GENDER AWARENESS AND PREPARATION IN CALIFORNIA TEACHING
CREDENTIAL PROGRAMS
Rachael Eliza Browne
B.S., Brigham Young University, 2007
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
The requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
SOCIOLOGY
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2011
GENDER AWARENESS AND PREPARATION IN CALIFORNIA TEACHING
CREDENTIAL PROGRAMS
A Thesis
by
Rachael Eliza Browne
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Todd Migliaccio, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Cid Martinez, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student:Rachael Eliza Browne
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Department Chair
Judson Landis, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
GENDER AWARENESS AND PREPARATION IN CALIFORNIA TEACHING
CREDENTIAL PROGRAMS
by
Rachael Eliza Browne
Although girls have slowly gained opportunity and access to public education, college,
and a growing variety of occupations, access remains limited and different from those
experienced by boys. Sex discrimination has become much more subtle in current society. This
form of discrimination has become so institutionalized that it is blindly and tacitly accepted;
consequently, relatively little is either planned or actually done to combat it. This study attempts
to address and analyze the lack of gender awareness and preparation in our education institutions
today through the use of content analysis and interview within California multiple subject teacher
credential programs.
Results indicate thatthrough a combination of program structure and
individual agency, Californiateacher preparation programs need to be updated to include
conscious, specific interventions that will arm future teachers with the knowledge and will to
recognize, confront, and then ameliorate gender discrimination.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Todd Migliaccio, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
iv
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my Grandmother, Geneve Leonard, a gender activist before her time.
May this work stand as not only an accreditation to my graduate studies, but to hers as well.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express great appreciation for the time and continual guidance of Dr Cid Martinez
and especially, my thesis advisor, Dr. Todd Migliaccio, whose many suggestions undoubtedly
made this a better study than it would have been otherwise. Similarly, I am forever thankful to
my father, Dr Roger Ekins, for introducing me to Sociology, and for showing me, though
example, the importance of good writing and dedicated teaching. Lastly, I thank my husband,
Jarrod Browne, for his patience, love, and support.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication……………………………………………………………………………………. v
Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………………………….. vi
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………… ix
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………... x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….. 1
Statement of the Problem............................................................................................. 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................10
Title IX.........................................................................................................................11
Curricula and Textbooks..............................................................................................12
Gender Differences Observed in the Classroom..........................................................18
Testing Vs. Grades.......................................................................................................23
The Girls’ or Boys’ Crisis?..........................................................................................31
Later in the Adult Job World....................................................................................... 39
Single-Sex Education: A Solution?............................................................................. 45
Looking to Teaching Credential Programs..................................................................49
Summary......................................................................................................................55
3. METHODS.........................................................................................................................57
Content Analysis..........................................................................................................59
Interviews.....................................................................................................................61
Sample..........................................................................................................................62
Limitations....................................................................................................................65
4. FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................68
Content Analysis Findings...........................................................................................68
Interview Findings....................................................................................................... 76
Defining Gender.......................................................................................................... 77
vii
Teacher Impact.............................................................................................................81
Training........................................................................................................................88
Division of the Sexes................................................................................................... 96
5. DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................. 107
Where Do We Go From Here?.................................................................................. 113
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 114
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………….. 118
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1: Program Content Analysis Scores………………………………………….69
2.
Table 2: Content Analysis Measurement Percentages……………………………… 75
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Figure 1: Program Content Analysis Scores………………………………………….70
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
While the record of racial injustice is at the forefront of our national conscience,
history books still do not tell the story of profound sexism at school. Few people
realize that today’s girls continue a three-hundred-year old struggle for full
participation in America’s education system (Sadker and Sadker 1995: 15).
Throughout the years, girls have slowly gained opportunity and access to public
education, college, and a growing variety of occupations. Regardless, access remains
limited and different from those experienced by boys. In 1972, Congress passed Title IX,
which stated that sex discrimination in schools is illegal with respect to athletics, career
counseling, medical services, financial aid, admissions practices, and the treatment of
students. The government even went so far as to say that those who did not comply with
Title IX would lose their federal funding. Nonetheless, from 1972 to 1991 not one school
lost federal funding due to sex discrimination (Sadker and Sadker 1995).
Though there is still discrimination found within gender stereotyped courses and
high stakes testing for college admission, improvement has been made. Before the
creation of Title IX, female students were often not even allowed the option of taking
courses such as auto mechanics or criminal justice. Likewise, male students were also
often barred from enrolling in home economics. Women seeking admission to the New
York State College of Agriculture were required to score 30 to 40 points higher than their
male peers (Zittleman 2007).
2
While the implementation of Title IX has impacted the access to college degrees
and the resources affiliated with Universities for women, it did not completely erase sex
discrimination in schools. While it would be nice to imagine that sex discrimination in
our schools simply did not occur over that first nineteen year period that Title IX had
been initiated, history significantly remembers those years differently. Despite the fact
that a law was put into place, many simply did not take it seriously—whether on the
compliance or the enforcement side. For example, after Title IX, pregnancy was still
grounds for expelling teenage mothers, but not fathers. Many schools spent twenty times
as much on boys’ sports than on girls’ sports. One college even awarded ten times as
many scholarships to males as to equally qualified females. While complaints were made
concerning these rather egregious cases of discrimination, the paperwork was merely
piled up and ignored (Sadker and Sadker 1995).
Though today we rarely hear of such obvious acts of sex discrimination in our
schools, we would be just as misinformed to think that it simply does not occur today,
just as it “did not” from 1972 to 1991. Sex discrimination is much more subtle today. In
general, it seems that this discrimination does not occur because society does not take it
seriously or care to promote equity, but possibly it is because this form of discrimination
has become so institutionalized that it is blindly and tacitly accepted; consequently,
relatively little is either planned or actually done to combat it. While our general
consciousness with respect to gender discrimination has likely been raised, our personal
and collective commitment to do something about it may not have been. This study
3
attempts to address and analyze the lack of gender awareness and preparation in our
education institutions today through the use of teacher credential programs.
Statement of the Problem
Gender discrimination researched by Smith and Hung (2008) has found that much
of society still holds tightly to the belief that females are not as capable as males within
the areas of mathematics and science. In general, very few individuals today come out
and blatantly state this sexist belief. However, when women who are just as equally
qualified and committed to their occupation as men are in these fields experience a higher
turnover rate due to dissatisfaction with research support, advancement opportunities, and
free expression of ideas, there is strong indication that sexism persists (Xu 2008). Many
women, who are equally qualified as their male counterparts, are given fewer
opportunities for promotion and leadership.
This differential treatment and
discrimination based on gender, however, did not start at the adult career level – it began
in the classroom. Smith and Hung (2008) found that the reason we see gender
differences in mathematical achievement is due to cultural influences in the classroom
and not ability. Though this information is already known and accepted by many
researchers, it is still not common opinion in schools and mainstream society. Taking for
granted that we have “come a long way,” far too many have their heads buried in the sand
when it comes to gender discrimination.
Because these discriminatory practices are still embraced by many, children are
being given subtle lessons about their gender and abilities. Girls who absorb this
4
message will often have low expectations for their success in math, coupled with the
misperception that their chances for success in the science fields are limited (Smith and
Hung 2008). Accepting these myths can easily confirm sex-based stereotypes, which can
account for the low test scores and low number of women we see participating in these
fields later in life, all of which only feeds the cycle of lower expectations for women.
However, if the opportunity is seized in the classroom, teachers have the ability to break
down these myths and close the gender gap in education by educating themselves through
proper certification programs, promoting learning techniques that work for all students,
and promoting equity through their daily equal treatment and encouragement to all
students in all subjects. School classrooms are an arena perfect for harvesting a societal
change because they already serve as a place for learning and developing one’s identity
that is carried on throughout life.
Also by becoming more aware of gender
discrimination, we will be able to better understand all other forms of discrimination that
we face today (Connolly 1994).
Besides sex discrimination based on ability and opportunities in math and science,
Sadker and Sadker (1995) have found classroom discrimination practices ranging from
boys being called on more than girls, boys receiving better and more instruction from
their teachers, girls having things done for them rather than shown to them when help is
needed, and gender biased classroom activities and curricula. The one area in which
these researchers found girls were recognized more than boys in the classroom concerned
their appearance, which of course only further feeds gender-based stereotypes.
5
Through participant observation research, such as that administered by Sadker
and Sadker, accounts for sex discrimination enacted by teachers in the classroom, it is not
the intent of this paper to in any way claim that teachers use differential gender treatment
intentionally, or that they hold anything less than the success of their students at heart.
The purpose is, however, to point to the fact that though researchers are aware of much of
the sex discrimination occurring in our classrooms today, most educators and
administrators do not share that same awareness of subtle, subconscious, teacher bias and
influence created through differential treatment based on gender, and how that influence
can perpetuate stereotypes and negatively influence a student for life (Sadker and Sadker
1995; Sadker et al. 2009; Hamilton, Blumenfeld, Akoh and Miura 1991; Fang 1996;
Shepardson and Pizzini 1992). While some teachers may be aware of some arguments
concerning gender differences in academic performance concerning math, science, and
reading, very rarely are they aware of the differential treatment they give concerning
student interaction, feedback, or often why we see those differences in academic
performance. Though some teachers are aware differential treatment occurs, they are not
educated on how to change it, much less identify it when it occurs. It is not enough to
merely know that there are differences in performance without knowing why or how they
could be changed.
The question, then, is how can we both identify and combat the subtle and
subconscious sex discrimination in our classrooms today? To many, it may seem, by the
lack of adequate solutions proposed and the continuation of discrimination, that perhaps
6
the problems of gender discrimination are too well fused into the other aspects of society,
and that if they did not occur in the classroom, they would occur somewhere else. While
many have suggested that teachers need to become more aware of the problems, they do
not provide a solid plan for how to heighten awareness among all teachers (Stein, Stuen,
Carnine, and Long 2001; Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson 2007; Shepardson and Pizzini
1992; Fang 1996; Smith and Hung 2008).
Nonetheless, I argue that even subtle and subconscious sex discrimination can be
significantly reduced by teachers becoming educated about the issue at hand. Sadker and
Sadker (1994) observed that hidden lessons of gender discrimination are rooted in
elementary school, exacerbated in high school, and are then fully enabled in the college
classroom and work force. Though certainly schools are not the first place gender
discrimination lessons are learned, the educational environment is a strong enforcer that
shapes and socializes the adult-gendered world. While it would be impossible, or at least
very difficult and certainly undesirable, to go into every home and demand that parents
raise their children a particular way, it is nonetheless possible for us to more assertively
shape the great enabler and twelve year (or more) enforcer: the public school system.
From studies such as Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1992, originally published in
1968) famous Oak School Experiment, we have seen how greatly the knowledge given to
a teacher can potentially influence a student’s success or failure. Rosenthal and Jacobson
divulged to school teachers the names of a number of students who were expected to
excel in their classrooms that year based on IQ testing. Eight months later the accuracy
7
of their assessment was completely confirmed. Those students who were reported to
excel scored much higher than they had on their previous IQ scores, while other students,
who were expected to score about the same as their first test, did just that. But these
expectations were a fraud; those students marked to excel in the classroom were not
actually based on their IQ scores, but were drawn at random by the researchers.
Because the teachers believed these students were to excel, they were more likely
to encourage, give attention to, and push those students academically. Just as these
children were influenced by their teachers’ academic expectations, children today are
influenced by their teachers’ gendered expectations. Expectations, whether they be false
or founded, can influence reality. Just as Rosenthal and Jacobson gave what the teachers
believed was information about which students were going to excel, teaching credential
programs can in fact truly inform tomorrow’s teachers about ways to help their students
excel and become equals in education and society. Teaching credential programs are the
foundation from which classroom etiquette and methods are born. As seen in the Oak
School Experiment, teachers can makes students thrive with the information they are
given. Likewise, teaching credential programs today can provide tomorrow’s teachers
with the knowledge that all of their students “show potential to excel” and that they
should be treated as such.
One area that few researchers have provided as a source for a solution is in
teaching credential programs. All elementary and secondary level teachers are required
to go through such a program (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing 2007;
8
2009). Recent efforts have been made in many credential programs to include courses
and curricula concerning equity and avoiding differential treatment based on race
(Katsarou 2009; Smith 2009). Similarly, many budding teachers are being trained to
employ greater sensitivity toward English as a Second Language students (ESL), and
those students coming from low income families. In a five year study done by Oliveira
and Athanases (2007), they explored the impact a California State University English
Language Learners (ELL) focused teaching credential program had on its graduates.
Through a combination of surveys and focus groups, the researchers received a very high
response rate from these new teachers (1-3 years teaching after completion of the
program) who felt that their program had prepared them very well to teach ELLs and
promote equity both inside and outside of their classrooms more frequently and
effectively than many of their colleagues. Participants in this study
Reported advocating for ELLs in classrooms by creating and maintaining safe
environments for English-language use and development, differentiating
instruction and designing interventions for ELLs, and responding to sociopolitical
issues related to race, language, and class (2007:213).
Although the CSU program from this study did an excellent job of preparing its future
teachers to combat issues relating to language, race, and class, it was missing another
vital inequality that is also found in our classrooms today: gender. My hypothesis is that
few credential programs place a concerted effort on identifying and effectively combating
gender discrimination and that a similar focus in these programs could produce positive
9
results like those found in Oliveira and Athanases’ study. If teachers were given the
proper education about gender discrimination, including its history in education, and—
most importantly—methods for breaking down this discrimination in their future
classrooms, every member of society would potentially benefit.
Though the fight for true gender equity in the classroom has persisted for
hundreds of years, and researchers have been addressing the topic for decades, this
discrimination still exists and it cannot continue to go unnoticed and unaccounted for by
society and by our schools if we desire a society that truly provides equal opportunity for
all. Girls and boys, men and women, all suffer in one way or another from these
discriminatory practices. Just as we have seen teaching credential programs used as a
learning tool and forum for race, class, and ESL student awareness, we should be able to
harness these programs towards gender awareness as well. Though researchers are aware
of much of the sex discrimination occurring in our classrooms today, most educators and
administrators do not share that same awareness of subtle, subconscious, teacher bias and
influence created through differential treatment based on gender, and how that influence
can perpetuate stereotypes and negatively influence a student for life. Let us now raise
this awareness and understanding. If the opportunity is seized in the classroom, teachers
will have the ability to break down these myths and close the gender gap in education by
educating themselves through proper certification programs, promoting learning
techniques that work for all students, and promoting equity through their daily equal
treatment and encouragement to all students in all subjects.
10
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The source for gender discrimination in education is often argued as being either
biological, institutionalized, or socialized. While some (Buss 1998; Ichino and Moretti
2009) would argue that gender is more of a biological matter, for many other scholars and
researchers gender goes greatly beyond the natural world and into the socially
constructed. It is argued that everything from the social structure of tests and books used
in the classroom, to the messages provided at home and via multi-media, can teach
gender discrimination (Risman 2004; Warmoth 1998). And while it is true that these
institutionalized facets have great impact on gender discrimination, institutionalization
theories are missing one key factor: agency.
Although always influenced by
institutionalism, humans are thinking actors who are capable of making active decisions
outside of those set by the main institution (Markstrom and Hallden 2008). Though
institutions exist, we can be socialized in how we will react to them and if we will choose
to accept their messages; it is in this particular cannon of thought that I will focus.
Through socialization we can attempt to dismantle the stagnant view of gender in
society if utilized correctly; however, socialization can also serve as a vice to only
exacerbate discrimination as well.
Just as racism has been created through prior
institutions from earlier history, modern socialization and programs to promote diversity
and understanding have diminished racism in society (Smith 2009; Katsarou 2009).
11
Similarly, I argue that positive socialization through teacher preparation programs can
help diminish gender discrimination in education.
Title IX
As explained above, Title IX was passed by Congress in 1972 in an attempt to
make sex discrimination in schools illegal. Punishment for violating the law was loss of
federal funding. However, though many schools are in violation with Title IX, not one of
them has lost a penny of funding from governmental investigations. Not even one case
was brought against a school until Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools in 1992,
where it was determined that an institution could be held liable for its individuals who
participated in sexual discrimination, and that plaintiffs could sue for monetary damages.
As a result of this ruling, some schools have been required to pay damages and attorney
fees for cases brought to court by individuals (Zittleman 2007), but none has lost federal
funding directly as the result of Title IX violations.
According to Zittleman (2007), congress completely eliminated the funds under
Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supported having state Title IX
coordinators and statewide gender equity training and that only about half of the states in
the U.S. still have a designated employee to coordinate efforts to comply with Title IX.
Zittleman also found that the Women’s Education Equity Act, which was the only federal
program that focused specifically on increasing educational opportunities for women, has
had its funding completely eliminated.
12
To make matters worse, funds for programs that support equity in education have
also been dramatically cut. Once the Reagan-Bush administration took office, “they
conducted systematic search-and-destroy missions on all federal programs that
encouraged gender equity” because encouraging women into more careers and education
was seen as a threat to the family (Sadker and Sadker 1995:37).
Since their publication of Failing at Fairness in 1995 the Sadkers updated their
book Still Failing at Fairness in 2000 and added researcher Zittleman to their team. The
Sadkers, as well as other researchers who have drawn on their ideas, continued to observe
classrooms and unfortunately found that all the same gender discriminatory trends
persisted. With over 15 continuous years of published research, Sadker and Sadker have
become the primary, and most comprehensive study concerning the topic of gender
discrimination in the world of education, and as a result, will be heavily cited throughout
this literature review. As will be seen throughout this chapter, their findings, and the
findings of other researchers, are of particular relevance to those entering the teaching
profession.
Curricula and Textbooks
One controversial area in which administrators, teachers, and parents all have
concern is in the curricula and textbooks implemented in the classroom. Whether it be a
debate about teaching creationism vs. Darwinism, abstinence vs. sex education, or
traditional vs. modern views on sexual orientation, all parties seem to be aware that these
teachings impact how children are socialized to view themselves and the world around
13
them.
Students roughly spend between 75 to 90 percent of classroom time using
textbooks, and teachers make the majority of their instructional decisions based upon
these texts (Farr, Tulley, and Powell 1987; Tyson and Woodward 1989; Sadker et al.
2009). Similarly, when children learn and read about people in non-traditional gender
roles and occupations, this positive socialization makes it much easier for them to not
limit their own futures to traditional and stereotypical roles and occupations (Crocco and
Libresco 2007). When history books include the accomplishments beyond ‘old white
men’ to those of women and minorities, children not only learn a more true and complete
history, they also learn to respect women and minorities and see the potential in any
person to invent, birth a political movement, or stand in a place of great leadership.
“Even elementary students can exchange their reliance on a single narrative of history for
a prism containing a variety of perspectives to arrive at a more fully realized vision of
historical truth” (Crocco and Libresco 2007:129). To provide children with a more
accurate and inclusive understanding of history that offer a greater variation in the
perspectives for both men and women, it is therefore essential that schools and teachers
become more selective in choosing textbooks. As very young children, so many of us
dreamed of becoming astronauts, scientists, or even perhaps the President of our country,
but how many of us abandoned those dreams? Of course over time our interests do
change, but sometimes those interests are changed due to influences in the classroom and
often un-intended discouragement from role models.
