Gender and Education

Overall, I found it pretty hard to find much meaningful information about gender inequality and education. Most of the information online is either about third world countries, or higher education in the United States. Obviously, girls are disadvantaged when it comes to education in developing countries, but does the United States have the same problem?

I did non-stop research for about half an hour already, and I did not find much meaningful information regarding the United States. I only found one article that focused on gender in American K-12 classrooms.
Here's a short summary of the article:

• There are fundamental differences between the learning capabilities of girls and boys. The reasons for these differences are unclear, although biology is one of the factors considered. Regardless of the possible causes of these differences, educators must focus on equity, not equality.
  
• Girls, on average, receive higher grades than boys throughout middle and secondary schools.
  
• Teachers tend to give boys more attention since they are typically more aggressive and are more likely to have behavioral problems.
  
• Boys are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD.
• Since girls get less attention, they get less positive or negative feedback from teachers.
  
• Stereotypes exist regarding what subjects are considered "girl" subjects and "boy" subjects.
• Despite the perceived stereotypes, gender gap in mathematics and science is closing (regarding enrollment and grades). It looks that this article was written a while ago, so I think the statistics are probably even more in favor of girls nowadays.
  
• Girls still lag behind boys however, when it comes to high stake standardized test scores.
  
• Females tend to do better in the humanities.
• Males tend to excel in technology related classes.
  

For the most part, I think the points this article has made are all true, although in my experience I have not noticed large gender gaps between the sciences and the humanities. In my high school, most of the students in honors classes were girls. Once again, in my experience, although there were more girls than boys in honors classes, the boys tended to do better on the SAT's.

"Between Barack and a Hard Place" Tim Wise

Whenever we do these blogposts, I always tend to write about the things I disagreed with. Its just that much more interesting...

"We are nowhere closer to a post racial society".
Although I agree that we still do not live in a society where skin color is not a factor, I think saying that we are "nowhere" closer is a bit exaggerated. Attitudes have changed drastically since Brown vs. Board of Education, and compared to that time, many new opportunities have been open to blacks. In fact, in the eyes of the law black people have all the same opportunities as white people. And that is all that is meant by "equality". Equality is never truly equal, because people cant ever all be equal. All "equality" promises to provide is equal opportunity, and we have certainly achieved that in this country. And like I already said, attitudes have come a long way as well. Racist attitudes have definitely went down, and I think its really reflected in our class discussions. Everyone in our class has favorable attitudes towards people of color, and in my experience its been like that everywhere - at my school, on TV, etc.

Tim Wise also said that the standards for a black president are very high, while the standards for white presidents are rather low. As if any of our presidents have been idiots...He mentioned a bunch of times about how Bush is an idiot. He was definitely playing of the popular opinion that Bush is an idiot. Bush graduated from Yale University and the Harvard Business school. Maybe he didn't turn out to be a great president (circumstances, mistakes) but he is certainly a good businessman. He is definitely just as well qualified as Barack Obama. And that was Tim Wise's best example of an "idiot president". Yes, its true that a black person must be very well qualified to be the president. But so does a white person. And please don't bring up the past, with different standards, and tell me that George Washington barely finished grade school.

The "stereotype argument" was a little "circular" in my opinion. I am sure that Tim Wise would agree that most black people are still not "equal" with white people (in regards to living standards, salaries etc). In fact, proving how black people are still worse of than white people is Tim Wise's entire agenda. If it wasn't true, Tim Wise would not have written his book. However, In the polls, when white people were asked whether they think that most blacks are poorer and less educated and answered yes, Tim Wise was astonished at the negative stereotypes Americans harbor towards blacks! Of course, blacks are less educated. Proving that blacks are stuck in bad schools is the whole point of this class. And I do no judge the people who think that poverty is due to laziness. Like I already said, this country does, by law, offer all the same opportunities to everyone. Most people just don't go as far to examine the complicated intangible factors as to why blacks might be poorer when answering these polls. Stereotypes exist for a reason. They exist because they are often true. And these "negative stereotypes" are really not all that negative when you look at it this way.

