoting giving among those involved in philanthropic pursuits to ensure that females have equal opportunities to pursue higher education.

Bibliography

Keates, M. (2009). Philanthropy and gender: Not your mother's bake sale. Marts & Lundy Counsel, February 2009. Retrieved from

Critical contributions: Philanthropic investment in teachers and teaching. (n.d.). Kronley & Associates. Retrieved from http://kronley.com/documents/CriticalContributions.pdf

Gender differences in giving motivations for bequest donors and non-donors. (2015). Lilly School of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/research-by-category/gender-differences-in-giving-motivations-for-bequest-donors-and-non-donors

deMarrais, K., & Suggs, C. (2011). Contributions: Philanthropic investment in teachers and teaching. Atlanta, GA: Kronley & Associates. Retrieved from

Grantmakers for Education. (n.d.). Benchmarking: Trends in education philanthropy. Portland, OR: Grantmakers for Education. Retrieved from

Emerging gender issues in education. (2014). Intercultural Development Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.idra.org/IDRA_Newsletter/May_2002_Self_Renewing_Schools_Technology/Emerging_Gender_Issues_in_Education/

Whitmire, R., & Bailey, S. G. (2010). Gender gap. Education Next. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/gender-gap/

Chapman, A. (2015). Gender bias in education. Critical Multicultural Pavilion. Retrieved from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html

Mesch, D. J. (n.d.). Women and philanthropy: A literature review. Working Paper 4/09. Retrieved from http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/files/file/women_and_philanthropy_literature_review.pdf

Johnston, J. (2011). Innovation 2.0: Grantmaking to transform America's education systems. Portland, OR: Grantmakers for Education. Retrieved from

Lawrence, S. (2010). Race to the top: What grantmakers can learn from the first round. New York, NY: Foundation Center. Retrieved from http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/rtt.pdf

Torregrosa, L. L. (2011, December 13). They call it the reverse gender gap. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/14iht-letter14.html