14
A study by Women on Words and Images (1975) examined over 2,700 stories
from over 130 elementary level textbooks.
This study included looking not only at the
stories themselves, but also at the pictures and language used to describe the characters.
The researchers alarmingly found that ratios of boy-centered stories to girl-centered
stories were 5:2, adult male characters to adult female characters were 3:1, male
biographies to female biographies were 6:1, and male fairy-tale stories to female fairytale stories were 4:1. Males overwhelmingly outnumbered females in every category.
“When girls and women were included, they were typecast . . . While men were involved
in 150 different jobs, women were housewives . . . [and those rare women who were
shown as having a career] worked outside the home only as teachers and nurses” (Sadker
et al. 2009:88). Publishers took notice of these findings and genuinely made an effort to
improve children’s textbooks. Guidelines for removing racism and sexism were drawn
up, focusing on how to include a more fair portrayal of human ability and potential.
In her study looking at children’s social studies textbooks Bradford (2008) found
that
Despite the good intentions of curriculum and textbook writers to increase the
content about women in elementary social studies knowledge, the failure to reconceptualize the purposes for social studies and the concomitant topics and
perspectives in social studies results in a reification of taken-for-granted gender
asymmetries, the valorization of men and their contributions, and the denigration
of women and dismissal of their contributions (2008:6).
15
Although this study was done in Canada, it is still very applicable to the United
States, as well as demonstrates how far reaching this issue still is. Though textbook
writers and editors made an attempt to decrease sexism by including more females, they
did not take into account that how the females were being portrayed also played a key
role in perpetuating sexism.
Specifically concerning the subject of history, females are still being left out of
today’s classrooms. As Sadker et al. (2009) paraphrased Winston Churchill, “history is
written by those in power, and women are not in power” (2009:89). These researchers
have spoken to many different classes about gender issues in education. One exercise
they would often have students participate in was their “famous men and women”
challenge. Students were asked to write down as many famous men and women as they
could think of, not including athletes, entertainers, or just by adding "Mrs." to the last
name of a president. On average, students would list 12 men and 5 women. When the
Sadkers (1995) originally began their research 15 years earlier, the average was 11 men
and 3 women. Clearly, despite the passage of fifteen years, not much had changed. The
highest number of males ever listed was 34 and nine for females.
Even though President Jimmy Carter originally designated the week of March 8th
as National Women’s History Week in 1980, and later by request of the National
Women’s History Project, in 1987 it was expanded to be a full month long recognition, it
seems that it has not been as widely celebrated and used as an education tool for special
educational events based on race or ethnicity, such as Black History Month every
16
February (The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration). Such promotions
we have seen by the education system to include Black History Month could explain the
jump in student identification in the famous women exercise.
While most of the research that has been done on sexism in textbooks has focused
on how females are represented or under-represented, it is important to note that sexism
applies to both females AND males. Evans and Davies (2000) examined first, third, and
fifth grade literature books. Not only did they find that Title IX did not block all female
stereotypes, but it also failed to block males being stereotyped as being aggressive,
argumentative, and competitive. Evans and Davies argue that although there is still room
for much progress, portrayals of females have become more frequent, positive, and less
stereotyped, but that males are rarely portrayed with anything other than male
stereotypes.
Evans and Davies (2000) reviewed 132 characters in 82 children's stories. They
found that 54% of the characters were male and 46% were female, which is a much better
split than that found by Weitzman in 1975. Nonetheless, the percentile ratios of males to
females in the following categories suggest a continuing proclivity for gender
stereotyping: being aggressive 24:5, being argumentative 21:7, and being competitive
36:11. Male characters were also significantly portrayed less as affectionate (18:33),
emotionally expressive (14:33), passive (8:30), and tender (7:20) than were the female
characters. Not only is it damaging to represent female characters so often as passive
actors, but it is also damaging not to show positive examples of male characters
17
expressing affection and emotion.
People, no matter what gender, should not be
stereotyped. While this study showed that males are depicted with both masculine and
feminine traits, it is still clear that the masculine traits continue to outnumber those which
are feminine.
In the end, Evans and Davies felt that there was not enough of a
representation of feminine traits for male characters to truly push the stereotyped
boundaries of masculinity that our society has created.
Researchers Hamilton, Anderson, Broaddus, and Young (2006) also explored the
idea of sexism in children’s books. In their study, 200 distinguished children’s books
published between 1995 and 2001 were examined. Unfortunately, they discovered that
the books told twice as many male-centered as female-centered stories. Illustrations also
depicted males 50 percent more than females. While happily female characters were
shown as lawyers, doctors, and scientists, they were still mainly seen as passive
characters, watching their more active male peers and family members at work and play.
Similar to Evans and Davies' (2000) findings that male characters were shown lacking
feminine traits, Hamilton and Anderson (2006) saw father characters in their stories
depicted in less than half of the books. When such figures were presented, they were
shown as hands-off parents, rarely showing emotion or care towards their children.
While textbook publishers and editors seem to be trying to diminish sexism by
increasing the number of female characters and also portraying those characters with
some masculine traits and occupations, it is also important to incorporate feminine traits
in male characters and not relegate female characters to predominately passive roles.
18
While we see female characters are being given a greater range of behaviors in stories,
when they are predominantly the only ones in passive roles, this only perpetuates the
stereotype that females are passive, and males are aggressive. Feminine and masculine
traits and female and male contributions throughout history should be equally recognized
and valued. One of the best ways to increase that recognition and value is through
depictions of role models displaying this balance to children and by teaching a more
inclusive history in the classroom.
In order to bring such inclusiveness and balance into the classroom, teachers will
need to become more selective about their textbook choices. While a great extent of how
textbooks are chosen for classroom use is dictated by the institutions of the state and
school district, teachers are allowed voice in the selection process (Farr et al. 1987). In
order to make educated decisions, teachers themselves must first be socialized and
educated about what is important to look for and avoid in their next textbook edition.
Likewise, teachers can be prepared with supplemental lessons to counteract any negative
socialization brought into the classroom by institutionalized textbooks. Researchers such
as Stein, Stuen, Carnine, and Long (2001) believe that textbook adoption committees can
be implemented and successful, but only if such members have been appropriately
trained and are given sufficient time to actually review the different materials; however,
they do not provide any recommendation for how such proper training should be
obtained.
19
Gender Differences Observed in the Classroom
As pointed out by Allen, Cantor, Grady, and Hill (1997), it is often understood
that whoever talks in the classroom is the person with the power. This firstly would
include the teacher, and then those students who are most engaged and active. Through
their research and experience in the classroom, Allen et al. found that far too often the
classroom becomes an arena for a competition of who can answer the quickest. While
they found that often these quick answers are sufficient and correct, they also found that
this learning style does not permit room for critical thinking and more thoughtful students
to ever have a chance at raising their hands and participating in their own educations.
Other students observed by the Sadkers (1995) became shy and some teachers chose to
only call on those students who seemed to want to talk. They found that once these
trends are set into place, children hold onto their pattern for participation, or lack of
participation, often into their college years.
Sadker et al. (2009) found significant gender differences in this classroom
participation:
Boys call out significantly more often than girls. Sometimes what they say has
little or nothing to do with the teacher’s questions. Whether male comments are
insightful or irrelevant, teachers respond to them. However, when girls call out,
there is a fascinating phenomenon. Perhaps the teacher sees this as a warning
sign and suddenly remembers the rule about raising your hand before you talk.
20
And those not as assertive as the animated male students are deftly and swiftly put
back in their place (2009:66).
Instances like this could serve as a quick, unintentional, gender socialization lesson for
all: Boys and girls are not treated the same in the classroom and boys are allowed to be
more assertive and even raucous and girls are expected to be more passive and "proper;"
therefore, girls and boys may also be treated differently outside of the classroom and held
to different standards.
In many of the classrooms that the Sadkers (1995 and 2009) observed, time and
time again they saw boys flinging their arms in the air to get attention while girls would
sit quietly with their hands simply raised. The observed teacher, wanting to help release
some of the energy of the boys, would inevitably call on them more often than the girls.
After trying to participate without being called on, the Sadkers observed that girls would
slowly lose interest and begin to not even raise their hands for the rest of the lesson. The
Sadkers discovered that white male students were the most likely to receive teacher
attention, followed by males of color, white females, and then lastly females of color.
At the end of the classroom observations the Sadkers would meet with the
teachers and often show them through video or notes how they neglected the female
students immensely more than the male students.
The teachers were subsequently
embarrassed and always explained how shocked they were and how unaware they were
of their own actions and that they meant well and were only trying to keep the classroom
atmosphere more calm and in control. Teachers further explained that they felt the male
21
students simply required more one-on-one help and felt that since the girls were getting
good grades or simply behaving, that they did not need as much help.
Researchers Hamilton, Blumenfeld, Akoh and Miura (1991) also found through
classroom observation that teachers pay more attention, particularly negative attention, to
male students. However, one main difference with their findings was that they did not
feel that the observed behavior of the male and female students varied significantly for
this particular study. But it should be noted that this was in comparison to classrooms in
Japan, where the difference in behavior between male and female students was very
significant. Hamilton et al. also found that there was no difference in student behavior
when the teacher was male or female.
Sadker and Sadker (1995) found that in addition to boys being called on more
than girls, boys also received better and more instruction from their teachers. With boys,
teachers would provide constructive criticism and point out problems in their work for
the boys to solve themselves. With girls, teachers usually would do things for the
students when they were having trouble rather than showing them how to do it or
encourage them to problem solve further on their own. "Boys were more likely to be
praised, corrected, helped, and criticized – all reactions that foster student achievement.
Girls received the more superficial 'Okay’ and boys gained clear feedback” (1995:55).
When the Sadkers would confront the teachers about the differences in the depth
of their feedback, teachers--especially male--would often respond that they do not like to
tell a girl that anything is wrong with her work because they were fearful that they would
22
upset her and that if she broke into tears they would have no idea how to handle that
situation. Though these teachers have well-meaning intentions, they simply are not doing
their female students any favors with their sugar-coating. If students do not know that
they did something wrong or specifically what they did wrong, it is nearly impossible for
them to learn from those mistakes. The one area that the Sadkers found girls were
recognized more than boys in the classroom concerned their appearance, which of course
only further feeds gender-based stereotypes.
Although much research points to girls not receiving enough feedback and
encouragement in the classroom, researcher Gagnon (1998) found that girls were getting
their push for success from somewhere else. Gagnon found evidence that girls are often
encouraged more to succeed in school than their male peers. This encouragement comes
from their mothers and also from themselves, in what Gagnon refers to as a form of early
feminism where girls are wanting to prove themselves to their male peers. One of the
main things girls do to succeed in school more than boys is to learn to adapt and conform
to their classroom environments by following the set rules and behaviors that are
expected by teachers. Though it is wonderful that girls are being encouraged in their
educational endeavors, encouragement in good behavior, though it results in good grades,
is not the long-term educational encouragement that is needed for either boys or girls, as
conformity is not always a desideratum.
MacMillian, Gresham, Lopez and Bocian (1996) also found that behavior was
possibly being incorrectly linked to academic success. In this study they explored a
23
program called Student Study Teams (SST) for children in grades two through four. This
program was completely based on teacher referrals of students that they felt were at risk
for school failure. Not only did the researchers find trends regarding race, they were also
found concerning gender. There was an over representation of males in SST. Females
placed in the program were there only for poor achievement, while males were placed for
some poor achievement combined heavily with behavioral issues. These findings clearly
show that teachers were basing their determinations heavily on behavior for males rather
than just their academic achievements. Researchers found that the teachers rated female
students higher on overall academic competence.
The above studies further suggest the importance of teacher education. If future
teachers have not been trained to recognize how inappropriate gender differences are
unwittingly perpetuated and sometimes even encouraged within classroom socialization,
little will be done to ameliorate those differences. As will be seen in the next section,
these differences can have major impact on how student performance is judged.
Testing Vs. Grades
Trends have been showing for years that males are scoring higher on high-stakes
tests, but are receiving lower grades in the classroom than females (Jackson 1998). This
makes one wonder which is a better tool--test scores or grades--for measuring a student’s
academic understanding and performance. Today, due to programs such as No Child
Left Behind (NCLB), many would argue that test scores hold more value than grades. In
addition to NCLB, colleges place great importance on high-stakes tests such as the SAT,
24
ACT, and GRE. It is argued that such high-stakes testing is a solid predictor for one’s
expected first year college grades; however, studies show that on average most males
receive a lower GPA than predicted and females receive a higher GPA than predicted
from their testing scores (Sadker et al. 2009). Hoffman and Lowitzki (2005) found that
high schools grades are actually a stronger predictor for success than standardized testing
scores, especially for minority students.
But regardless of these facts, collegiate
institutions continue to hold testing scores in high regard and male/female patterns
continue.
Even during the early years of education, students are scrutinized through
standardized testing; one of the best known is the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). The NAEP is administered to students in grades four, eight, and
twelve. Gender patterns from this test have long been established. In the earlier years,
females achieve the leading scores in reading, writing, math, and civics, while tying with
males in history scores, and falling behind males in science scores. However, by the time
testing is done in the twelfth grade, the results are very different. Females continue to
have an advantage in the verbal subjects, but males take over math, science, and social
science scores (National Assessment of Educational Progress 2007).
Though the
differences in scores between the sexes is relatively small, and the NAEP generally
reports close to equal scores for males and females, females are still receiving higher
grades on their report cards.
25
Though the score gaps of the NAEP are quite small, those found in higher-stake
tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), American College Testing Program
(ACT), and Graduate Record Exam (GRE) are much larger. Concerning the SAT
In 1967, boys scored 10 points higher than girls in mathematics; by 1987, the
boys’ lead grew to 24 points; between 1987 and 2006, the boys’ math lead grew
again, to between 33 and 41 points. As with the PSAT, boys also outscored girls
on the verbal section, although by a much smaller margin. Boys outperform girls
on both the SAT verbal (now called critical reading) as well as math sections, and
have since 1972 (Sadker et al. 2009:183).
As explained earlier, the purpose of such exams is to predict a student’s performance for
the first year of college, and it does this quite falsely time and time again. In 2005
attempts were made to modify both the PSAT and SAT to include a new writing section
to help raise female testing scores since writing is generally an area in which females are
seen to outperform males. And though females outscored males on average 11 points
higher on the new writing section, males still outscored females by a few points in the
critical reading section and more than 30 points higher in the mathematics section, thus
continuing to leave a large overall scoring gap (College Board 2007).
Though the SAT is the dominant test for college admittance, the ACT is another
test recognized by many colleges. The main difference between the two exams is that the
ACT’s sections are based around more classroom subjects: English, mathematics,
science, reading, and an optional writing test. “In 2007, the average male score was 21.2,
26
and the average female score was 21.0 . . .” which is a significantly smaller gap on a
much smaller scale than that of the SAT (Sadker et al. 2009:185). Besides the ACT
proving more variety in its subject matter, there is no penalty for guessing at questions
when one is unsure of the answer. While girls generally outperform males on written
sections of tests, males completely dominate multiple-choice sections (which make up the
majority of high-stakes tests). Simply put, males are more likely to use risk and guess
answers than females. Many multiple-choice high-stakes tests such as the NAEP and
SAT give a penalty for wrong answers, so if one can narrow down the answer to two
options, guessing is worthwhile, but if one had little or no idea (or lack of confidence),
guessing is out of the question, and a student would be wise to mark the option “I don’t
know.” Significantly more females than males answer a question they are unsure of with
“I don’t know” (Sadker et al. 2009:190-191). Though the results from the ACT continue
to incorrectly predict first year college performance, females, if given a choice, would be
wise to take the ACT over the SAT.
Similar problems are found in other institutionalized high-stakes tests such as the
Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), (MCAT), and (LSAT).
From
interviews with females taking such admissions tests the Sadkers discovered that first,
testing scores were not similar to how grades are awarded in the classroom; some
women’s experience was that if you worked hard enough, you could get the grade.
Second, that these testing scores, which do not predict what they claim, are keeping many
deserving women from entering top schools, and later top jobs. And without female role
27
models in the top jobs, how do we expect young girls to see themselves in such
occupations later in life? How can we expect that this socialized subtle gender lesson is
not being soaked up by younger students? It’s no wonder why, when young elementary
school children are asked to draw a doctor, almost every picture displays a man (Sadker
and Sadker 1995). They are simply producing what society is showing them.
So what could account for the clear gender gaps seen in testing scores? Sadker,
Sadker, and Zittleman suggest four ways in which they believe tests could be lowering
female scores. The first is found in testing question content. They found that males
perform better on questions with male characters, while girls achieve more on questions
with female characters or an equal number of males and females. They also found that
some researchers believe that even testing questions without male or female characters
still often portray topics which are more familiar to boys than girls, thus creating an often
un-fair advantage.
Carol Dwyer (1976) found that when females achieved higher scores on the SAT
verbal section, ETS responded by making an effort to help boys by adding questions
pertaining to boy-friendly topics such as politics, business, and sports. It worked. Males’
scores rose and have continued to surpass females on the verbal section.
However,
Dwyer then points to the fact that no similar efforts were made to aid females with their
lower scores in the math section. It seems that when females are outperforming males the
testing organizations find it necessary to “re-balance” scores, but when males are
outperforming females it is merely accepted, ignored, or met with little effort for change.
28
The second way in which Sadker et al. (2009) believed tests could be lowering
female scores was through the massive use of multiple-choice in tests, with penalties
being given for incorrectly guessing, as explained earlier. If more balance were given
between written and multiple-choice sections, and more tests followed the ACT’s
example of eliminating penalties for wrong answers, there is good reason to believe that
female testing scores would rise and balance more with those of males.
A third way in which testing designs can be held responsible for lower female
scores is found in timed testing. Sadker et al. (2009) found the males perform better on
timed tests, such as the SAT or GRE, while females are more likely to succeed when no
time limit is given.
As was observed with guessing patterns on multiple-choice
questions, we see that females are more cautious and thoughtful in their answers, being
less likely to take a risk or quickly jump to a conclusion. Females have been found more
likely to completely work out a problem, consider more than one answer, and to then
check their answers than males.
Though these skills are taught, encouraged, and
rewarded in the classroom institution, they quickly soak up a students’ valuable time
during a test. They also found that when tests are not timed, female scores greatly
improve, and male scores either remain the same or slightly increase. Though having a
time limit lifted from high-stakes tests could admittedly result in costing testing centers
more money to pay test administrators to wait for students to finish, removing the time
constraints would benefit many females as well as some males.
29
Though females fall short when it comes to high-stakes tests, they dominate in
achieving high grades in the classroom, which suggests that in some respects, boys, too,
may be treated unfairly. One would expect that testing scores and grades would reflect
similar academic performance, but nothing could be farther from the truth. As explored
above, we have seen how high-stakes tests can be biased towards males, so it is only fair
to examine grading practices and how they may also contain bias towards females.
