Gender Inequity in Schools - Essay Example

Running Head: Gender Inequity in Schools Gender Inequity in Educating Australian Students with Low Socio-Economic Background [Client’s Name] [Affiliation] It is very common for workplaces to address simple social issues like gender inequity because ignoring these types of issues would present huge problems on organizations, particularly on organizations’ efficiency and productivity. However, issues on gender inequity in educational systems are not usually explored (Renzagalia, Hutchins & Lee, 1997). This is simply because the effects of gender inequity on educational systems are not very apparent unlike its effects on business organizations. Moreover, there is a lack of strong motivation towards the understanding of the adverse effects of gender inequity in educational systems (Ladson-Billings, 1991). This view is particularly true for nations and societies that have perceptual bias towards gender equality as well as those who are indifferent about gender biases. The disparity in attention and the unequal treatment between boys and girls in the classroom has become a major concern not only for the local educational systems but to global economics as well. Recent world data indicates that ignoring the effects of gender inequity in educational systems has adverse effects in the socioeconomic stabilities of individuals in the long run. Majority of social studies conducted on the inequities in education focus on women. This is partly because of the popular social movement that seeks to understand the adverse effects of discriminating women and their roles in the society. One particular research on social demography indicates that 70% of the world’s absolutely poor individuals are women; similarly, statistics indicate that only 1% of the world’s chief executive positions are held by women (Richburg, Nelson & Tochterman, 2002). However, various researches show that women are not the only ones that are discriminated. Male individuals, particularly from low-income societies experience as much discrimination as women do (Froese-Germain, 2006). Some research results that teachers have gender preferences in the classroom in favor of the girls (Beaman, Wheldall & Kemp, 2000). Generally speaking, children coming from low income families are more likely to experience discrimination and biases both from their peers and from their teachers (Kuran & McCaffery, 2004; Chancer & Watkins, 2006). This is because children coming from this social class have to help their parents earn money, are more exposed to various social and psychological stressors, have poor living conditions, and are experiencing significant amount of trauma compared to children coming from a different socio-economic stratum (Chancer & Watkins, 2006). Most of the children from this socioeconomic class has high absenteeism rate, are more likely to drop out of school, and have high probability of getting very low grades compared to their affluent classmates (Austin & Oseguera, 2004). Statement of the Problem In the light of these facts, this paper will evaluate the degree of gender discrimination experienced by Australian high school students from low income families. This paper will also compare the results of the evaluation to determine if gender is a determining factor in the discrimination of Australian students from low income families. In order to do this, the paper will evaluate related researches on gender inequality and gender bias in Australian school systems as well as review some information about discriminations directed towards Australian students from low income families. This paper will also assess the impact of the Melbourne Declaration on promoting equity in education and determine whether this declaration aids in the plight to restore gender equity in Australian schools. Background of the Research Various forms of discrimination have existed in many different societies. Racial profiling and social stratification have been among the most prevalent forms of social discrimination that has plagued various countries around the globe (Kuran & McCaffery, 2004). Because racial profiling and social discrimination has great influence on various societies, there is no doubt that their influence also includes the domains of education. The effects of inequities and discrimination in education are not easily recognized (Kim & Taylor, 2008). In most cases, the effects can only be noticed (to some extent) when students enter the workforce. Social studies that correlates success in professional life with the quality of education one gets indicate that discrimination in schools affect future behaviors and future successes of students (Gay, 2000). Student performances in classroom setting are influenced by factors like the students’ interaction towards their environment and consequently, how their environments interact with them. The gender inequity experienced by students in schools is largely due to the social misconceptions and preferences that have developed over the years. Prior the feminist movement, majority of the opportunities in schools – both in scholastic and extra-curricular is enjoyed by male students (Ukpokodu, 2007). Male students get ahead of their female classmates simply because they are given much leeway for academic advancement and were more exposed to co-curricular and extra-curricular opportunities (Spender, 1982). A larger effect of this disparity in education is seen in the career advancement of male professionals compared to female professionals in highly urbanized and highly developed countries (Younger, Warrington & Williams, 1999). The long-term effect of the treatment towards female students, particularly in less developed countries, is tremendous. Only one third of the women population in less developed countries are literate while most of them are victims to sex slavery, human trafficking, battery, assault, and rape (Richburg, Nelson & Tochterman, 2002). As societies became more educated in terms of the negative effects of gender discrimination, and as the social movement towards gender equity paved way to feminism, preferential treatment towards women’s right in societies were given emphasis. While there is nothing wrong with this concept of retributive justice, this approach has introduced new problems directed towards the opposite gender – the boys. The existing preferential treatment in schools directed towards girls introduced similar problems as before. Various researches indicate that teacher-student interaction in classrooms are highly polarized, mostly favoring girls (Gay, 