And here is a really interesting article about an Asian American about pushing diversity too far. Its kind of the opinion that I hold, but if I wrote this article, I would definitely be judged for being oblivious, or even racist. So its nice that it actually comes from the mouth of a minority student.

In the Service of What? The Politics of Service Learning by Joseph Kahne and Joel Westheimer

This article offers two views of service learning: one based on altruism and the other on critical and pro-active thinking.

"Mr. Johnson's curriculum included only minimal attention to any systematic analysis of the ills his students were helping to alleviate."
This kind of approach focuses on altruism and individual acts of kindness. It helps the students be able to relate to underprivileged members of their communities and fosters the development of self-esteem. Although this approach has many benefits and helps create more caring and involved citizens, Kahne and Westheimer argue that it does not create positive changes on the broader scale.

"Ms. Adams' students, by contrast, began their work with a systematic and critical analysis of the causes of homelessness and of the strategies employed to prevent it. "
This kind of approach focuses more on understanding the problem and learning about how to combat it at its roots instead of alleviating the effects. I think this can be much more affective in the long run than the previous approach. However, I think that it would not be good if all the students did was learn about theory and never actually went out to serve the homeless people. Altruism and charity are still important, and help create more caring citizens who will understand the need by experiencing it firsthand and will be more likely to initiate reform in the future. I think both charity and critical analysis should go hand in hand when it comes to service learning.

"...it is the combination of service and critical analysis, not either by itself, that seems most likely to promote interest in and insight into these complex social issues."
I definitely agree with this statement. It really takes both to get the most benefit out of service learning. I feel like by itself, each approach is a dead end, but together service and analysis can foster the kind of change this country needs.

"Unlearning the Myths that Bind Us" - Christensen

I thought that this was an interesting article and after reading this I would like to see some Disney movies and analyze them. However, I thought that Christensen's emphasis on the idea that children's stories and cartoons are damaging isa bit exaggerated. Again, I can’t say for sure since I did not yet see and discuss the specific films myself, but I definitely thought that he made it sound much worse than it is in reality.
Here are some quotes that I disagreed with:

"Many students don't want to believe that they have been manipulated
by children's media or advertising. No one wants to admit that they've been "handled" by the media. They assure me that they make their own choices and the media has no power over them -as they sit with Fubu, Nike, Tim berlands or whatever the latest fashion rage might be".
This is one instance where I think he is really exaggerating. Every culture has things that are considered "popular". Every culture has its own ideas of beauty and style. I agree that American culture is much more based on consumerism than any other culture, but I am not about to stop buying things I like just to prove some point, or to prove that I am an "independent thinker" or that I "have not been handled by the media". What other option is there? Am I going to sew my own clothes? Everybody follows trends to some extent, and I think its totally OK. I think I would be one of those students so judged by Christensen.

“For some students the cartoon unit exposes the wizardry that enters our dreams and desires, but others shrug their shoulders at this. It's okay for some people to be rich and others poor; they just want to see more rich people of color or more rich women, Or better yet, be rich themselves, they accept the inequalities in power and exploitative economic relationships”.
Again, I think I am one of those students he is talking about. I accept it as well. Its has been so all throughout history. I accept the fact that I am always going to be poorer than someone else. And its normal. Its not perfect -but its normal. If power and wealth were measured in gold thousands of years ago, and now they are measured in designer clothes than so be it. Its all the same and I see nothing discriminatory about that. Its no reason to start a movement against cartoons.

“The messages, or "secret education," linked with the security of their homes, underscore the power these texts deliver. As Tatum's research suggests, the stereotypes and world view embedded in the stories become accepted knowledge”.
This quote is the basis of everything Christensen talks about in the article. I do agree that her argument is primarily true. But I think its like that everywhere. Every culture has its own stories, its own stereotypes, and its own values. Values have often been based on stories. Again, I really do not think there is something inherently evil about that. Certain specific stereotypes can be evil or discriminatory, but I think there is nothing wrong in the big picture.