Sadker et al. (2009) interviewed high schools students and teachers to get their
opinions on the issue of differential treatment or favoritism playing a role is how teachers
give out grades. One male student recounted a teacher recently returning an assignment
in which most students received a low grade. Some of the females who were marked
down got upset almost to the point of tears and the male teacher then let the females re-do
the assignment and then received the points back. Some of the male students who were
also marked down felt that they would not be allowed to re-do their assignment like the
females had because they didn’t react emotionally to the situation, but instead handled it
in a more socially acceptable frustrated and confrontational masculinized manner.
When a group of English teachers was asked to explain how they assigned grades,
the consensus was that a high grade was achieved through “hard work, good attendance,
handing in assignments on time, classroom tests, quality materials prepared outside of
class, positive attitudes and conforming to prescribed style, including good handwriting”
(Sadker et al. 2009:195). Many of the teachers agreed that good behavior had become
blended into academic achievement when it came to assigning grades. With such logic, it
30
quickly becomes clear how females could be outperforming males in the classroom.
Following the rules, good handwriting, and conforming to the socialization of the
classroom are all things that females typically have less difficulty fulfilling than males.
One teacher specifically recounted how she knew which students would be at the top of
the class before the first day had even ended. She explained how she knew one girl was a
“top student” because “She does everything neatly and on time and obeys rules and sets a
good example. She reads beautifully, [and] gets along with everybody” (Sadker et al.
2009:196). She described another student as an immediate trouble maker and lower
achieving student because the girl was always showing up to class in jeans that were too
big, with messy hair. The teacher explained that if the student could not maintain herself
in a proper way, that she would likewise not be able to maintain her education.
By giving high grades to females based heavily on things beyond actual academic
performance, teachers are only doing an injustice to these students. From the earlier
discussed interviews the Sadkers held with female college students, it was made clear that
many girls had expected that their high grades would get them into the college of their
dreams; however, when it came time to take their high-stakes test, neat handwriting,
being well dressed, and sitting quietly in their seat would have no impact on raising their
scores to what their teachers had always made them believe was their performance level.
Clearly, teachers need to be aware of the extent to which we are holding males
and females accountable to two different grading standards, and the harm it can do. They
must be socialized and educated first within their own preparation programs about the
31
potential shortfalls in standardized testing with respect to gender equity and armed with
strategies that will help them ameliorate those problems. Though it is the institution, and
not teachers that writes the standardized tests, teachers can choose to present information
and techniques on the side in their classrooms to help socialize females to be able to
navigate standardized testing more successfully. Similarly, teachers can choose to utilize
a more uniform standard for all grading, but of course such information can only be
provided and utilized if teachers have first been made aware of the issues and socialized
in how to combat them.
The Girls’ or Boys’ Crisis?
The media, some researchers, and even some of the greater public have become
caught up with pointing fingers and trying to view gender education issues as male versus
female, and not as an overall issue for them both. Why? Because creating sides, blame,
and opponents sells and is easy. The truth is that differential treatment and socialized
stereotyped expectations hurt everyone. In the 1990s researchers birthed the Boy Crisis
by announcing that boys are alarmingly less motivated, less focused on academics, less
likely to do their homework, less positive about school, more likely to get into trouble,
more likely to be left back a grade and to even drop out (Van Houtte 2004). It was also
brought to the public’s attention that females had become the majority of college
students, and that they were also receiving more degrees. Efforts were then made to help
“rescue” boys from the feminine damages that the educational system was inflicting.
Programs were created especially for males to re-instate masculinity, such as the Boy
32
Scouts, founded in 1910 (Sadker et al. 2009).
But, as researcher Kimmel (2000)
explains, “It is not the school experience that “feminizes” boys, but rather the ideology of
traditional masculinity that keeps boys from wanting to succeed” (2000:7). Kimmel went
on to explain that boys are not engaging in some of their school work because they view
it as “girls’ work” and “not real work.” The real problem, therefore, is with society’s
definition of masculinity and the strict lines created for males to not cross. Kimmel
continued to explain that while many girls do undervalue their abilities and lack
confidence, boys are suffering from a “false voice of bravado” that causes them to overvalue their abilities, often resulting in lower grades and achievement. In the classroom,
teachers can help to de-construct such harmful socialized guidelines for masculinity by
reinforcing the importance of all education and by not bolstering boys’ self-conceptions
of ability beyond their actual proven skill.
Some of the public became worried by how many female teachers were beginning
to replace male teachers in lower division classrooms. But more strong than their worry
of feminization of their young boys was their grip on their pocket books. Simply put,
female teachers were paid less than male teachers, so it saved the educational system and
tax payers significant amounts of money.
Because attributes such as good behavior, verbal skills, and neat handwriting,
stereotypically seen as those portrayed by girls, were promoted as part of the sought after
standard in the classroom, some, such as Sexton (1969) believed that boys were being
held up to something that was much more difficult for boys to meet than girls. Sexton
33
explained that boys were being forced to choose between feminization and academic
failure.
In 2006, in reference to current classroom etiquette and evaluation, a
psychologist claimed that “Girl behavior becomes the gold standard. [And] boys are
treated like defective girls” (Sadker et al. 2009:200). With female traits being valued in
the classroom and females running them, some believed that their boys would have to
choose between being “feminized” or failed. In 2006, a male student, with the help of his
father, sued his entire school district “for boy-bashing and routinely discriminating
against him.” The student argued that his B-minus average was by no means his own
fault, but was “the result of sex discrimination: teachers made him follow orders, stay
seated, and do what he was told, [which were] clearly unnatural and unhealthy behaviors
for a boy.” He went on in his claim to explain that it is simply “in a boy’s nature to rebel,
and schools did not get it [and that] . . . all boys’ grades should be raised retroactively”
for this terrible injustice (Sadker et al. 2009:201).
Some believe that single-sex
classrooms can help in repairing the damages they feel were done to boys by the feminist
movement, though the struggles of boys in academics were apparent long before the
feminist movement even emerged (Sadker et al. 2009).
One might expect this claim and others similar to it to have been met with jeers
and laughter from on-looking media and the public, but the response was quite the
opposite. Countless articles in mainstream magazines and newspapers have been and are
still being published, making claims of the all-boy or all-girl crisis, or how our education
34
system is emasculating males. Such messages have been produced by the media for
years, only giving one perspective of the complex and misunderstood dilemma.
In truth, there is an education crisis today. There are boys that are severely
struggling academically, but they are fewer now than ever.
“According to the
nonpartisan Education Sector and the American Council of Education, most boys are
doing better today than they were a decade or two ago” (Sadker et al. 2009:201). While
it is true that we still see females outperforming males in reading at all grade levels, it is
not new information. “Girls have outperformed boys in reading and writing since 1969,”
but in recent years boys have been reducing the reading gap measured by the NAEP from
13 points to now only five points difference (Sadker et al. 2009:202).
While it is true that the achievement gap in reading overall for boys is being
closed, research by Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson (2007) found that in the early years
(starting with first grade) those boys who received meal-subsidies showed lower reading
performance than girls, while those boys who were not receiving meal-subsidies matched
the reading performance of girls.
From their study they concluded that being
disadvantaged and coming from homes where there was less socialization of educational
encouragement and expectation for boys to succeed in school, coupled with the
expectations of their teachers for their behavior to keep them behind, explained in greater
depth the gendered reading gap that has been discussed and researched for so many years.
It is not so much that this is a crisis for all boys, but only for certain boys and by coming
35
to better understand who those boys are we can learn how to close the true gaps in gender
achievement that still exist.
Besides closing the overall gap in reading, males have also greatly closed the gap
in college enrollment. Over the past 25 years there has been a 10 percent increase in
male college enrollment directly out of high school. While degrees earned by minority
females has tripled since 1976, we have also seen a great increase in degrees earned by
minority males (though not quite as drastic). And though we often hear that there are
more females enrolled in colleges, this fact is rarely coupled with the similarly important
fact that men make up half or more of the enrollment in the much more prestigious
universities, which lead to the more prestigious and higher paying jobs (Sadker et al.
2009).
Boys and girls each have their own strengths and weaknesses in our current
educational system. While it is true the girls have often outperformed boys in reading
and language, it should be noted that boys have outperformed girls at all grade levels in
math and generally have a slight lead in geography and science (Sadker et al. 2009:202).
In a study done by Hall, Davis, Bolen, and Chia (1999) they found that amongst fifth and
eighth grade students, gender differences in math scored on the California Achievement
Test had significantly declined to near extinction. They also found that parents’ beliefs
and attitudes towards math often greatly impact their children’s performance. “The
parents' most advanced math course and their education level were negatively correlated
with their negative attitudes toward math. The parents with more advanced math courses
36
and higher education levels tended to have less negative feelings about their own math
abilities. That attitude seemed also to influence their children's opinions of their own selfefficacy (belief about one's own performance capabilities) in mathematics” (1999:680).
Hyde, Fennema, and Lamon (1990) as cited by Hall et al. (1999) also did not find
what they considered to be significant differences in math achievement between boys and
girls from elementary through junior high school; however, once in high school into
college they found a steady upward trend showing males achieving higher than females.
Sadker and Sadker (1995) found that as students progressed into higher education that
males were outperforming females and also taking more advanced math and science
courses. In Sax’s 1994 study, the idea is developed that girls’ math achievement is often
heavily a result of both her self-confidence and exposure to the subject. This is similar to
the idea presented by Hall, et al. (1999) for the partial explanation for why some students
do not perform well in mathematics. The gap we see in math could very likely not be due
to one’s born sex or actual skill, but to something as simple as self-esteem and
confidence, which is influenced, to some extent, by the teachers that can provide support
and positive socialization for their students.
One must then wonder where boys are either getting their extra boost in selfconfidence in mathematics, of where girls are getting their sense of pre-mature failure in
the subject. One potential suspect could be linked back to textbooks and curricula. “In a
study of elementary mathematics software only 12 percent of the characters were female”
(Sadker et al. 2009:89). In addition to biased text books and curricula, numerous studies
37
such as those done by Fang (1996) and Shepardson and Pizzini (1992) have found that
both parents and teachers irrationally underestimate the intelligence and academic
capabilities of female students. Sadker et al. (2009) also found that such biases are
continuing today, explaining that many teachers begin at the start of elementary school
believing that their male students are inherently smarter in math than their female
students. Ironically, this happens to be the time that we see girls getting better grades as
well as near equal score on their standardized math tests as their male peers. This just
shows how deeply some aspects of society and negative socialization are rooted into
traditional, and often incorrect, assumptions towards gender in education. Awareness
through positive socialization has obviously not been raised sufficiently if this perception
of females is still being produced in the classroom.
Hanna (2003) found that studies by the International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
. . . provided convincing evidence that gender differences in achievement vary
widely from country to country, with the degree and direction of variation
depending greatly on topic and grade level . . . [such findings] indicate, first of all,
that some educational systems do provide, wittingly or unwittingly, educational
conditions that work to prevent an achievement gap between males and females in
mathematics,
Second, in showing that gender differences in mathematics
achievement vary in magnitude and direction from country to county, the IEA
findings call into question the validity of the claim made by a number of
38
researchers that there are innate differences between males and females in
mathematical ability (P. 206).
These findings from the IEA are significant for the fight for gender equity in
education.
If one country can learn how to raise awareness and combat
mathematical bias then all should be able to follow suit and similarly apply those
concepts to other subjects where either sex is apparently falling behind.
Similar patterns of females not having confidence, but later participating in more
advanced classes have been found in the field of science as well. Mulkey (1988) found
that when literature was made available to girls at a young age that depicted female
scientists it not only provided girls with a positive attitude towards female scientists, but
that because of this early intervention there was a correlation to later recruitment into a
science career. Unfortunately, from earlier discussions in this chapter it is known that
textbooks and curricula promoting female scientists are often scarce.
Research on the relationship between science and gender has found a variety of
variables that affect who succeeds and who becomes discouraged from participating and
further pursuing a science career. Some such variable range from “Parental attitudes, the
media, stereotyping, textbooks, clothing, peers, toys, teacher bias, social influences,
discrimination, curricula and classroom dynamics . . . [just to name a few]” (Koch
2007:207). Koch found that recently researchers have been finding some success with
programs that include gaining participation of parents and highlighting role models in
science fields that are both male and female, white and of color.
39
Though not the only influencing factor, socialization of positive attitudes towards
academics from both parents and teachers greatly impacts the success of their children
and students. And while it would be impossible to control the socialization that parents
provide in their own homes, it is fully ascertainable for teachers to become socialized to
promote such positive attitudes, encouragement, and academic techniques to students
when they interact with them at school.
While new teachers need to be aware of the above concerns, in a very real sense,
much of the above can rightly be perceived as merely an "academic" concern. For most
people today what really matters is not so much how one scores on a given test, what
kinds of grades one receives, or even what kind of college one is admitted to. What
really matters, in the end, is how successful one is in his or her chosen profession. In the
next section we'll examine that question specifically.
Later in the Adult Job World
To the extent that gender stereotyping exists, as suggested by the previous
discussion, one then asks how those biases influence career opportunities for both men
and women and how well both sexes succeed in their chosen professions. Levy,
Sadovsky, and Troseth (2000) found when interviewing children from pre-school and
primary level education that students already have a strong sense of the gendered adult
job world. Interviews indicated that the children, especially boys, had been socialized to
believe that men were more competent in "masculine occupations," and that women
likewise were more competent in "feminine occupations." As children grew older, they
40
came to believe that men were more competent in general when compared to women,
regardless of occupation. Similarly, most older children believed that men made more
money than women in masculine jobs, and concomitantly, women made more money
than men in feminine jobs; younger children believed men made more in any type of
occupation. From such findings it is reasonable to expect that such understandings of
male and female competence would later translate into children's perceptions of their own
competence and options for future careers.
Women are currently holding 98 percent of the low-income feminine occupations
and fewer than 15 percent of the board seats as major corporations (Sadker et al. 2009).
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in 2006, female surgeons and physicians are
earning 38 percent less than their same level male colleagues, female college and
university teachers are earning 25 percent less than male colleagues, and female lawyers
earn 30 percent less than male lawyers.
With such extreme differences in pay, one would wonder if men and women are
aware of such monetary inequalities. In 2006 the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. was brought to the Supreme Court. Lilly Ledbetter had worked for the
Goodyear Company for over 19 years and was considered one of the best employees
compared to both men and women. In 1998 someone placed a memo in Ledbetter’s box
that provided her base salary ($44,000) as well as that of three of her male colleagues
who were all of equal or lesser tenure as well as title. Salaries listed for these men ranged
from $53,000 to $62,000. Understandably upset about her new realization, Ledbetter
41
sued the company and was about to be awarded $300,000 for damages. Goodyear then
appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which found that according to law, Ledbetter
would have had to sue the company within six months of being hired to collect any
damages for this outrageous action. Of course Ledbetter would have sued the company
earlier, but she had not been made aware of the situation until over a decade of work.
Ledbetter was left with no award but had her court costs paid for by Goodyear.
Still feeling disgusted with her treatment, Ledbetter than made it her personal
vendetta to change the law. In 2007 the U.S. House approved a bill that would hold
employers accountable for the most recent discriminatory paycheck, not just those from
the first 6 months of employment; however, the act failed to gain a filibuster-proof
majority in the Senate and the bill died (Cullen 2008).
As discussed earlier, Smith and Hung (2008) have found that much of society has
been socialized to still hold tightly to the belief that females are not as capable as males
within the areas of mathematics and science. In general, no one today comes out and
blatantly states this sexist belief, but it is subtly suggested when we see women who are
just as equally qualified and committed to their occupation as men are in these fields
experiencing a stronger turnover rate due to dissatisfaction with research support,
advancement opportunities, and free expression of ideas (Xu 2008:607). Xu’s study
specifically concerned women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM).
As Xu found, many women who are equally qualified as their male
counterparts are given fewer opportunities for promotion and leadership. In addition to
42
these disadvantages, Xu found evidence that women in the STEM were also generally
paid less than their male colleagues. This differential treatment and discrimination based
on gender, however, did not start at the adult career level – as we have seen, it often
begins in the classroom, during the early years of the socialization process.
Though it is often difficult, there are women in predominantly male careers who
find great success. Tindall (2007) investigated what factors lead to some women’s
success in science and engineering fields. Four major themes were found throughout the
experiences of the various women: (1) they did not perceive any academic limitations
during the elementary years, (2) they did not experience any other challenges during the
elementary years that could have limited their academic focus, (3) they had no gendered
expectations in their families, and (4) they did not experience any expectations of
discrimination in graduate school that was gender related. Many of the women indicated
that either during high school or their undergraduate work they made some large
academic achievement that was related to their field. Participants indicated that they felt
their success was due to having a supportive family, having their father as a mentor or
role model growing up, having a strong mentor in their graduate work, and having
participated in collaborative research in their field. Unfortunately in her study Tindall did
not interview any women who had tried to enter these fields with failure. Such research
would be highly valuable to better understand how we can help women to succeed in
male dominated fields; however, what Tindall does help demonstrate is how important
43
the roles of parents and the classroom are in shaping or diminishing gender stereotyped
walls and boundaries.
And this, of course, holds as true for men as it does for women.
While women experience difficulty when taking on jobs in predominantly
traditional male positions, it is important to note that the door swings in both directions.
Studies such as that done by Jacobson (2008) discuss the experiences of men in teacher
education programs, which for many years has been a predominantly traditional career
for women, especially at the younger educational level.
In her study, Jacobson
specifically was looking to see if the teacher education programs themselves had a gender
biased curriculum. The study found that the programs were very gender organized, with
a constant—albeit unintentional—implication that it is appropriate for women to teach
young children and that this is not so much the case for men. Jacobson felt that such
programs easily created or sustained men’s feelings of incompetence when working with
children. If teacher education programs would first remove the negative subtle gender
socialization lessons that persist within their own curricula, it would lessen the chances of
their future teachers from carrying those same subtle lessons and gender divisions into
classrooms of their own.
As some of the previous studies have shown, while women may often be found
within a given workplace, they are all too often kept at a certain level while seeing their
male co-workers ride the “glass escalator” up in administrative positions. Surprisingly,
Jacobson (2008) found that within the field of teacher education, both males and females
expressed little interest in moving up into administrative positions. Their passion was
44
instead to teach. Though this may be true for those in elementary teaching, it would not
be fair to then assume that women and men in other occupations do not wish for
administrative promotions. And while many male public school teachers may have been
expressing no interest in moving up to administration, most do make that move, often due
to societal pressure from those who feel it is inappropriate to others that they teach to
young children. Through her interviews, Jacobson also found that even though both
academic advisors and professors in teacher education expressed interest in integrating
more men into elementary school teaching, little was reported showing effort to meet that
goal. One might rightly wonder to what extent these attitudes inform or favor existing
teacher education curricula.
Similar to Xu’s (2008) findings that women became dissatisfied in male
dominated occupations, Cognard-Black (1997) found that men who work at the
elementary level as teachers are significantly more likely than their female colleagues to
leave that occupation due to social pressures affiliated with being part of the gender
minority.