2000; Younger, Warrington & Williams, 1999). Because of the unbalanced treatment towards boys and girls in the classroom leading to highly feminized academic systems, academic performance of boys has dropped considerably (Mills, Martino & Lingard, 2007). Majority of the schools give strong emphasis on the learning styles of girls, highlighting the different learning capabilities of girls and the boys, and creating lesson designs that are mostly beneficial to the learning process of the girls in the classroom. This approach often disregards the fact that the boys also have different learning requirements and what works best for the girls in the classroom may utterly fail when applied to the learning processes of the boys Gender, Income and Education in Australia Australia is known for many things, including social stratification and outright discrimination particularly towards the aborigines (Chancer & Watkins, 2006). It was not until a few decades ago that Australia abolished its practices that allow social discrimination to happen. While the bigger chunk of socio-economic and racial discrimination has been changed radically, subtle types of discrimination went unchecked. One if the social area where subtle discrimination remains unexplored and uncorrected is Australia’s educational system. Socio-economic and gender inequities are among the major issues faced by Australian government agencies on education (Cobbold, 2009). Gender inequity is prevalent in Australian schools. Australian women are in a better situation in terms of access to education and educational privileges compared to women from other parts of the world (Ramsay, 2001). Australian women get to enjoy fulfilling careers after college because they have access to quality education. Similarly, the Australian society allows them to practice their profession without reserve. This in turn introduces the notion that Australian males are more prone to the curtailment of educational rights and privileges in Australian schools which result to their low performance indexes in various educational assessments. This notion has become a reality as most Australian schools focus more on the needs of the girls to the point where these schools neglect the needs of male students (Mills, Martino & Lingard, 2007). Male students are often placed in disadvantageous situations in highly feminist school systems as their uniqueness are often unattended and their needs unexplored. More importantly, the literature on gender discrimination on education towards Australian boys is which makes it difficult to assess the degree of adverse effects of gender inequity in Australian school systems. The politics of masculinity and femininity has plagued the Australian school system for quite a while that the Australian government instituted social policies that would change this view towards gender inequity. For one thing, Australia does not have any specific policies when it comes to the complexities involved in masculinity and schooling (Mills, Martino & Lingard, 2007). Another thing that contributes to the issue is that there is a disparity in the performance of boys and girls in school (Froese-Germain, 2006) which is commonly attributed to the differential attention of teachers towards the boys and the girls in the classroom (Beaman, Wheldall & Kemp, 2006) as well as the preferential treatment given by most teachers to girls. Another facet of equity issues in Australian school systems is the perceived discrimination felt by students from low-income families. Students coming from this social stratum experience serious difficulties finishing their studies. Like any other students from poor economic backgrounds, Australian students do not have full access to academic and career opportunities offered to other students more affluent than they are (Teese et al, 2007). With the present discrimination issues on gender and socio-economic background of students, the whole concept implies that male students from poor families are less likely to advance in their studies and in their future careers because they do not and they could not avail of the quality education offered by the Australian educational system to average students. This further implies that the whole educational system employed by the Australian government would fail on certain social levels. The situation becomes worse when Indigenous students are taken into account. These two major issues on social inequities in Australian school systems require that some massive changes must be implemented in order to restore the damages done on individuals and communities. Central to the elimination of gender inequity in schools is the strategic response of the government. Governments, through the appropriate agencies, can institute programs that would lessen or eliminate the occurrences of gender and socioeconomic inequities in schools. In response to this issue, various governments are making necessary steps to promote gender equity in their respective domains. In Australia, the Adelaide Declaration was promulgated and was instituted to ensure that gender, race, and financial status would not be a hindrance for students to achieve their academic goals. Recently, Australian government instituted the Melbourne Declaration to comprehensively address the inequity issues associated with But just how effective do these policies in terms of achieving its goals and objectives? The Melbourne Declaration The Melbourne Declaration was released by the Australian Ministers of Education in December 2008 to replace the Adelaide Declaration. In the nutshell, the Melbourne Declaration has two major goals which are (a) to promote equity and excellence in Australian schools and (b) to be an agent of transformation to all young Australians so that they become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens of the country. These two major goals are further broken down into eight action plans which include: developing stronger partnerships; support on school leadership and quality teaching; strengthening of early childhood education; enhancement of the development in middle years; support of senior years of schooling; enhancing curriculum to meet world-class standards; improving educational performances and outcomes of indigenous youth and disadvantaged young Australians, particularly those coming from low socio-economic backgrounds; and the strengthening of accountability and transparency (MCE, 2008). It is highly noticeable that the Melbourne Declaration gives strong emphasis on the elimination of discrimination particularly towards students