Clearly, there are many factors militating against success when one chooses a
career path typically filled by those belonging to a different gender. But one's own
aspirations, as conditioned in childhood, are often the main problem. And who, besides
one’s own parents, is more likely to influence conditioning than one’s K-12 teachers?
Teachers can learn to promote socialization that accepts males and females in any
career they choose. Simple lesson plans and classroom decorations portraying men and
women in non-stereotypical jobs could later on impact the career paths of students and
45
how they learn to view the job world around them. And though encouragement for
breaking down gender barriers is important, as shown by Tindall (2007), success for
some can sometimes be dependent on the mere absence of negative messages alone.
Both learning to deteriorate negative messages and promote positive ones can all be part
of teachers’ preparation programs.
Single-Sex Education: A Solution?
Throughout this literature review we have examined several studies that might be
used to support gender-equity awareness as an integral part of a teacher education
program. But one alternative that some educators and researchers point to as a place to
eliminate gender issues in education is single-sex classes and schools. Though a trend of
the past, single-sex education has exploded over recent years. “While only five public
single-sex high schools were still operating in 1996, a decade later that number had
jumped to more than thirty” (Sadker et al. 2009:259). Some supporters such as Hughes
(2007) believe that single-sex classrooms help students to focus more on their academics
and less on the distractions created by their hormones (though it should be noted that this
observation would only hold true for heterosexuals). Reports of the validity of this
notion are mixed. Some believe that while females feel less pressure to act in certain
ways to receive approval from males when those males are not present, males are often
more rambunctious and crude in their behavior and sexual discussions when they do not
have females around to overhear them.
46
Many books and articles have emphasized biological differences in male and
female brains, promoting the hypothesis that separate teaching strategies and even
buildings are necessary to meet their separate needs. For example, Sax (2005) opined
that boys need an intense competitive environment and that yelling is often an effective
technique for teaching boys, while girls need a more relaxed environment, where tests are
not timed and they can relax. Though much is still unknown and debated, we can agree
that there are some differences between the sexes in how they learn, test take, and behave
in the classroom.
Single-sex education has predominately been found in private schools due to the
restrictions put in place by Title IX. However, in 2004, President George W. Bush made
an alteration to the law. This change made it legal to segregate students within coed
public schools into different classes by one’s sex, even allowing for classes to be created
for one sex and not for the other.
Now all that is required to make these acts legal in a
public school is a reason provided by a school administrator. This reason could be based
on the fact that parents show a great interest in single-sex classes, or, unfortunately, just
based off of one’s own personal biases. Bush’s administration funded research looking
into the effectiveness of single-sex education. The results from their research were mixed
and faulty, with no significant findings to support single-sex education as a better
alternative. Despite the fact that his administration's research did not overwhelmingly
support it and a meager 100 citizens supported the change, what is more noteworthy is
the fact that well over 5,000 citizens opposed the changes and that Bush still went ahead
47
with the alteration (Sadker et al. 2009:262). Because of Bush’s changes to Title IX, the
law no longer guarantees the equal treatment it once promised to both sexes.
While it is true that many all-female schools report that their students have higher
self-esteems, speak up more in the classroom, and that they participate and show interest
in more non-traditional subjects, much of the success of such schools is found in the
mentors it provides (Sadker et al. 2009:253-254). Such schools are found having more
females in non-traditional fields of math and science than in coed schools. Having such
female role models in coed schools would likely also result in similar improvements for
female students. In addition to strong female mentors, these all female schools provided
small classes and curricula and classroom wall displays which reflected the contributions
of both men and women.
Cable and Spradlin (2008) also point out in their overview of single-sex education
that the success they have identified is likely due to the fact that in such schools, only
teachers who are highly motivated, trained, and socialized for this type of education take
the job. In addition to having better trained and gender aware teachers, Cable and
Spradlin point out that if the students themselves are voluntarily signing up for single-sex
courses with permission from their parents, there is a great chance that either the students,
parents, or both parties are already demonstrating higher levels of interest to be involved
in such a program. There are far too many outside variables that can account for the
successes found within single-sex education, especially when there are also cases where
success was not found, to accept single-sex education as a universal panacea.
48
Evidence of the success in all male schools is much more lacking due to the
limited number of such schools compared to those provided for females and also due to
the fact that those few schools which exist are generally private and wary of letting
researchers into their classrooms. David and Myra Sadker were able to speak with male
alums from all male schools who reported that sexual stereotypes faded more when
attending these schools and that males were more free to participate in non-traditional
fields such as the arts and language (Sadker et al. 2009:254).
With so much being gained by females and some males in this single-sex
education setup, one may wonder why our society ever left single-sex education in the
first place. The answer is simple: it was cheaper. And with the current state of the U.S.
economy, that reason alone will militate against the overthrow of coed public schooling.
Taxpayers are not interested in supporting both a school for boys and one for girls in their
community.
In addition to money being a factor, there are other negative aspects which singlesex schools bring. Segregating students by sex is not a long-term solution. Eventually
males and females need to interact and feel comfortable working together, and if kept
apart with the belief that they are so different they need to be separated, it would be fairly
difficult and awkward to socialize and form relationships. Besides feeling comfortable
interacting in the everyday world, we will be expecting men and women to interact freely
in the job market, but how will they take one another seriously after such separation and
differences in teaching styles? Many of the students from single-sex schools that David
49
and Myra Sadker (2009) spoke with expressed concerns of not knowing how to speak
with or interact with the opposite sex. Some expressed loneliness due to the fact that in
younger grades their best friends were of the opposite sex and now in their middle year
single-sex school they feel like an outcast.
Coming to a firm conclusion of the
effectiveness of single-sex education would be difficult due to mixed and limited results.
As Cable and Spradlin (2008) exclaimed, “The only consistent finding on single-sex
classrooms is that the findings are not consistent” (2008:10).
But despite mixed
conclusions, it would be fair to argue that most of the benefits that are seen in these
schools could be found in coed schools with proper actions taken by well-prepared
mentor figures. Just as many female teachers in single-sex schools were shown to bring
out great success for their students due to their awareness and focused preparation for
handling gender issues in education, public teacher preparation programs adding such
focus could potentially bring about similar success.
Looking to Teaching Credential Programs
As has been pointed out through previous discussion here, today’s educational
world is still shaped and socialized by gendered stereotypes, misconceptions, and myths.
Laws that have been put into place to deflect discriminatory practices have been changed,
weakened, and left without enforcers. While a great effort has been made to improve
textbooks and curricula, much work is still needed so that males and females alike are
seen embracing both active and passive traditional roles. In the classroom teachers are
unconsciously giving their students different educational experiences and subtle gender
50
socialization lessons. The grading and testing systems’ goals are not the same, leaving
many female students with high grades, yet confused when they find great difficulty in
meeting the standardized test score requirements for their dream University.
Incorporating new methods such as non-timed testing could benefit both female and some
male students. We have seen that both males and females suffer from the differential
treatment and that the educational crisis does not belong to only one side.
The
relationship between some students’ lack of self-confidence and support for crossing
gendered subject boundaries often cuts off potential job opportunities as adults. And
when those boundaries are surpassed, one is often met with more differential and
discriminatory treatment. So how can we overcome these disparities?
Efforts have been made to de-genderize education by literally separating the sexes
into different classes and schools; however, it is not yet apparent that such practices have
resulted in consistent success; the results are mixed and un-clear. Overall trends tend to
show that same-sex education is a more useful approach for females than males, but
should we not seek for a solution that benefits all students? In addition it seems that there
are other variables linked with the success found in some all-girl schools, such as
teachers that are more aware of gender issues and how they relate to education, as well as
serving the role as a strong mentor to their students. Gender awareness and mentorship
are certainly both factors that could be similarly incorporated into any co-ed education.
Researchers such as Krafchick (2007) have found that programs such as Fairness
for All Individuals through Respect (FAIR) help to promote the understanding of social
51
injustice in the classroom. Specifically FAIR is aimed at helping students to identify
social injustices concerning gender, race, and class. The program was developed by
Colorado State University’s Department of Human Development and Family Studies.
Krafchick found that fourth, fifth, and sixth graders were the ideal age group for the
FAIR program to impact. Educators felt that the program was helpful in their own
classrooms, but that some of the program curricula was more appropriate at later ages and
developmental stages. Though the FAIR curricula helps to get both students and teachers
thinking about and learning to identify social injustices, the program only consists of five
classroom activities that do not go into any great depth. Nonetheless, it is a start. And
though many educators (at least in Colorado) have chosen to become involved in FAIR,
the majority are not, nor are they required to do such.
Currently, according to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, there is no
required training concerning gender and the role it has played and continues to play in
California teaching credential programs. While we have seen great progress in that
multicultural courses have become required, such instruction tends to focus more on race,
class, and ESL students than on gender (Smith 2009; Katsarou 2009). Katsarou (2009)
explained that teaching credential program today are being asked to step away from some
of their traditional approaches and to re-evaluate their curricula and textbooks in order to
better understand and combat racism in the classroom. While it seems clear that our
country has become more aware of racism, gender discrimination is far less detected. If
we saw that in classrooms children of color were being called on far less than white
52
students, or that they were being treated and talked to differently it is reasonable to
assume that many people would much more quickly take notice and express outrage over
such behavior. So why should we not be equally outraged when there is such strong
evidence of discrimination with respect to gender? As deduced by Connolly (1994), after
completing his study concerning racism and masculinity at an elementary school level,
without a solid understanding of other forms of inequality such as class and gender,
strategies to combat racism cannot reach their full potential. And this notion should
likewise be applied to every battle against any form of inequality. As explained by Smith
(2009) when referring to multicultural awareness, the success or failure of this education
is dependent upon the effective preparation of teachers and administrators. A similar
argument can be made that the solution for creating more gender awareness in education
is also determined by level of teacher preparation and understanding.
Though certainly schools are not the first place gender discrimination lessons and
socialization are learned, the educational environment is a strong enforcer that shapes and
socializes the adult-gendered world. While it would be impossible, or at least very
difficult and certainly undesirable, to go into every home and demand that parents raise
their children a particular way, it is nonetheless possible for us to more assertively shape
the great enabler and twelve year (or more) enforcer: the public school system.
Numerous studies used in earlier discussions have pointed out that there is a problem, but
few have provided real solutions to those problems. I believe the solution lies within
teaching credential programs. Those who go into the teaching profession desire nothing
53
more than the best for their students, but without a more complete education themselves,
how can we expect the best possible education for the next generation?
Some studies have come very close by also looking to teaching credential
programs such as that discussed earlier by Oliveira and Athanases (2007). In their study
they explored the impact a California State University English Language Learners (ELL)
focused teaching credential program had on its graduates. Although the CSU program
from this study did an excellent job of preparing its future teachers to combat issues
relating to language, race, and class, it was missing another vital inequality that is also
found in our classrooms today. If courses concerning the role of gender in education
would have also been added to their program, it is reasonable to expect that the interview
participants would have likewise reported that they felt more prepared for handling
gender issues inside and outside their classrooms and that they felt more prepared than
their colleagues who had other training, just as they explained concerning ELLs.
In another study by Birdsell and Suckow (2009), they compared teacher
preparation programs in Gujarat, India and California. While both programs included a
more recent focus on English language learners (ELLs) and Special Education
accommodations, both also showed a lack of focus on any gender awareness and its
relationship to education. And though the researchers were aware that “Education is not
just for students and schools; it is for the entire community”, they failed to see in all the
ways their education programs do impact communities (2009:9). Similar to Oliveira and
Athanases (2007), this cross-cultural examination found that programs from both
54
countries saw that their new emphasis for ELLs and Special Education made a great
impact on the level of education teachers were then able to provide in their own
classrooms after completion of their preparation programs, and even before during their
student teaching.
And no study has come closer to pointing to teaching credential programs as a
solution than that done by Athanases and Martin (2006). In their study, the researchers
conducted a five year investigation of a California teaching credential program.
Athanases and Martin wanted to find out how successfully a program claiming to prepare
teachers to advocate for educational equity was in application.
Data was collected
through focus groups with graduates from the program. Focal points of the program and
conversations ranged from promotion for ELLs, cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity,
community outreach, and application beyond the classroom. Though the program and
researchers were completely focused on equity in the classroom, the role that gender
equity plays in education was completely overlooked. This shows that often even those
who are fully aware of educational equity can still be unaware of the subtle gender
lessons and negative socialization going on in classrooms today.
Though the fight for true gender equity in the classroom has persisted for
hundreds of years, and as shown above, researchers have been addressing the topic for
decades, this discrimination still exists and it cannot continue to go unnoticed and
unaccounted for by society and by our schools if we desire a society that truly provides
equal opportunity for all. The fact is that girls and boys, men and women, all suffer in
55
one way or another from these discriminatory practices. We must continue to better
ourselves and our systems by using all the resources and education that we possibly can.
Athanases and Martin found that “teacher education coursework emerged as profoundly
influential in preparing teachers to advocate for equity,” so why should we not attempt to
harness this resource to help eliminate gender discrimination in our classrooms?
(2006:640).
Summary
As demonstrated through the above review of the research relevant to the
challenges of sex discrimination in our society, many of the noted problems are
associated with the manner in which both boys and girls are acculturated within their K12 education. Many of these problems persist well into adulthood. Despite efforts to
combat sex discrimination, such as Title IX, issues related to curricula and textbook
selection, differential gender expectations in the classroom, an emphasis on testing over
grading, and pitting males against females all contribute to persisting inequities in our
society. And while it may be useful in some instances, single sex education is not a
sufficient solution.
So long as teachers continue to lack awareness of the problems noted, and do not
benefit from specific interventions designed to help them combat sex discrimination, that
discrimination and negative gendered messages will continue to be transmitted
unwittingly into classrooms. Regardless of how well-meaning they might be, teachers
56
who are not educated about inappropriate gender differences will likely continue to
perpetuate them.
On the other hand, we know how effective teacher training programs can be. As
noted above, specific efforts to make future teachers more aware of problems related to
such issues as race and ELLs have resulted in more effective teaching with respect to
those topics.
As teachers are socialized and taught how to better educate, they
consistently rise to the challenge.
My hypothesis is that few credential programs place a concerted effort on
identifying and effectively combating gender discrimination and that a similar focus in
these programs could produce positive results like those found in Oliveira and Athanases’
(2007) and Birdsell and Suckow’s (2009) studies. If teachers were given the proper
education about gender discrimination, its history in education, and methods for breaking
down this discrimination and negative socialization in their future classrooms, every
member of society would potentially benefit. Teaching credential programs are the
foundation from which classroom etiquette and methods are born and we must harness
that function for the best possible outcome.
57
Chapter 3
METHODS
Throughout the years, girls have slowly gained opportunity and access to public
education, college, and a growing variety of occupations. Regardless, access remains
limited and different from those experienced by boys. Sex discrimination is much more
subtle today. In general, it seems that this discrimination does not occur because society
does not take it seriously or care to promote equity, but possibly it is because the vast
majority of us is unaware that it still happens and/or is oblivious to what can be done to
truly combat it, necessitating analysis of the persistence of gender inequity in education.
While some studies have solely focused on content analysis of teaching curricula
and materials (Farr, Tulley, and Powell 1987; Tyson and Woodward 1989; Women on
Words and Images 1975; Bradford 2008; Evans and Davies 2000; Hamilton, Anderson,
Broaddus, and Young 2006; Stein, Stuen, Carnine, and Long 2001), classroom
observation (Allen, Cantor, Grady, and Hill 1997; Hamilton, Blumenfeld, Akoh and
Miura 1991; Sadker and Sadker 1995; Sadker et. al. 2009), or general focus groups about
educational equity (Athanases and Martin 2006) one area that few researchers have
58
provided as a source for a solution is in teaching credential programs. All elementary and
secondary level teachers are required to go through such a program. Recent efforts have
been seen in many credential programs to include courses and curricula concerning
equity and avoiding differential treatment based on race (Smith 2009; Katsarou 2009).
Similarly, many budding teachers are being trained to employ greater sensitivity toward
English as a Second Language students, and those students coming from low income
families (Oliveira and Athanases 2007).
But, my hypothesis is that few credential
programs place a concerted effort on identifying and effectively combating gender
discrimination. If teachers were given the proper education about gender discrimination,
its history in education, and methods for breaking down this discrimination in their future
classrooms, every member of society would greatly benefit. Girls and boys, men and
women, all suffer in one way or another from these discriminatory practices.
While the previously discussed methods for researching gender awareness in
education were both insightful and useful, they failed to collaborate information and
provide a solution for all aspects of the issue at hand. In order to fully study California
teaching credential programs I felt it was necessary to employ a multi-method approach
including a pilot content analysis, content analysis, and interviews. I chose to approach
this study qualitatively through the use of interviews because this method allows for
flexibility as new insights may emerge, the ability to probe more deeply by not having
standardized inquiries for all observations, and the ability to also analyze the personal
inflections that are produced during an interview answer rather than a static written
59
response (Babbie 1986).
Qualitative analysis allows for more in depth exploration of
what is occurring in credential program and what is being learned in them.
Conducting a content analysis is a useful method when the unit of analysis is an
organization and the researcher is incorporating a broad range of conditions. Also, by
using specific codes for analysis, it makes it easier for other researchers to replicate the
study themselves (Jauch, Osborn, and Martin 1980). Rourke and Anderson (2004) also
explain that by systematically identifying and categorizing the objects of study through
content analysis, the analysis leaves little room for counter interpretation and is especially
valuable when it concerns new educational phenomena.
A pilot study was implemented in order to conduct a more interpretive and
exploratory analysis of teacher education programs. By investigating other out of state
programs, this helped to create a structured format that allowed for more quantitative
coding and comparison of the programs to help identify patterns for gender awareness
and to also insure that the programs involved represent varying degrees within the
awareness spectrum.
Content Analysis
Previously a content analysis pilot was completed analyzing teacher education
programs throughout the United States (excluding California). Information was gathered
for the pilot from program websites and related online materials such as offered courses,
website imagery, ratio of male to female faculty, gender of administrative heads, number
and gender of faculty with gender studies interests, gender related website language, and
60
other gender related programs connected with that program’s University. The pilot study
showed overwhelmingly that most schools do not provide any courses that consider the
topic of gender in education. Those programs which had courses with some nod towards
a gender discussion were programs already heavily focused on other forms of
discrimination such as race, or were taught by a professor who specifically had a personal
interest in gender and inequalities studies.
Relying on the previously conducted pilot, a content analysis of California
teaching credential programs was analyzedaccording to a more structured coding process
similar to the criteria as the pilot study, scoring the number of courses that discuss gender
focus/awareness, the ratio of depictions of males to females in program website imagery,
ratio and professional level of male to female faculty, gender of administrative heads,
number and gender of faculty with gender studies interests, counting the occurrence of
gender related website language, and other gender related programs connected with them
in their University.
After being analyzed for the above, programs were then grouped
into two categories: those that earn a high content analysis score of gender awareness and
those that earn a low score.
Two program examples, one from the top 10 percent and
one from the bottom 10 percent were then selected and contacted for interviews.
Subjects being interviewed were comprised of both students and faculty from teaching
credential programs in the state of California.
It was expected that, similar to the pilot study, the vast majority of California
teaching credential programs would not show strong gender awareness and preparation
61
and that common patterns would be found in those that do i.e., having professors in the
program that have already adopted personal interest in gender and inequalities studies and
having co-partner programs in their University that focus on gender and inequalities. It
was also expected that even within those programs that show some awareness and
preparation for gender in education, gender would be a subtopic of the course, and it
would often be an elective, rather than a required course. These hypotheses were based
on results from the prior pilot study.
Interviews
This study consisted of a half hour to one hour interview concerning
participants’ definitions and concepts of gender, the origin(s) of gender identity, the
training that their program may offer concerning the role of gender in education,
knowledge of Title IX, knowledge and opinion of sex segregated education, knowledge
of gender achievement gaps, and awareness of gender stereotyping in textbooks and
curricula.
In addition to the interview, a basic demographic survey was sent along with
the consent form to be completed and returned prior to the interview to establish the
participants’ University, sex, race/ethnicity, age, current level of education, number of
completed semesters in their program (for students only), and any special interests or foci
participants had adopted.
Due to location of the participating schools, all volunteers were interviewed
over the phone at their scheduled convenience. With consent, interviews were recorded.
62
After interviews took place, full transcriptions were created. Those interviews which
were recorded were properly destroyed after the transcriptions were made. After the
transcription process was completed, patterns in participants’ responses were then
grouped together concerning each of the interview questions.
The proposal for this study was passed by The Committee for the Protection of
Human Subjects at California State University, Sacramento (protocol number 112).
Participants were only asked about the structure of their program and opinions about
materials not affiliated with their program. Though participants may have had concern
that their responses and identities would be reported to their program, no such action
would take place. Participants did not need to worry that their responses would result in
academic or workplace retribution of any sense because all participants were kept strictly
confidential. Also, participants were allowed to refrain from answering any questions
that they desired not to discuss.
Privacy was protected by the use of pseudonyms for individuals and all other
identifying information, creating no way to connect contacts to their interview responses.
All records were only made available to the researcher.
All files were password
protected. Only the researcher was able to view the protected list of subjects’ names,
contact information, and interview transcriptions.
Sample
Due to the fact that the majority of public University of California (UC) multiple
subject teaching credential programs are combined with a Master’s degree and the great
63
variations in program type, content, and lack of generalizability, UC programs were not
included in the sample for this study. Only California State Universities (CSUs) were
used for findings and interview selection. From there, only 22 of the 23 CSU approved
programs listed by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing were included.
The one excluded CSU program was web-based only. This program had a completely
different structure that was tied to a number of CSU regional centers. The main reason it
was not included was because it did not have similar content available that was being
measured in the other programs.
After being scored and analyzed, programs were then grouped into two
categories: those that earned a high content analysis score of gender awareness and
preparedness (6 through 10) and those that earn a low score (1 through 5). Two program
examples, one from the top 10 percent and one from the bottom 10 percent were then
selected and contacted for interviews. Subjects being interviewed were comprised of
both students and faculty from teaching credential programs in the state of California.
Eight students and six faculty from two programs were asked to participate: 28 subjects
in total.
Programs selected for the interview process were contacted via e-mail and phone
first with the department chair for initial consent for participation. Pending the initial
chair approval, e-mails containing the consent letter and form were then sent to faculty
asking for volunteers to participate in an interview. E-mails asking for student volunteers
to participate in interviews were sent by the department chair or program coordinator
64
when available since access to student contact information is confidential. Those who
wanted to be involved were then e-mailed a consent form and a simple demographics
survey to print out, sign, and mail back before the interview commences.
All faculty participants from the bottom 10 percent were female, completed a PhD
as their highest level of education, ranged from ages 36 to 56+, and ranged from 2 to 25
years working in that program.
These participants were made up of Caucasian,
Hispanic/Latino, and Asian ethic/racial groups. Faculty expressed special interest or
focus in topics such as literacy and bilingual education, teacher education, special needs
populations, and Latino and diverse populations.
Student participants from the bottom 10 percent were made up of three females
and one male, all completed a high school diploma as their highest level of education,
and all ranged from ages 20 to 25. These participants were made up of Caucasian and
Hispanic Latino ethnic/racial groups. Students expressed special interest or focus in
math.
Faculty participants form the top 10 percent were made up of two males and one
female, complete a PhD as their highest level of education, ranged from ages 46 to 56+,
ranged from 7 to 21 years working in that program, and were all Caucasian. Faculty
expressed special interest or focus in topics such as developmental and educational
foundations of education, gender and sexuality studies, human rights education, clinical
teacher preparation, educational psychology, and child development.
Student participants from the top 10 percent were made up of three females and one
65
male and ranged from ages 20 to 50+. Concerning highest level of education, one student
completed a high school diploma, one student completed an associate’s degree, and two
students completed bachelor’s degrees. These participants were made up of Caucasian
and Hispanic/Latino ethnic/racial groups. None of these students specified any special
interest or focus topics.
Limitations
While these findings do not represent the general public, they are still useful for
understanding teaching credential programs for the state of California, and can serve as a
stepping stone for future research to further these methods in more regions and programs
across the country. By using a content analysis, it will be easy for future researchers to
replicate the study for the teacher education programs in their respective states or
countries as well.
It should be noted that the participants from each program were limited to
volunteers who may already have a bias and interest in the topic of gender awareness.
The purpose of this study was to perform exploratory research and to first gain insight
from those who have an interest and are involved in the programs first hand. Future
studies may choose to engage those who are likely less interested and focused on gender
awareness education to help determine a broader possible impact that programs are
having through use of random sampling.
Similarly, while the sample size of participants was limited to only two programs,
this sample was derived from the content analysis of all public California State
66
Universities. Because public credential programs, on average, graduate over two and a
half times as many teachers as private credential programs, only public programs were
analyzed for this exploratory study (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
2007-2008). Future studies may choose to employ this study to include all California
approved teaching credential programs for a more full representation and application.
Since it was not possible to meet in person will volunteers due to the location of
the participants, all interview data was limited to being conducted over the phone. While
face to face interviews would have allowed for the additional variable of analysis of body
language, those interviews conducted over the phone were limited. Besides location
restrictions, for this exploratory analysis it was more important to make sure volunteers
were comfortable in the setting they chose so that the most accurate information could be
obtained with greater depth and detail.
Because the topic of interests involves gender, it was important to make sure that
the sample captured the viewpoints and experiences of both men and women.
Unfortunately, it was expected that the male viewpoint would be in the minority since
teaching credential programs tend to be dominated by females. Nonetheless, because the
aim of this study was to determine the awareness that teaching credential programs are
creating for their students/future teachers—regardless of the gender of those teachers—
the preponderance of females in the teaching field was not the overriding concern in this
study; however, measuring accurate accounts from those who were in the teacher
credential programs was.
67
While the results from the content analysis could not answer the question of
whether programs are in fact educated about gender or not, it was able to identify whether
gender was emphasized in a program’s online content or not. While the potential for
gender education may be present in a program, the content analysis also could not
identify if students were actually learning about it and accepting such messages. For this
reason, interviews were also needed to establish the range of gender awareness of both
faculty and students.
68
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
This chapter contains the findings and general analysis from the website content
analysis and faculty and student interviews. A more in depth overall analysis will be
provided in chapter five.
Content Analysis Findings
It was found from the content analysis, that on a possible score from one to ten (1
being lowest and 10 being highest), over 50 percent of California multiple subject
teaching credential programs scored below a five. Only nine percent (2 programs) scored
between a seven and ten (see Table and Figure 1 for details). As hypothesized, the vast
majority of California multiple subject teaching credential programs did not show strong,
or sometimes any, gender awareness and preparation.
The two top programs scoring an eight and a ten had well organized web-based
information. They both made a thorough effort to include gender awareness in multiple
aspects of their programs, including the provision of required courses that highlighted
gender and its relation to education, a fairly balanced ratio of male to female faculty, and
website language utilizing gender. The program scoring an eight also collaborated with
another program that concerned gender and education. The program scoring a ten also
had a faculty member who was specifically interested in gender related studies. The only
measured variable in which both top scoring programs lacked was website imagery
69
portraying a balance of male and female images. Part of this failure is due to the fact that
the program scoring an eight did not have any website images with human subject matter
whatsoever. It was not so much a case of having an unequal program or replacement
with an unequal image depiction, but just a lack of this as a venue for portraying the
equality of their institutionalized values which are still warranted through the other
measured factors.
It is important to note that all scoring is solely based on the materials made
available on each school/program’s website. A program earning a low score from the
content analysis could be due in part to a lack of web based information, though by far
the majority of program websites provided ample information. The only program to earn
a bottom ranking score of one had the most disorganized website, lacked the most
information, and was also run as a half web-based program and half based at small onsite site local facilities. For these reasons, this bottom ranking school was not chosen to
participate in interviews.
Table 1: Program Content Analysis Scores
Program Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Percentage of Programs *
4.5%
18.2%
9.1%
22.7%
22.7%
13.6%
0%
4.5%
0%
4.5%
Number of Programs
1
4
2
5
5
3
0
1
0
1
70
*Rounded to the nearest tenth
Figure 1: Program Content Analysis Scores
Percentage of Programs
25.00%
20.00%
3
4
6
5
3
10.00%
0.00%
2
2
15.00%
5.00%
1
4 5
6
1
8
10
7
8
7
9
9
10
Program Score
All program content analysis measurement factors are displayed in Table 2 below.
As depicted in Table 2, a total of 31.8 percent of all measured programs (7 programs)
offered a required gender related course, while over double, 68.2 percent (15 programs)
offered a required course relating to diversity, social justice, and/or equity topics. In only
a few instances were there programs which offered a non-required gender related course
and such courses were often aimed at undergraduate students preparing for the credential
program.
Of the seven programs that offered a required gender related course, three were
from high scoring programs (6-10). Though one may argue that it is notable that the
majority of programs that offered the gender course were actually from low scoring
programs (1-5), it is critical to acknowledge that these numbers translate into 60 percent
71
of all high scoring programs and only 24 percent of all low scoring programs. Clearly,
there is still a strong pattern that having a required gender related course is correlated
with a higher score for showing gender awareness and preparedness. The fact that twice
as many programs have required courses relating to diversity, social justice, and/or equity
topics supports the idea that teaching credential programs have been socialized and
institutionally mandated to place a more concerted effort and focus on other forms of
diversity excluding gender.
Eight of the programs that included general diversity courses did not include any
courses that dealt specifically with gender diversity. Some program websites may not
have listed gender as part of their online course descriptions, even though the subject
might be briefly discussed in one or more courses. Nonetheless, the online representation
depicts the larger ideology of that program to the community and any such representation
that excludes specific mention of gender education awareness or preparation certainly
suggests that this is not a high priority for that program, or at least not part of their larger
ideology for educating teachers.
Once again we see that the majority of programs that offered courses relating to
diversity, social justice, and/or equity topics were from low scoring programs (1-5), but
this is no surprise since the majority of programs received low scores. It was found that
100 percent of all high scoring programs and 83 percent of all lower scoring programs
included general diversity courses. While it is reassuring to see that the majority of
programs, both high and low scoring, are placing a concerted effort on general diversity
72
awareness and preparedness, it seems that having a focus on general diversity has no
correlating pattern to gender diversity inclusion. Such an inclusion of general diversity
topics is likely due to evolving state program mandates and the general greater push for
general diversity awareness as discussed earlier rather than the actual ideology of these
programs.
Ironically, exactly 50 percent of programs were found to have an equal ratio of
male to female faculty at similar rank. It was found that 27.3 percent of faculty (6
programs) listed that they had a specific interest in gender related studies and that 36.4
percent (8 programs) had interest in general equity and diversity topics. The majority of
those faculty members who listed any interest in the general equity and diversity topics
were also interested in gender studies.
While it was hypothesized that one of the factors that may contribute to a program
showing greater gender awareness and preparedness would be having a faculty member
who was specifically interested in gender studies, results proved no solid relationship.
Programs scored for having a faculty member with a gender related interest were found
ranked at the two, four, six and ten levels and the surprising majority of those programs
received scores of five or less. While for some specific examples it may have had an
impact on why their program had more gender awareness and preparedness, it does not
seem that this is a clear causal relationship. This idea will be expanded further in the
interviews discussed below.
73
On occasion, programs will link themselves with or collaborate with other
programs within their same university. When looking at such collaborative programs, it
was found that only 13.6 percent of credential programs (3 programs) were linked to an
outside program concerning gender focus and 22.7 percent (5 programs) were linked to
an outside program concerning diversity, social justice, and/or equity topics. The large
majority of programs that had a collaborative program concerning gender, diversity,
social justice, and/or equity topics also ranked overall scores in the top half (6-10). It is
not surprising that those programs that are willing to put in the extra effort to include
gender awareness and preparedness into their program socialization, are likewise more
willing to take the extra initiative to find and collaborate with other beneficial programs
for education. Similarly, a program displaying a gender inclusive ideology is more likely
to want to consciously share this ideology with other departments and programs within
their university. As discussed earlier, collaborative programs such as Fairness for All
Individuals through Respect (FAIR) have helped to promote the understanding of social
injustice in the classroom (Krafchick 2007). It is similarly expected that such programs
at a university level would also help to promote a better educated and prepared credential
program.
School/program website images depicted a roughly equal ratio of males to
females 45.5 percent of the time (10 programs). It could possibly be argued that this is
evidence that overall, credential programs may be more visually aware of surface gender
equity than they are aware at a deeper level of gender equity within their curricula and
74
teaching methods. Such a revitalization of visual gender awareness could be due in part
to the greater push credential programs have made over the years concerning race
(Katsarou 2009; Smith 2009). Since one’s race is a visual variable, teachers may have
learned to train themselves for avoiding differential treatment based on initial sight.
As shown in Table 2, website language used to describe the programs utilized
gender terms 22.7 percent of the time (5 programs) and utilized more broad terms of
diversity, social justice, and/or equity 81.8 percent of the time (18 programs).
Interestingly four of the five programs that used gender terms in their website language
describing their program were low scoring (1-5). Three of the four low scoring programs
that discussed gender terms in their program overviews or mission statements provided
no other indicators that they have gender awareness and preparation in their program at
all. Though the content analysis is solely based on web-based content, it seems that some
programs may “talk the talk, but not walk the walk.” In contrast, the limited used of
gender terminology by the other program websites, especially those that scored higher on
the gender scale, may be more of an institutionalized decision rather than one based on
the ideology of those programs, much less the agency of the individuals who organize
them. As the United States has progressed more over the years towards acceptance of
racial and cultural diversity, it seems that the more general “buzz” words like diversity,
social justice, and equity are being used. While we have seen great progress in that
multicultural courses have become required and institutionalized, such instruction tends
to focus more on race, class, and ELL students than on gender (Smith 2009;
75
Katsarou2009). Such increased focus on multiculturalism could account for the high
percentage of programs using the general buzz words in attempts to openly show their
compliance; however, since gender courses are currently not required by California, there
is not nearly as much open discussion of the subject.
Table 2: Content Analysis Measurement Percentages
Content Analysis Measurements of
Programs
Percentage
from Low
(1-5)
Programs
13.6%
45.5%
Required gender related course
Required course relating to diversity,
social justice, and/or equity
Roughly equal ratio of male to female
31.8%
faculty by position
Faculty with gender related interest
18.2%
Faculty with general interest in
22.8%
diversity and equity
Related program concerning gender
4.5%
focus
Related program concerning diversity,
13.6%
social justice, and/or equity
Images showed roughly equal ratio of
36.4%
males to females
Website program language and
18.2%
description relating to gender
Website program language and
59.1%
description relating to diversity, social
justice, and/or equity
*Rounded to the nearest tenth
Percentage
from High
(6-10)
Programs
18.2%
22.7%
Total
Percentage
of Programs
*
31.8%
68.2%
18.2%
50%
9.1%
13.6%
27.3%
36.4%
9.1%
13.6%
9.1%
22.7%
9.1%
45.5%
4.5%
22.7%
22.7%
81.8%
As depicted through the quantitative content analysis, the hypothesis that few
credential programs place a concerted effort on identifying and effectively combating
gender discrimination was very clearly validated. We have seen that only five (22.7
76
percent) of all CSU multiple subject credential programs were able to score above a five
on a scale from one to ten for meeting measurements of program gender awareness and
preparedness. Only seven programs (31.8 percent) claimed to have even one required
course that partially discussed the subject of gender and how it relates to education. If a
program does not even discuss gender in its curricula, it is still failing if only their
mission statements claim they do, that their websites may show equal numbers of males
and females, that they employ an equal number of males and female, and so on. One
cannot fight subtle gender discrimination with subtle preparation.
While the content analysis was able to identify the degree to which a program’s
online content emphasized gender, it was not able to identify or measure if faculty and
students were actually learning or accepting a gender awareness ideology. For this
information we now turn to the interview portion of the study.
Interview Findings
Several low scoring programs (in the bottom 10 percent) that were contacted
for interview requests often not only lacked some information on their website from the
content analysis, but seemed to lack overall program organization. As noted above in the
content analysis, the lower scoring programs’ websites tended to be poorly organized,
referencing less information, and even displaying incorrect information. One school
website incorrectly identified contact phone numbers and a handful of other program
websites listed classes, but offered no explanation or description of the classes. Even
more telling of the lack of structure and organization, was that it was difficult to discern
77
who taught in which credential program, their affiliation with the program, and who the
contact person was for the program; such was the case with one program that was
contacted for possible interviews. Most faculty members did not respond, and the few
who did were not fully aware of whom to contact or a process to follow about the
possibility of such a study. Some messages to department chairs or program advisors
never received a response. With such lack of basic organization and commitment it is not
then surprising that some of these low scoring programs would also be lacking in putting
extra effort to include awareness and preparation on gender issues in education as part of
their curricula.
In complete contrast, the program selected from the top 10 percent for gender
awareness was very well organized and helpful. I received an immediate response from a
faculty member who knew exactly with whom I should speak about the possibility of the
study. That contact person also responded directly to me and was very willing to pass the
information on to his program’s students and also to collaborate a list of student
volunteers with contact information for me. Many of the students contacted me directly,
expressing excitement to participate rather than doing so out of a sense of obligation.
The program contact had a structured plan to ask for faculty volunteers as well. In a short
time the volunteers were gathered and scheduled for interviews. Unlike the search for a
program from the bottom 10 percent to volunteer, I did not have to continue contacting
various programs. The first top 10 percent program volunteered without hesitation.
78
Defining Gender
Concerning a basic definition of what gender is, for Program F (from the bottom
10 percent), there does not seem to be a consistent perception. Half of the faculty from
Program F agreed that gender is solely a biological factor of whether someone is male or
female. In complete opposition, faculty member from Program F, interview number one
(FF1), stated that gender was completely a social construct. And finally, faculty member
from Program F, interview number four (FF4), provided a more individualistic and
psychologically driven definition in that gender is how one chooses to identify oneself.
While it is notable that those faculty members who believed gender could only be
controlled through biology presented a limited viewpoint, what is more critical is that
fostering three distinct viewpoints within one program shows a lack of cohesion and
structure.