from low income families by providing them access to quality education enjoyed by majority of affluent Australian children. But is this approach comprehensive enough to eliminate social inequity in Australian school system? Moreover, would the Melbourne Declaration eliminate gender inequity in Australian schools? Analysis and Discussion The discussions above underline the importance of eliminating gender inequity and discrimination of socio-economic status in Australian schools as well as in schools around the world. Any types of discrimination have adverse effects on the future of individuals as was seen in various instances like the events that led to the Civil Rights Movement in United States. Individuals that are discriminated in their access to high quality education are bound to live difficult lives as their opportunities for financial growth and success are thinned. Moreover, the presence of discrimination in schools indicates that the government is inefficient and ineffective in many ways since the government must be the agency that would oversee the distribution of equal rights and privileges on its domains. The existence of gender inequity or discrimination of students from low income families is counter-productive to the main function of the government, which also defies the government’s purpose of existence. Gender inequity and discrimination of students from low-income families may have similar adverse results in the scholastic performance and career path of students involved. However, there are no substantial social and educational research results that would indicate that these two factors are highly correlated. This does not mean, however, that these two concepts are not related. Gender inequity in schools is already a broad topic. Similarly, discrimination of students coming from low-income families is another broad issue that school administrators must handle. Simultaneously handling both issues may keep policy makers from attaining their short-term goals and objectives. Furthermore, the lack of strong empirical evidence that would suggest that gender inequity in schools are directly related with low-economic status implies that social researches must look for patterns that would help establish the relationship of these two concepts. Establishing the relationship would mean the proverbial ‘hitting two birds with one stone’ as policy makers can implement programs that would target one issue and resolve both issues. If such relationship does not exist, policy makers must be prepared to Conclusion The Australian government is aware of the existence of gender and socioeconomic biases in its school systems. This is apparent with the institution of the Adelaide Declaration where minimum standards of adequate education are observed in all school levels in Australia. The modification and amendment of the provisions in the Adelaide Declaration suggests that the attempt has failed in some areas while other parts of the program are no longer applicable in today’s issues on gender inequity and discrimination of students from low-income families (Cobbold, 2009). The question now is whether Australia’s attempt to promote gender inequity and socio-economic discrimination in schools will become successful. As Cobbold (2009) pointed out, the Melbourne Declaration is less powerful and vaguer in its strategic steps than the Adelaide Declaration. Melbourne Declaration provides equal access to education for students from all walks of life regardless of what gender. However, the newer Declaration has introduced vague concepts on the equity of student outcomes as well as reduces the commitment of the Australian Education Board to eliminate the existing gaps in educational achievement among students coming from different social groups. This means that whatever plans there are to eliminate inequities in schools, these would still fall short to the social expectations of gender and socio-economic equity in education. References Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining “equity” of American higher education. Review of Higher Education, 27 (3), 321-342. Chancer, L. S., & Watkins, B. X. (2006). Gender, race, and class: An overview. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Cobbold, T. (2009). New National Education Goals for Education Fail on Equity. Save Our Schools Policy Brief. Retrieved online from www.soscanberra.com/file_download/22 Froese-Germain, B. (2006). Educating Boys: Tempering Rhetoric with Research. Mc-Gill Journal of Education. 42(2). 145-154. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Kim, J. & Taylor, K. (2008). Rethinking Alternative Education to Break the Cycle of Educational Inequality and Inequity. The Journal of Education Research. 101(4). Pp.207-221. Kuran, T., & McCaffery, E. J. (2004). Expanding discrimination research: Beyond ethnicity and to the web. Social Science Quarterly, 85 (3), 713-730. Ladson-Billings, G. (March 1991). Coping with multicultural illiteracy: A teacher education response, Social Education, 186-194. Ministerial Council on Education. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians Mills, M., Martino, W. & Lingard, B. (2007). Getting Boy’s Education Right: The Australian Government’s Parliamentary Inquiry Report as an Exemplary Instance of Recuperative Masculinity Politics. British Journal of Sociology Education. 28(1). Pp 5-21. Ramsay, E. (2001). Gender in Australian Higher Education System. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 21(1). Pp 105-117. Renzaglia, A., Hutchins, M., & Lee, S. (1997). The impact of teacher education on the beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions of preservice special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 4, 360-337). Richburg, R., Nelson, B., & Tochterman, S. (2002). Gender Inequity: A World Geography Lesson Plan. The Social Studies. 93(1). Pp 23 – 30. Spender, D. (1982) Invisible women: the schooling scandal (London, Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative). Teese, R., Lamb, S. & Duru-Bellat, M. (2007). Structural Inequality in Australian Education Vertical and Lateral Stratification of Opportunities. In Teese, R. (2007). The Influence of Genetics on Contemporary Thinking Inequality in Education Systems. Pp 39-61. Ukpokodu, N. (Fall 2007). Preparing Socially Conscious Teachers: A Social Justice-Oriented Education. Multicultural Education. Pp 8- 17. Younger, M., Warrington, M. & Williams, J. (1999) The gender gap and classroom interactions: reality and rhetoric?, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 325–341. Read More