While offering a more cohesive perspective, all of the students from Program F
agreed that gender was strictly a biological factor of being male or female, thus
displaying a limited education concerning the diversity of perspectives about gender.
Though the student from Program F, interview number two (SF2), believed gender was
biological, she also believed that gender roles were not, and that they differ by one’s
culture. In a sense, even this student, who had an awareness of social dynamics not
expressed by other students, articulated an inadequate perspective, inasmuch as her
explanation did not supersede the biological construct of gender.
79
In contrast, all faculty members from Program A (from the top 10 percent) agreed
that gender is predominantly a social construction, emphasizing a broader awareness of
gender within academia, and society in general. While half of the students from Program
A identified gender as a biological factor, they also included the additional category—
beyond male and female—of transgender.
Though these students saw gender as
biological, the inclusion of transgender shows more awareness into the subjectivity of
gender and perhaps more openness to a more fluid approach to gender. The other half of
the students from Program A explained gender as different from one’s sex in that gender
is socially constructed and sex is biological. When referring to gender, student interview
number four from Program A (SA4) stated “I think it is more state of mind rather than
your body. I’ve known people or heard and read about people that say in their mind they
are a male and were born a female. Sometimes that happens and so your mind is more
powerful than the physical.” Again, this shows a more fluid approach to gender than
students from Program F, and shows awareness of gender situations outside the status
quo, which tends to emphasize biology.
When faculty and students were probed specifically if they felt that gender were
biological, socially constructed/learned, or some of both, some participants became more
aware of the potential variables and their responses adjusted. For example, all the faculty
members from Program F agreed, to at least some degree, that gender was both biological
and socially constructed, although faculty member from Program F interview number
three (FF3) articulated that biology still took precedence. Students from Program F
80
similarly changed their responses, with the exception of one student (SF4), who believed
that gender was only biological and that it did not matter if one felt differently on the
inside. To this student, the only way one could alter gender would be to undergo surgery.
In Program A, two faculty members (FA1 and FA2) slightly altered their
responses once presented with more specifics. The two faculty members that changed
their answers explained that gender could be some of both biology and social
construction in that gender is based on physiological sex difference, but that it is more
heavily a social construction. The third faculty member (FF3) did not change his answer
and explained that gender is a social construction in all situations. As with the faculty,
once presented with more specifics, all the students from Program A only adjusted their
perceptions, agreeing that gender could be seen as both biological and socially
constructed, but again some students explained that social construction was the larger
factor that determined gender.
When viewing responses after participants were specifically asked if gender were
biological, socially learned/constructed, or some of both, there was a strong pattern of
difference between faculty from Program F and Program A. While some faculty in
Program F changed their response after the further probing, all faculty in Program A were
able to agree that social constructionism plays the strongest role in the definition of
gender both before and after the probing. This is an example of the organizational and
structural differences between the two programs in having an understood, shared
ideology, and even more importantly, an example of the difference in awareness about
81
gender. Faculty members from Program F were not aware of the variables that could
explain gender until someone else presented them directly to them. The students from
Program A—similar to students from Program F—were initially split down the middle,
with half stating gender was biological and half stating it was socially constructed;
however, the difference with Program A was that those students who felt gender was
biological provided more fluid explanations, including examples of transgendered and
transsexual individuals, thereby identifying an awareness of larger social issues and
context for gender, even if they did not define it as socially constructed.
Faculty and students from Program F had mixed opinions about whether gender
was biological or socially constructed and to what degree these factors played a role even
after being prompted further with the second question. In Program A, however, despite
some differing opinions among students with the initial question, after being prompted
with question number two, there was a general consensus among both faculty and
students that gender was more heavily influenced by social construct. It could be argued
that because the faculty in Program A had adopted a similar gender ideology, this more
evenly transferred to the students of Program A. Again, we see that a solid structure and
focus of a program is a vital factor in the gender awareness and preparation of a program.
While having an understanding of gender is vital to gender awareness and
preparation, applying that understanding and utilizing it through aspects of the education
world have much greater potential impact for improving gender equity in our classrooms.
Teacher Impact
82
Knowledge of teacher impact on student learning is important concerning gender
awareness, as it can help focus teachers to be aware of gender when they engage with
students. The majority of the faculty from Program F agreed that teachers play a role of
reinforcement rather than development when it comes to a student’s gender identity, and
that any differential treatment was either warranted, subconscious, or a combination of
the two.
Faculty members from Program F also agreed that teachers come to the
classroom with their own pre-conceived notions and biases, but that more or less, this is
to be expected. Such faculty members were only aware of differential treatment on a
surface level and failed to see the potential negative outcomes that could result from such
treatment and complacency towards combating its perpetuation.
FF3 stated that “A lot of teachers think that girls have more heightened
communication skills. Often they will then cater those types of lesson towards a female
stereotype . . . Teachers often want boys to fit into boxes and act how girls do and they
are often punished for having natural male behaviors.” FF3 had a tone of disdain when
discussing punishment for “natural” male behaviors. This is not unlike the common
debate concerning the girls’ vs. the boys’ crisis.
As discussed earlier, differential
treatment and socialized stereotyped expectations hurt everyone, not just boys or girls.
Once again we see that some of the ideologies held by faculty from Program F contain
potentially negative messages. As researcher Kimmel (2000) explains, “It is not the
school experience that “feminizes” boys, but rather the ideology of traditional
masculinity that keeps boys from wanting to succeed” (2000:7). Credential programs and
83
faculty members that are not caught up in the girls’ vs. boys’ crisis can help to deconstruct such harmful socialized guidelines for masculinity and femininity by
reinforcing the importance of all education.
FF4 stated that she made attempts to briefly introduce equitable discourse
ideology into her courses, and that it is up to the teacher to develop such. Unfortunately
this ideology was not encouraged by the rest of the program structure. While professors
from Program F were able to identify some potentially harmful differential treatment in
the classroom, it was often not realized as harmful and shrugged off as understandable,
subconscious, and as something that can only be reinforced and not changed at the
classroom level. Such a lax ideology could potentially perpetuate these problems through
the students who graduate from Program F.
Half the students from Program F agreed with the faculty from Program F in their
belief that teachers only reinforce gender identity, whereas the other half of the students
felt that teachers actually play a large factor in helping to develop gender identity from
the beginning. Students who felt that teachers could only reinforce gender identity
explained that the family is the factor that develops a child’s actual gender identity.
Students who felt that teachers actually develop gender identity within their classrooms
explained that teachers help to construct an understanding of what is acceptable for boys
and girls. These students strongly highlighted how teachers are viewed as role models
that help shape what children think about the world around them.
84
Concerning differential treatment based on observed gender, most students from
Program F viewed such treatment as acceptable, non-harmful, and sometimes even a
manifestation of common sense. Three of the four students from Program F were able to
identify ways that children are treated differently based on their observed gender. The
fourth student from Program F interview number one (SF1) did not feel any differential
treatment occurred in the classroom.
Students from Program F explained that differential treatment happens, but for
“good” reason. Students explained that teachers speak to girls more sweetly because they
are afraid of hurting their feelings, and that though boys are given more hands on tasks,
teachers only do such because the boys need it to help them pay attention.
They
continued by explaining that girls were lucky to not get as many tasks and that they are
allowed a greater amount of independence in the elementary school system as a result.
Only one specific example was given by the fourth student interviewed from Program F
(SF4), who felt there was some differential treatment that could be viewed as negative.
She explained that teachers will sometimes only call on girls or boys depending on what
type of question is being asked. For example, in math, a teacher she had observed called
on the boys the majority of the time even though girls would also be raising their hands to
answer.
Though the majority of students from Program F were able to identify differential
treatment in the classroom, they justified this behavior by claiming such treatments were
either part of the learning environment or that they had a positive impact on students.
85
Either way, students from Program F did not recognize how such treatment could
potentially be damaging, relying instead on past stereotypes or common sense
assumptions to understand the experience rather than having engaged the topic in an
academic environment to understand its social context.
Responses from Program A faculty members showed a deeper understanding of
the roles teachers can play concerning gender development and the impacts that
differential treatment can have on students. Faculty member from Program A interview
number one (FA1) explained that teachers can reinforce already existing gender
stereotypes or they can challenge them. He explained that it all depends on the structure
of the classroom, program, and school. Furthermore, faculty member from Program A
interview number three (FA3) expressed that classrooms and schools both influence what
it means to be male and female, and how to express that significance. He explained that
they not only teach gender roles, they also teach attitudes and ideologies that are applied
into other aspects of society.
Concerning differential treatment in the classroom, faculty from Program A
seemed to agree that teachers are generally not aware of what they are doing or the
impacts their actions can have. All the faculty members were also able to identify
numerous examples of such treatment without prompting. FA3 summed up sentiments
that all faculty members from Program A discussed when he said the following:
I think that by and large, teachers typically still socialize boys and girls into
traditional gender roles in many ways. I think that just as the teacher performs
86
gender, the teacher also draws out particular performances on the part of children
as well. They engage gender in literature and classroom management or even
sitting boys and girls on different sides of the room, what behaviors they expect,
encourage, or overlook in students.
Great forms of aggression are more
permitting amongst boys than girls. Teachers do, in fact, still reinforce gender
stereotypes and gender ideologies. I think teachers worry about students who are
gender transgressant—students who don’t fit into the mold. Quite honestly, from
my experience I think it is more than worry, but they actually make the students
uncomfortable.
Responses from the students in Program A similarly reflected a deeper level of
understanding demonstrated by their faculty, as opposed to students and faculty from
Program F, in that they discussed an awareness of the unintended implications and
possible harms that could come from teachers influence in gender identity development
and treatment in the classroom.
Program A students explained that unfortunately, some teachers still encourage
boys and girls to stick to stereotypical activities only, which impacts a child’s sense of
gender identity. Students expressed the idea that teachers can either reinforce or critique
stereotypical behaviors and activities, similar to the message produced by the faculty in
their program.
Students in program A witnessed differential treatment during their
classroom observations concerning gender in a range of areas, including playground
equipment choice, acceptability of dominant behavior, color of paper allowed for art
87
activities, acceptability of crying, what curricula teachers push students towards, and how
bullying conflicts were addressed.
Student from Program A interview number two
(SA2) mentioned a classroom where a child who was female biologically dressed like a
tom boy or male. The child wanted to go by her middle name, which was more gender
neutral, but the teacher insisted on calling her by her first, more feminine, name. SA2
also described a situation in a different classroom she had observed, there was a
biological boy who was very effeminate. This boy wanted to be treated like one of the
girls and do their activities, but the teacher kept pushing him to be involved in
stereotypical male activities. Though the boy acted out his gender as more effeminate,
everyone in the class treated him as though his gender identity was masculine simply due
to his observed biological gender. The examples discussed by students in Program A
depicted the awareness students in the program have about the impact teachers can have,
including how many teachers will fight against a student’s personal desires in order to
maintain traditional roles and his/her own biases, without taking into account how
frustrating or damaging this could be to that student.
The large contrasts between faculty and students from Program F and Program A
were that those from Program F viewed teachers as only having the ability to reinforce
the potentially damaging status quo that has already been set in place by society and the
family, whereas Program A viewed teachers as agents with the ability to choose to either
reinforce or challenge the status quo. Members of Program F were able to identify
differential treatment based on observed gender, but viewed most treatment as
88
acceptable, understandable, and generally un-harmful.
The few times differential
treatment was deemed as negative at all, it was dismissed as being subconscious and
therefore, understandable. Members of Program A identified and analyzed differential
treatment as possible sources for negative impact that could be forcing children to abide
by gender rules that may not suit their given identity.
Again, we see that the ideology of faculty is often strongly transferred to their
students. Though one faculty member from Program A (FA3) felt that his students did
not grasp the impact of gender in the classroom as much as he would have liked, it seems
that due to the necessity his program felt for making them aware of this impact, the
message did, in fact, get through to the majority of students. Students from Program A
were able to identify and analyze how pushing children to engage in more traditional
gendered behaviors could stifle a child’s academic interests and overall behavior. They
were also able to identify that allowing boys to dominate in the classroom left girls
silenced, unlike students from Program F, who saw that girls being left alone was a
privilege, fostering independence. As faculty members from Program A explained, most
students and teachers are not aware of how gender role development and treatment can
impact academic performance and all other aspects of society, and that such awareness
and change are left up to the structure of programs, classrooms, and schools.
Training
While much of how a teacher organizes and conducts a classroom is derived from
personal preference, bias, and experience over time, the training and preparation of
89
credential programs can be considered one of the strongest influencing factors for
classroom structure.
Concerning education on bias in the classroom, in general or
specific to gender, all the Program F faculty members identified that they had courses
that discussed topics such as teacher attitudes, prejudices, stereotypes, multiculturalism,
diversity in the classroom, religion, and especially race. All of the faculty members
believed that the topic of gender was briefly mentioned in some of their course work, but
that their program did not spend focused time on gender diversity. For example, FF4
explained that in one of her courses she discusses gender and GLBT studies briefly, but,
like the rest of her colleagues, the majority of her focus is on racial diversity. Professors
explained that gender discussion mainly happened in the undergraduate courses that are
available to those who are doing a combination Bachelor’s and credential program, but
not someone who had just come to their school for only the credential program.
Students from Program F agreed that cultural and ethnic differences were the
main focus in the coursework. Half of the students did not feel that there was any
discussion of gender in any of their courses, highlighting that even if they received
education in the undergraduate coursework, it did not have an impact student awareness.
Students from Program F explained that when gender was mentioned in their graduate
courses, it was usually a simple comment by the professor that was not reflected in the
course work and curricula of their program. SF1 explained that the only section on
gender she remembered was relating to culture, in that there are different cultural norms
and that in some cultures men are held to higher educational expectations than women
90
and that they, as future teachers, should respect such a norm. Though this student
understood the importance of respecting cultures, once again she did not seem to be
aware of the harm that could also come from sending such a message to her future
students: a common pattern seen throughout Program F. And though some faculty
members may have put small, subtle messages about gender into their courses, in the end,
the students did not feel that they had taken away any training concerning the subject
when it was provided almost parenthetically.
All Program A faculty included gender when prompted with the first question
about courses in their program that instruct on avoiding general bias in education,
whereas with Program F, faculty only mentioned gender once they were specifically
asked about the subject. Gender ideology was not even a conscious aspect of Program F.
Faculty members from Program A explained that they have courses on diversity that
discuss culture, race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status and sexual orientation.
Specifically, faculty mentioned their psychology of education, child development, and
diversity courses solidly contain gender related course content and that all three are
required courses. Though the entire faculty believed that their program had a strong
focus on gender, none of the faculty members felt they had completed any significant
educational training on gender that would have created such a focus. In addition to the
enabling structure of the program itself, the knowledge that faculty members in Program
A had concerning gender in education was accredited to their personal agency in
91
conducting studies or reading on such subjects, and sharing that knowledge with their
colleagues.
Half of the students from Program A felt gender was a recognized part of their
coursework training while the other half did not feel there was a significant contribution.
Regardless, unlike students in Program F, who felt they had to search to even find a brief
mention of gender in their program, all of the students from Program A recognized that
they did have some gender training. Even more interestingly, students from Program A
not only received more training, but sought out more information on their own, likely
because of the initial awareness that their program had created. For example, SA2
expressed a desire for her program to include even more gender awareness, by making
their university’s introduction to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender studies (LGBT) a
part of their program. The student explained that she took this course on her own and
that it broadened her overall educational insight.
Student from Program A, interview number 3 (SA3) explained that many of the
teachers in his program are very passionate in emphasizing the need to avoid bias in the
classroom. He mentioned specifically that in a math methods course they discussed how
society has been taught for years that boys are better at math than girls and that we need
to overcome this ideology. This student explained that though he has not had any gender
training outside of his program, he felt that he has gained a lot of insight into it through
life experience as a homosexual. And though both of the students who indicated gender
awareness in their program had outside personal connection or interest to the subject
92
matter, they were also both able to identify specific examples of how the subject was
discussed inside their program. Furthermore, unlike students in Program F, who were not
even aware of gender discussions in the classroom, students form Program A pushed and
wanted more because they had an awareness of the importance of the concepts to their
field.
Though there was disagreement concerning how much Program A focused on
gender, all the students from Program A were able to agree that their coursework solidly
focused on other forms of educational bias. Students related that they felt there was a
larger focus on topics of race, socio-economic status, and culture. Responses from
faculty and students in both programs indicated that there truly is a greater focus on
multiculturalism and race in teaching credential programs today than gender. Though
gender was not completely ignored by Program F, there was a much stronger awareness
and attempt to include gender education preparation into Program A. It is clear that even
if the faculty of a credential program share a structured ideology and incorporate it into
their curricula, students are still left to their own agency when it comes to how fully they
will accept that ideology and if they additionally want to research the topic further. And
just as it can be argued that faculty in Program A used their agency to include gender into
their ideology, it can similarly be argued that faculty in Program F used their agency not
to; passivism is still an action. Though many of the students in both programs felt that
they had not received enough training on gender, it is encouraging to see that some
students from Program A used their agency to research the topic further on their own to
93
become better informed future teachers. It is also possible that those students who
identified their programs as conveying information about gender in education were
already biased towards the subject with their own prior interests; however, when backed
up by information from the faculty and content analysis, the finding cannot be
overlooked.
Though the content of credential programs has the potential to either preserve
damaging status quos or make a large impact on gender discrimination awareness and
combative techniques, classroom materials can also have a significant impact. When
discussing gender stereotyping in the materials and curricula faculty and students are
given or can use in the classroom, all of the faculty members from Program F agreed that
none of the materials they used in their own program courses contained any such
stereotyping. While all faculty members agreed that their program was free of such
gender stereotyping, they all also agreed that some, though to a small degree, could
potentially exist out in the education world outside their credential program. And though
FF4 expressed her desire for teachers to instruct students to monitor the messages in their
textbooks, none of the faculty was able to specifically identify in what ways or forms
they believed gender stereotyping is or could be an issue in materials and curricula today.
It seems that without being able to identify such stereotyping and bias on a faculty level,
it would be impossible, or at least very difficult, to expect their students to be able to
identify and avoid such content.
94
All of the students in Program F agreed that there are no issues concerning gender
stereotyping in materials and curricula. Students identified that gender stereotyping
could occur in the classroom due to an individual teacher’s bias, but not at all from any
materials or curricula.
When specifically prompted, these students agreed that the
education world and credential programs have addressed multiculturalism more in the
last few years to avoid bias, but did not feel that this has been similarly addressed
regarding gender.
Similar to Program F, all the faculty from Program A agreed that there is still
gender stereotyping in some educational materials and curricula, though they do not use
such biased materials in their credential program. All faculty members were also able to
provide various specific examples of such gender stereotyping that still exists and
methods for combating it within their own program. FA3 explained that textbooks about
child development that are used in programs do not address gender issues significantly
enough and that silence is always biased towards preserving the status quo. He explained
that it is for this reason that he brings in outside sources and engages his students in
critical discussions about the topics. FA3 explained that he cannot trust his textbooks to
do this for him. He described most textbooks as “safe” and “vanilla,” but not critically
engaging the issue. They are “safe” in that they will not engage, not that they cannot do
harm.
FA3, in particular, stated that the textbooks written for teacher education students
devotes remarkably little space to gender issues, and that unless their teacher supplements
95
their textbook with other materials students will not get any more understanding of
gender issues than what they came in with.
Not only were all the faculty in Program A aware that gender stereotyping and
bias still exist in teaching materials and curricula, but where faculty from Program F
failed, they were able to provide specific examples and explain how they combat and
instruct about it in their program. While rarely a professor from Program F would
express a desire for new solutions or more awareness, they showed no signs of looking
for those solutions themselves. In contrast, faculty members in Program A have already
found supplemental materials and are staying current on the research topic by reading the
work of Sadker and Sadker.
The majority of students in Program A did not feel that gender stereotyping is an
issue. All of the students explained that they based this decision from the classrooms
they have observed as part of their credential program. Students who did not observe
gender stereotyping in their classrooms still displayed a working knowledge of what to
look for by explaining that the materials on the classroom walls were gender neutral and
mainly student work, that boys and girls read the same books, and that boys are not
discouraged from effeminate behavior.
In contrast to the experiences of her peers, SA2 explained how furious she has
been by some of the examples of gender stereotyping she has seen during her classroom
observations within materials and curricula. The student explained that it is not always
blatant, but that stereotyping does exist in the textbooks and testing materials used today.
96
She then recounted a 6th grade benchmark test that asked how the student would feel at a
tea party and the correct word to choose was "uncomfortable." Another example she
provided concerned a math problem that involved two men and two women.
The
questions asked the student to solve how many possibilities there were to create a couple.
The teacher then explained to the class that they should "of course" assume that only a
man could be with a woman and that a man and another man do not go together. The
teacher explained this in a joking tone and all the students then laughed.
Though not all the students from Program A felt that gender stereotyping exists in
teacher materials and curricula, they did identify things that would be considered as such
if handled differently. This suggests that the students from Program A have been trained
more proficiently to identify gender stereotyping and bias in their classrooms. Once
again we see that having a collective and fully constructed ideology among faculty
members results in a greater chance for students to similarly use their agency to adopt
this structured ideology.
Division of the Sexes
All faculty members from Program F said they were familiar with Title IX; however,
when queried about what Title IX was, the main focus they discussed concerned equity
between gender and sports rather than the wide range of items that Title IX concerns.
Only one of the four faculty participants (FF4) identified that Title IX also concerns
“sexual harassment and any other discrimination based on sex.” When asked if they felt
that Title IX was being enforced, all faculty members agreed that it was enforced, but that
97
it is not perfectly enforced. Faculty members attributed their knowledge of enforcement
to everyday life observations, rather than to any research or published work.
FF3
explained that she felt it was enforced because she often hears her husband, an avid sports
fan, complain that men’s sports are having to fund women’s sports because legally, both
the male and female teams have to exist, but only the men’s teams bring in money
because people are only interested in watching the men’s teams. Once again, such a
simple message from a Program F faculty member of bias, forced tolerance, and
hierarchy of sports by gender was not recognized as potentially harmful if passed on to
credential students.
Though the entire faculty from Program F was familiar with Title IX on at least a
surface level, this knowledge was not translated to the program’s students. Only one of
four students from Program F had ever heard of Title IX. The one student (SF4) who was
familiar only understood it to concern gender equity for sports. This student went on to
explain that the only reason she knew about Title IX was due to an incident when she was
in high school and not from her teaching credential program. She explained that some at
her school were trying to eliminate their gymnastics team to make more room for their
football team. The student went on to explain that the school utilized Title IX to keep the
gymnastics team for her high school.
Not surprisingly, with Program A, it was found that all faculty members were
familiar with Title IX, but unlike Program F, all faculty from Program A were also aware
that Title IX not only concerns sex equity for sports, but concerning equal access to
98
everything concerning education and its programs. All faculty members also agreed that
Title IX has not been, and is still not being fully enforced today.
While the knowledge from faculty in Program F did not transfer to any of their
students, the case was different for Program A. Only one of the four students from
Program A (SA4) was not at all familiar with Title IX. Two of the students (SA1 and
SA2) who were familiar only understood Title IX in its relation to sex equity and sports.
The third student (SA3) had a full understanding of Title IX, which he accredited to his
teaching credential program. Once again Program A students display not only a working
knowledge of further gender issues, but also the ability to apply them further and analyze
the influences such issues can have on a large scale.
Clearly, the understanding of Title IX was much more developed among faculty
and students in Program A than F. Again this could be due to the fact that all faculty
members seemed to have a structured, shared understanding of Title IX and how it relates
to their program’s ideology concerning sex and gender studies. It is common sense that if
faculty members are teaching different or conflicting ideas, the students from that
program will learn, or at least be exposed to, those different or conflicting ideas, thus
finding it more difficult to apply in their education and training.
Though more common before the implementation of Title IX, some educators and
researchers are re-exploring sex segregated classrooms and/or schools. All the Program
F faculty members seemed to have an understanding that sex segregation is generally
implemented to control behavior better and also to promote math and science to girls.
99
None of the faculty members from Program F was in full support of sex segregated
learning environments and one was completely against it. Those who saw some good in
it, but did not necessarily promote the idea, explained that their understanding was that it
has been helpful for some girls, but not as much for boys. They felt that if it did not work
for everyone, it was not a solution.
FF3 spoke of a school district she was in where a pilot of gender segregated
classrooms was implemented. She explained that this was difficult mostly because there
was not enough training for teachers on how instruction may be different and that hardly
anyone wanted to teach an all boy classroom. Two faculty members explained that they
were completely against the idea because "separate is never equal." Despite their feelings
on this, they both then promoted the idea of how well African American boys have been
doing in segregated charter schools. Once again, this shows how much stronger Program
F’s concern was for racial issues over those of gender. FF1 explained that she wished
there were alternative strategies beyond sex segregation and that if there is something that
really works, it would mean that everything has to be re-revaluated.
The majority of students from Program F seemed to only view sex segregated
schools as being a way to avoid hormones distracting students from their work. None of
the students from Program F was in favor of sex segregation. Student from Program F
interview number three (SF3) felt that sex segregated schools were only for females and
that in such schools the only things discussed are women’s studies, gender studies, and
that everything is biased and only presented from the female perspective. SF1 explained
100
that one of the schools she observed through her program had been changed to sex
segregated classrooms. Unfortunately, she only observed in the elective courses which
were still integrated. She explained that in speaking with the teachers of the segregated
classrooms, they felt girls benefited more and that the boys just “goofed off” more.
Faculty members from Program A were open to the possibility of sex segregation,
but felt there was still a lack of research to support it as the ultimate answer. All the
faculty mentioned the benefits of sex segregation in depth—particularly to females
concerning math, science, and participation in the classroom. They also discussed the
potential negative impact of sacrificed social learning that could come as a result of sex
integration.
Faculty members in this program expressed a desire for constant
experimentation with and evaluation of such matters.
The majority of the faculty, echoing some of the faculty in Program F, also
mentioned the research that is currently being conducted with charter schools that
segregate African American males. Faculty member from Program A interview number
two (FA2) mentioned that her program is currently exploring the idea of doing field work
in such a charter school, but that her overall feeling is that some segregated classes are a
much better solution than an entirely segregated school for all classes. FA3 explained
that though the jury is still out for how successful sex segregated education is, one cannot
deny the necessity for females to be able to interact more in their classes. He explained
that in these segregated environments, the females are not competing with males who
101
have already been socialized to be more aggressive in the classroom, and competing with
teachers who are used to hearing mainly male voices.
Though the faculty from Program A had a solid understanding of what current
research says about sex segregation and why it is often promoted or not, this knowledge
and understanding did not appear to be a subject that was passed on to their students. The
majority of students felt that they did not have insight concerning sex segregated
education. SA1 explained that in elementary school she was in a sex segregated language
arts class, but did not know if it benefited anyone. None of the students felt that sex
segregation would be significantly beneficial, and one student even felt that it could be
detrimental. SA2 explained that by segregating by sex, you are also forcing students into
a gender to associate with even more than what is done in an average classroom. She
explained that some boys may be more comfortable having friends who are girls and
participating in stereotypical girl activities, but if such a boy were placed into an all boy
school he might not fit in, not have any friends, have greater difficulty with his gender
identity, and even suffer academically due to this frustration.
While faculty in Program F seemed aware of the surface idea that sex segregation
was to promote comfort in the classroom and encouragement for females into math and
science, their students seemed completely unaware of these concepts. Though some of
these faculty members were aware of the need for alternative strategies and inclusion of
new ideas, they were completely unaware of the gender teaching resources that currently
exist.
102
Similarly, faculty from Program A expressed a desire to have more teacher
education concerning gender issues, but unlike their colleagues in Program F, Program A
faculty were already in the practice of seeking out those additional resources to
supplement their existing program.
Program A faculty also showed a deeper
understanding of why sex segregation is often successful for females.
They also
displayed more interest in taking action through experimentation and field work to try to
resolve some of the educational issues of our day, rather than simply noting that it would
be nice if something existed, waiting for someone else to do the work and bring it to their
attention.
Students from neither program appeared to have a vast knowledge concerning sex
segregated education. Still, there was a distinctly different perspective about sex
segregation among the programs. For example, students in program F, similar to their
faculty, relied on opinion and personal experience in their understanding. In one explicit
example, SF3 referenced a strongly biased assumption that the curricula in sex segretated
institutions was nothing more than harmful feminist propaganda, offering no citation or
reference to any form of research to back up the claim. In contrast, students in program
A tended to be more rational in their perception about gender segregation. Despite the
fact that students from Program A did not feel like they had a solid understanding of sex
segregation, SA2 expressed how she could apply her understanding of gender and gender
identity relating to the classroom to issues of segregation. Her reasoning showed a more
sophisticated understanding of the relationship between gender identity and academic
103
performance, relying on academic findings in general areas of gender to understand the
issue.
As discussed earlier, one of the main reasons some promote sex segregated
education is due to the performance differences found between girls and boys. Studies
have found that while girls tend to achieve higher grades on their report cards, boys tend
to achieve higher scores on high stakes tests (Jackson 1998). Half the faculty members
from Program F stated that they were not familiar with such a phenomenon and half
stated that they were. Faculty members who claimed to be aware of the phenomenon
explained that girls have a greater desire to please others through compliance in the
classroom and by completing their homework, which teachers value and reward through
grades. FF3 was the only faculty member to posit a reason for why boys would score
higher on high stakes tests. She stated that “Teachers often underestimate how much
boys are taking away without jumping through the hoops. They may master, but not be
compliant. My son, husband, and boys in general have more of a memory for facts and
figures and girls aren’t as socially constructed for that.” Though it is encouraging that at
least one faculty member was able to determine that part of performance differences can
be attributed to different social constructions, professor FF3 posited the differences in a
deterministic manner that limits potential changes in the disparity of test scores. Simply,
faculty from program F tend to promote the understanding that through limited awareness
or passive acceptance, girls will continue to do poorly in standardized test scores.
104
Students from Program F followed a similar pattern as their faculty. Only one
student from Program F (SF1) claimed to be aware of girls achieving higher grades and
boys scoring higher on high stakes tests and a second student stated that she was only
aware of girls receiving higher grades. Regardless, students in Program F relied on
gender stereotypes to explain differences, i.e. that compliance is something highly valued
by teachers, and that girls tend to be more concerned with compliance in academics than
boys. For example, SF3, while trying to explain this disparity in greater detail, was still
reliant on stereotypical assumed differences between boys and girls. As he stated,
“Maybe men are just better at test taking in general. And boys can maybe try to figure
out a potential solution to a problem they don’t know how to do and girls only know how
to do to the specific types of questions they learned how to answer in the classroom, but
boys can apply their knowledge to new problems.” Ultimately, students in Program F
referenced limited knowledge about performances differences, relying on stereotypes to
explain these differences, offering little depth in the explanation, much less any social
context.
Unlike Program F, all of the faculty members from Program A related their
responses more strongly back to research they have reviewed, rather than to personal
speculation. For example, FA2 explained that she was very aware of grade versus test
score differentials but thought that while there are statistically significant differences in
some academic performance of males versus females, such differences are not
particularly consequential.
105
Though the majority of faculty members in Program A explained that they were
not fully aware of the reported disparity between girls' grades and boys' test scores, it was
clear that they had an awareness that classroom dynamics and our education system in
general could account for such outcomes. FA3 explained that girls generally perform
better on a daily basis inside the classroom, following instruction, and sitting quietly for
the teacher, something he coined as “braids in school.” He then began to discuss patterns
in standardized testing and noted that roughly twice as many girls take AP tests in
English and foreign languages as boys do. FA3 explained that though both boys and girls
take AP tests, the subjects they take them in are still very gender divided. He stated that
differences in grades result from a combination of student self-concept and teacher
expectation or bias. Concerning testing, he felt that differences in scores were a result of
student attitudes towards testing itself, which are often socially ascribed by gender. He
explained that there is often anxiety associated with testing that mainly hurts girls’ scores.
While faculty members from Program F seemed unprepared, providing answers
based on guesses, personal experiences, and brain storming at that very moment,
responses from faculty in Program A reflected a working knowledge of research on the
subject matter and the ability to apply it along with their own experiences. This is
another example of the great awareness and preparation differences found between the
two programs.
Students from Program A—similarly to their faculty members—while providing
mixed and varied answers, all displayed a working knowledge of some gender research in
106
their comments.
Comments by SA2 offer a good summary about the differences in
academics by sex as discussed by students in Program A. She explained how there is still
often a “message” in education concerning specific subjects, i.e. boys do better in math
and science and girls excel in reading and writing. She explained how teachers can
produce these biased messages and reinforce them to students. She felt that sometimes
girls will hear such a message about girls not doing well in math, or that it isn’t “cool” for
girls to be good at math, science, or testing and as a result, they will pretend not to be
good at the subject, or just not try at all. Furthermore, SA2 explained that boys can feel
pressured to focus more on sports instead of their homework because school is not as
"cool." Similarly, she suggested that there are societal messages to boys to tell them that
they are not good in reading or writing. What is expressed through SA2’s comments is a
perspective of teacher and school impact on student experience and education. In
contrast, students in Program F tended to rely on these same “messages” in their
explanation, but more so as an absolute, not as a social construction. .
Overall, while faculty and students from both Program F and A presented a
variety of answers concerning performance disparities between boys and girls, Program
A faculty and students were more in touch with the explanations posited by the
researchers who explored the phenomenon of grade/test disparity between the sexes, as
well as applying a deeper analysis and awareness. This seems to fall in line with overall
perspectives in Program A and F concerning gender issues, as faculty and students in
Program A rely more on research and social context to explain phenomena, contrasting
107
with faculty and students in Program F, who tend to rely more on personal experience
and social opinion.
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Based on the findings, subtle—yet potentially harmful—gender discrimination
exists in California multiple subject teaching credential programs. With over 50 percent
of programs identified as being weak in gender awareness and preparation, and only nine
percent of the programs recognizedas being high in gender awareness and preparation,
my hypothesis—that few credential programs place a concerted effort on identifying and
effectively combating gender discrimination—was fully validated.
Overall, while the agency of individual faculty is an important contributor
towards gender ideology, without the support and encouragement of a structured and
organized program, as evidenced in Program F, individuals can only have so much
impact.
Other research has stressed the importance of having a supported philosophy
among teachers and administrators concerning race awareness and preparation (Smith
2009), which this study only further confirms with respect to gender. Even if the faculty
members share a generally enlightened gender ideology, unless that understanding is
systematically built into the structure and curriculum of the program in question,
unintended gender bias is likely to be perpetuated.
108
When faculty members are united through a structured program and a focused,
informed ideology, students are more likely to both understand and reproduce that same
ideology. Program A was structured to include gender education in its curricula and
included faculty members who were individually committed to a shared gender ideology,
thereby contributing to a more sophisticated understanding of gender issues among their
students. For example, students from Program A were able to identify that allowing boys
to dominate in the classroom left girls silenced.
When that structure and united front are missing from a program, students are
then left to call upon whatever gender lessons, observations, or biases they may have
developed through their personal lives. Faculty members in Program F were unaware of
the need for further inclusion of gender into the structure and curricula of their program,
thereby unwittingly contributing to a less enlightened student cohort.
As a result, there was a common pattern of students from Program F providing
simple answers, and sometimes off hand guesses during interviews. For example,
students from Program F saw that girls being left alone was a privilege to be seen as
independence—a misplaced conclusion that far too many educators make (Sadker and
Sadker 1995). In contrast, students from Program A based their responses more often on
more fluid and thoughtful considerations of gender, often based on research and
predominantly from their program training.
Not only were students from Program A more aware of gender issues in the
classroom, they were also more aware of the potential harm that could arise from such
109
subtle gender discrimination, bias, or lack of proper training.
Observations from
participants in Program A supported the findings of Smith and Hung (2008) in that the
reason we see some gender differences in academic achievement is due to bias and
cultural influences in the classroom and not ability. As observed in classrooms by Sadker
and Sadker (1995), gender biases are more likely to be produced or perpetuated by
teachers who are unaware of such biases and their potential negative impact. Similarly, it
could be deducted that credential programs, administrators, and faculty members who are
unaware of gender biases in education would also be more likely to produce and
perpetuate such damaging stereotypes.
As discussed earlier, most educators and administrators do not share the same
understanding and awareness of subtle, subconscious, teacher bias and influence created
through differential treatment based on gender, and how that influence can perpetuate
stereotypes and negatively influence a student for life (Sadker and Sadker 1995; Sadker
et al. 2009; Hamilton, Blumenfeld, Akoh and Miura 1991; Fang 1996; Shepardson and
Pizzini 1992). However, in the case of Program A, teachers and administrators did share
a common awareness about having a gender ideology. Program A, as a whole, made an
intentional effort to include structured gender discussion into their curricula. In contrast,
in Program F, faculty members were not united structurally concerning gender issues, and
were subsequently left only to the capabilities of their personal agency and commitment
to teach about gender.
110
With very few exceptions, due to these differences in program cohesion of
structure and ideology, there were notable variations between Program F and Program A.
For example, all the faculty members from Program A regularly displayed a working
knowledge of current research concerning gender in education, whereas only one or two
faculty members from Program F referred to current research and studies on occasion.
As a result, faculty in Program A were generally able to reach and teach a consensus on
their ideologies, whereas faculty in Program F were often in disagreement and sometimes
even used potentially harmful ideologies as grounds for their classroom lessons. This is
potentially due to the structural and organizational differences between the two programs.
Even from the beginning, while faculty members in Program F were split on the
very definition of gender, all faculty members in Program A were able to agree that social
constructionism plays the strongest role in the definition of gender. This is an example of
the organizational and structural differences between the two programs in having an
understood shared ideology. If a program cannot even agree on a simple definition of
gender, it is no wonder why it would meet great difficulty in combating gender
discrimination. Time and time again, the study showed that when faculty members did
not share an ideology, neither did their students. And though it was encouraging to hear
that one faculty member from Program F (FF4) attempted to incorporate some gender
discussion into her classes, her efforts were so small that they had no lasting impact on
her students.
111
Students from Program A regularly reported that their faculty members were not
only knowledgeable, but passionate about including gender in their credential program
courses. Students seemed to care and be aware of gender discrimination because their
faculty members and program did as well. Findings showed that having a collective and
fully constructed ideology, or at least awareness among faculty members resulted in a
greater likelihood for students to similarly use their agency to adopt this structured
ideology. As explained by Smith (2009), the success or failure of education is dependent
upon the effective preparation of teachers and administrators. Furthermore, the success
or failure of those teachers and administrators is heavily dependent upon having a
structured program that allows for and encourages gender awareness and preparation
among its faculty.
Faculty from Program A expressed a desire for all teacher education programs to
include more training for gender issues.
They understood the vital importance of
promoting both further research and training for the benefit of all society. Faculty from
Program A expressed their distress in the fact that most of their own students were quite
unsophisticated concerning gender issues and had never considered the topic of gender in
education until it was brought forward in their program. And even though Program A is
leaps and bounds ahead of the majority of California teaching credential programs
concerning gender awareness and preparation, the faculty in this program still expressed
a desire to learn more for themselves as well. This yearning for more knowledge was
also reflected in their students.
112
As discussed earlier, gender discrimination is greatly influenced by the
institutionalization and socialization of various facets in our society, and in this case that
facet is in the form of a teaching credential program. While some programs have been
socialized through state mandates to include multiculturalism and more general diversity
subject matter, no such institutionalized socialization on the behalf of gender diversity
has taken place (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing 2007; 2009). When
the larger institutionalized mainstream social ideologies are not challenged, we merely
perpetuate the status quo, which in the case of Program F includes subtle gender
discrimination.
While it is true that institutionalized facets of socialization have a tremendous
impact on gender discrimination, institutionalization theories are missing one key factor:
agency. Although always influenced by institutionalism, humans are thinking actors who
are capable of making active decisions outside of those set by the main institution
(Markstrom and Hallden 2008). We see such agency being used through the programs
that have chosen to structure gender awareness and preparation socialization into their
ideologies.
Put more simply, the best program in the world will only be partially
effective if it is not staffed by faculty who are committed to progressive ideals.
On the other hand, though the agency of individual faculty was found to be an
important contributor towards gender ideology, without being coupled with a structured
program, those individual faculty members had limited impact. For example, FF4 often
suggested in her responses that gender awareness was important and that she attempted to
113
include limited information on the topic. Unfortunately, this ideology was not transferred
to her colleagues. It is vital that a successful program not only have individuals who will
use their agency to harbor positive gender ideologies, but also that the programs
themselves have clear organization and goals that allow individual agency to have a
greater impact. As important as individual agency is, it is the combination of the two that
result is the greatest chance for success.
While it was clear from the example of Program F that agency without structure is
very limited, one must wonder if structure without agency would similarly be stunted in
its potential. A study done by Athanases and Martin (2006) that reviewed California
teaching credential program suggests that such programs have a greater potential for
effectiveness in general educational equity awareness and preparation when program
coherence and integration across courses, fieldwork, and ideology are all present.
Though an institutionalized structure may present an idea, individuals must also evoke
their agency to effectively introduce new ideas to their students.
Where Do We Go From Here?
While this study has identified a potentially significant attributor to the problem
of gender discrimination in our classrooms, due to the small size of Program A and the
lack of organization of Program F, it was difficult to obtain a large number of
participants. Future studies with larger populations would result in more generalizable
findings.
Though this study only focused on California multiple subject teaching
credential programs, it would be naïve to assume that such findings would not result
114
similarly in California single subject teaching credential programs, as well as programs
from other states in the USA. Further research would be needed to verify such results
and to determine the magnitude at which our nation is “blissfully” still unaware of the
various issues related to gender bias.
Aside from the unfeasible task of having faculty and administration from the top
nine percent of schools provide mentoring to the remaining California programs, how do
we start improving?
Though changing state mandated requirements will likely be
necessary down the road, such implementation takes time. Effort should also be made to
reinstate much of the lost, forgotten, and sometimes purposefully ignored power of Title
IX.
Tremendous resources already exist that could easily be implemented into any
teaching credential program.
Anthologies such as Gender in the Classroom:
Foundations, Skills, Methods, and Strategies Across the Curriculum (Sadker and Silber
2007) could serve as a very easy way to introduce the history of gender in education and
the struggles that it still faces and how one can implement ways to improve these issues
within one's own classroom.
Each chapter is followed by numerous activities that
teachers can include in their own lesson plans. Not only would using a broad resource
such as this provide the what and make teachers more aware of the issue at hand, it could
also provide them with the how to do something about it.
115
Conclusion
In agreement with my content analysis findings, other researchers have found that
recent efforts have been made in many credential programs to include courses and
curricula concerning equity and avoiding differential treatment based on race (Katsarou
2009; Smith 2009). The majority of California multiple subject teaching credential
programs, similar to Program F, have in fact made this a primary focus.
Though
race/ethnicity issues are certainly vital, their importance does not overshadow the
necessity for awareness of other issues such as gender. By becoming more aware of
gender discrimination, we will be able to better understand all other forms of
discrimination that we face today (Connolly 1994). Just as racism has been created
through prior institutions from earlier history, modern socialization and programs to
promote diversity and understanding have diminished racism in society (Smith 2009;
Katsarou 2009). Gender issues can—and should—be countered by emphasizing gender
discrimination in our programs and that can best be accomplished through a well-focused
and organized program (such as Program A), which is staffed by faculty who are
personally committed to educating a new generation of students about the dangers of
gender bias.
Results from this study showed that though much improvement has been made
concerning gender discrimination in the classroom concerning children’s reading books
and classroom displays, subtle—potentially harmful—gender lessons still exist within
teacher/student interaction, gender ascribed games and toys, curricula and testing
116
materials, and equal access to full participation in all aspects of the classroom. Though
this finding may seem somewhat disheartening, regarding the current state of our
education system, having identified the teaching credential program as a possible
significant contributor to the problem of gender discrimination in our classrooms, clear,
purposeful steps can and should now be taken to ameliorate the situation.
As long as teachers in the majority of California teaching credential programs
continue to lack awareness of the problems discussed above, and do not benefit from
concrete interventions specifically designed to help them combat sex discrimination, that
discrimination and negative gendered messages will continue to be transmitted
unwittingly into future classrooms. Regardless of how well-meaning they might be,
teachers who are not educated about inappropriate gender differences will likely continue
to perpetuate them. Teacher education training is profoundly influential in preparing
teachers to advocate for equity (Katsarou 2009; Anthanases and Martin 2006).
Studies concerning race education have similarly suggested colleges of education
have been complicit in maintaining educational inequalities for too long and that teacher
preparation and curricula need to first eliminate damaging stereotypes and biases for
change to happen in classrooms, which will in turn, influence communities and larger
social movements (Katsarou 2009). If the perpetuation of stereotypes related to race and
ethnicity is a problem (and it most certainly is), then shouldn't other forms of bias,
including gender, be similarly confronted?
117
If we give teachers a proper education about gender discrimination, its history in
education, and methods for breaking down this discrimination and negative socialization
in their future classrooms, every member of society will potentially benefit. Teaching
credential programs truly are the foundation from which classroom etiquette and methods
are born and we must harness that function for the best possible outcome. While our
society’s general consciousness with respect to gender discrimination has likely been
raised, our personal and collective commitment to do something about it may not have
been. It is precisely for this reason that our nation's teacher preparation programs should
be updated to include conscious, specific interventions that will arm future teachers with
the knowledge and will to recognize, confront, and then ameliorate gender
discrimination.
118
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Sara, Anne Cantor, Helen Grady and Pam Hill. 1997. "Classroom Talk: Coed
Classes that Work for Girls." 20(1):41-46.
Athanases, Steven Z. and Kathleen J. Martin. 2006. “Learning to advocate for education
equity in a teacher credential program.” Teaching and Teacher Education 22:
627-646.
Babbie, Earl. 1986. Observing Ourselves: Essays in Social Research. Long Grove,
Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
Birdsell, Jo and Marjorie A. Suckow. 2009. “A Cross-Cultural Comparison: Teacher
Preparation Programs in Gujarat, India and California, United States.” Delta
Kappa Gamma Bulletin 75(4):5-10.
Bradford, Kathy J. 2008. "An Androcentric Gauge: Portrayals of Gender Relations in
Elementary Social Studies Knowledge." Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Sociology, The University of Western Ontario, Canada.
Buss, David M. 1998. “Sexual Strategies Theory: Historical Origins and Current Status –
The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality.” The Journal of Sex
Research 35(1):19-31.
Cable, Kelly E. and Terry E. Spradlin. 2008. Single-Sex Education in the 21st Century.
Education Policy Brief. 6(9):1-12. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy,
Indiana University.
119
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 2009. “Single Subject Teaching
Credential Requirements for Teachers Prepared in California.” California
Commission
on
Teacher
Credentialing,
Retrieved
April
20th
2009
(http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/requirements.html).
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 2007-2008. “Appendix A-1: Pass-Rate
Data for Regular Teacher Preparation Programs.” Annual Report Card on
California
Teacher
Preparation
Programs.
Retrieved
May
3rd
2010
(http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/TitleII_2007-2008_AnnualRpt.pdf).
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 2007. “Multiple Subject Teaching
Credential Requirements for Teachers Prepared in California.” California
Commission
on
Teacher
Credentialing.
Retrieved
April
20th
2009
(http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/requirements.html).
Cognard-Black, Andrew J. 1997. "Will they Stay, Or Will they Go?: Occupational
Mobility among Male Elementary School Teachers in the United States."
American Sociological Association Conference Paper.
College Board. 2006. “College Board Announces Scores for new SAT with Writing
Section.” College Board Press Releases. Retrieved November 14th 2009
(http://www.collegebaord.com/press/releases/150054.html).
Connolly, Paul. 1994. "All Lads Together?: Racism, Masculinity and Multicultural/AntiRacist Strategies in a Primary School." International Studies in Sociology of
Education 4(2):191-211
120
Crocco, Margaret S. and Andrea S. Libresco. 2007. “Citizenship Education for the 21st
Century—A Gender Inclusive Approach to Social Studies. Pp. 109-164 in Gender
in the Classroom, edited by D. Sadker and E. S. Silber.
Cullen, Lisa Takeuchi. “Show Us Our Money: Not knowing what your colleagues make
can hurt you. A modest proposal for closing the paycheck gap.” Time Magazine
May 12, 2008.
Dwyer, Carol A. 1976. “Test Content and Sex Differences in Reading.” The Reading
Teacher 29(8):753-757.
Entwisle, Doris R., Karl L. Alexander, and Linda S. Olson. 2007. "Early Schooling: The
Handicap of being Poor and Male." Sociology of Education 80(2):114-138.
Evans, Lorraine and Kimberly Davies. 2000. "No Sissy Boys here: A Content Analysis of
the Representation of Masculinity in Elementary School Reading Textbooks." Sex
Roles 42(3-4):255-270.
Fang, Zhihui, 1996. “A Review of Research on Teacher Beliefs and Practices.”
Educational Research 38(1):47-65.
Farr, Roger, Michael A. Tulley, and Deborah Powell. 1987. “The Evaluation and
Selection of Basal Readers.” The Elementary School Journal 87(3):267-281.
Gagnon, Claudette. 1998. "Dynamics of Academic Success of Primary-Level Females: A
New Interactionist Approach." RecherchesFeministes (1):19-45.
121
Hall, Cathy W., Nichelle B. Davis, Larry M. Bolen, and Rosina Chia. 1999. "Gender and
Racial Differences in Mathematical Performance." Journal of Social Psychology
139(6):677-689.
Hamilton, Mykol, David A. Anderson, Michelle Broaddus, and Kate Young. “Gender
stereotyping and under-representation of female characters in 200 popular
children’s picture books: A twenty-first century update.” Sex Roles 55 (2006), pp.
757-65.
Hamilton, V. L., Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, Hiroshi Akoh, and Kanae Miura. 1991. "Group
and Gender in Japanese and American Elementary Classrooms." Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology 22(3):317-346.
Hannah, G. (2003). Reaching Gender Equity in Mathematics Education. Educational
Forum, 67, 204-214.
Hoffman, John L. and Katie E. Lowitzki. 2005. “Predicting College Success with High
School Grades and Test Scores: Limitation for Minority Students.” The Review of
Higher Education 28(4):455-474.
Hughes, Teresa A. 2007. “The Advantages of Single-Sex Education.” National Forum of
Educational Administration and Supervision Journal 23(2):1-10.
Ichino, Andrea and Enrico Moretti. 2009. “Biological Gender Differences, Absenteeism,
and the Earnings Gap.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,
American Economic Association (1)1:183-218.
122
Jackson, D. 1998. “Breaking out of the Binary Trap: Boys’ Underachievement,
Schooling, and Gender Realtions.” Chapter 5 in Failing Boys? Issues in Gender
and Achievement, edited by D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey, and J. Maw. Florence,
KY: Taylor & Francis Inc.
Jacobson, Jennifer A. 2008. "The Gendered Processes of Hidden Curriculum and Cultural
Capital within Two Teacher Preparation Programs." Ph.D dissertation,
Department of Sociology, Arizona State University.
Jaunch, Lawrence R., Richard N. Osborn, and Thomas N. Martin. 1980. “Structured
Content Analysis of Cases: A Complementary Method for Organized Research.”
Academy of Management Review 5(4): 517-525.
Katsarou, Eleni. 2009. “Reading African-American Literature to Understand the World:
Critical Race Praxis in Teaching Preparation.” Ethnicity and Education
12(2):253-266.
Kimmel, Michael. 2000. “What About the Boys?” WEEA Digest. Newton, MA:
Women’s Education Equity Act Resource Center.
Koch, Janice. 2007. “A Gender Inclusive Approach to Science Education.” Pp. 205-223
in Gender in the Classroom, edited by D. Sadker and E. S. Silber.
Krafchick, Jennifer L. 2007. "Teaching Social Justice: Developmental Considerations."
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Human Development And Family Studies,
Colorado State University.
123
Levy, Gary D., Adrienne L. Sadovsky, and Georgene L. Troseth. 2000. "Aspects of
Young Children's Perceptions of Gender-Typed Occupations." Sex Roles 42(1112):993-1006.
MacMillan, Donald L., Frank M. Gresham, Maria F. Lopez, and Kathleen M. Bocian.
1996. "Comparison of Students Nominated for Prereferral Interventions by
Ethnicity and Gender." The Journal of Special Education 30(2):133.
Markstrom, Ann-Marie and GunillaHallden. 2008. “Children’s Strategies for Agency in
Preschool.” Children & Society 23(2):112-122.
Ma, Xin. 2008. “Within-School Gender Gaps in Reading, Mathematics, and Science
Literacy.” Comparative Education Review 52(3): 437-460.
Mulkey, Lynn M. 1988. "An Empirical Investigation of Attitudes Toward Women in
Science." American Sociological Association Conference Paper.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. 2007. “2007 Report Card.” Retreived
April 19th 2010 (http://nationalreportscard.gov/).
Oliveira, Luciana C. and Steven Z. Athanases. 2007. Graduates’ Reports of Advocating
for English Language Learners.” Journal of Teacher Education 58: 202-215.
Papastergiou, Marina. 2008. “Are Computer Science and Information Technology Still
Masculine Fields? High School Students’ Participations and Career Choices.”
Computer and Education 51(2): 594-608.
124
Ray, Susan A. 2008. “Standardized Tests as Measures of Achievement: Does the High
School Assessment Program (HSAP) Measure Up?” Online Submission,
Retrieved from ERIC database on April 19th 2010.
Risman, Barbara J. 2004. “Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with
Activism.” Gender and Society 18(4):429-450.
Rosenthal, Robert and Lenore Jacobson. 1992. Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher
Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development.
Vermont: Crown House
Publishing Limited.
Rourke, Liam and Terry Anderson. 2004. “Validity in Quantitative Content Analysis.”
Educational Technology Research and Development 52(1):5-18.
Sadker, David, Myra Sadker, and Karen Zittleman 2009. Still Failing at Fairness: how
Gender Bias Cheats Girls and Boys in School and What we can do about it. New
York: Scribner.
Sadker, Myra and David Sadker. 1995. Failing at Fairness: How our Schools Cheat
Girls. New York: Touchstone.
Sadker, David and Ellen S. Sibler. 2007. Gender in the Classroom: Foundations, Skills,
Methods, and Strategies Across the Curriculum. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Sax, Leonard. 2005. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know
about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. New York: Doubleday.
125
Sax, Linda. J. (1994). “Mathematical self-concept: How college reinforces the gender
gap.” Research in Higher Education 35(2):141-166.
Sexton, Patricia. 1969. The Feminized Male: Classrooms White Collars, and the Decline
of Manliness. New York: Random House.
Shepardson, Daniel and Edward Pizzini. (1992). “Gender Bias in Female Elementary
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Scientific Ability of Students.” Science Education
76(2):147-153.
Smith, Cary Stacy and Li-Ching Hung.
2008.
“Stereotype Threat: Effects on
Education.” Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal 11(3):
243-257.
Smith, Earl B. 2009. “Approaches to Multicultural Education in Preservice Teacher
Education: Philosophical Frameworks and Models for Teaching.” Multicultural
Education 16(3):45-50.
Stein, Marcy, Carol Stuen, Douglas Carnine, and Roger M. Long. 2001. “Textbook
Evaluation and Adoption Practices.” Reading and Writing Quarterly 17:5-23.
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. “Special Emphasis
Observances: Women’s History Month.” The U.S. National Archives and Records
Administration.
Retrieved
January
(http://www.archives.gov/eeo/special-observances/#mar).
15th
2010
126
Tindall, Anna T. 2007. "Case Studies of Women in Academia: Challenges,
Accomplishments, and Attributions to Success."Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Sociology and Social Work, Mississippi State University.
Tyson, Harriet and Arthur Woodward. 1989. “Why Students aren’t Learning very much
from Textbooks.” Education Leadership 47(3):14-17.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings. 2006.
“Median Weekly Earnings of full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed
Occupation and Sex.” Table 39.
Van Houtte, Mieke. 2004. “Why Boys Achieve less at School than Girls; The Differences
Between Boys’ and Girls’ Academic Culture.” Educational Studies 30(2):159173.
Warmoth, Arthur. 1998. “Education and the Collaborative Construction of Social
Reality.” Working Draft, Department of Psychology, Sonoma State University.
Women on Words and Images. 1975. Dick and Jane as Victims: Sex Stereotyping in
Children’s Readers. New Jersey: Women on Words and Images.
Xu, Yonghong Jade. 2008. “Gender Disparity in STEM Disciplines: A Study of Faculty
Attrition and Turnover Intentions.” Research in Higher Education 49(7): 607624.
Zittleman, Karen. 2007. “Teachers, Students, and Title IX: A Promise for Fairness.” Pp.
73-107 in Gender in the Classroom, edited by D. Sadker and E. S. Silber.