The public school system in Canada for the most part does not shortchange girls; not with the same fervor as in days past. There seems to be a trend in discrimination equity insofar as it is becoming difficult to tell whether boys or girls are being short changed at the expense of the other. But, if the question is simply, “Do schools short change girls?” I would have to agree.
As Kathy Bickmore succinctly states: “Public schooling, a project of the state, has a built‐in mandate to legitimate the existing (inequitable) social order (Curle, Freire, & Galtung, 1974). At the same time, social and political institutions are made up of human beings, whose passive consent and active agency
continually ebb, flow, and reshape them” (Bickmore,2006 pg360). This speaks to the ideas presented within this course regarding the two-way shaping of culture; that culture shapes individuals and is simultaneously shaped by them. Therefore as long as there are inequities in human culture some of these inequities will permeate into educational institutions. If public schools act as legitimators of existing social order than they must be shortchanging girls as women are not yet equal in society.
Like creativity, progress requires time to marinade and infuse the population. Likewise, science and technology discoveries take time and will infuse and inform public awareness and opinion. The science of the 1950’s, for instance, was certain that boy-ness and girl-ness were necessary for normalcy and healthy development. Until this notion was challenged (and dispelled) there was no room to move on to the assessment of sexual stereotypes in schooling and school materials or the development of alternate materials with counter-stereotyped ideas. Similarly, the “add women and stir” (Coulter, 1999, Pp115) method of countering gender bias in text books was a fair attempt at a solution to the problem of gender bias in text books. This method of adding on was, however, insufficient to create equity in classrooms; a more holistic approach was required. Without the information gained regarding the shortcomings of the add-on method (women can be firefighters…too) perhaps the next step would not have been as evident. Women are not improved by being socialized to be more ‘male’. For society to obtain the greatest value from its citizens the true nature of the individual ought to be valued for its strengths and weaknesses (MacKinnon, 1987, p. 38-39). This would mean a re-valuing of the work of women in addition to their strengths of character. Women are different but equal; “fairness is not sameness” (The Ontario Curriculum, Science and Technology, 2007, p31). Though these ideas in policy do not translate into practice perhaps with time they will change the status quo.
I contend there has been significant progress for women in education which afford women many more opportunities today than a century ago. Women have gained access to universities and professions but there is still a tangible sense of men at the top and women in supporting roles; the male doctor/female nurse, male captain/female flight attendant phenomenon. An American study found that 2.6% of airline pilots are women and 13.5% of the positions in architecture and engineering are occupied by women (Bachman, Hebl, Martinez & Rittmayer, 2008). One need only visit an airport to confirm that the majority of flight attendants continue to be female.
Furthermore, as girls advance in school the representation of female role models decreases. A 1986 study concluded that, “women constitute about 95% of child care providers, 72% of elementary teachers, but only about 35% of secondary teachers and 17% of university teachers” (Danylewycz 1986, p.29). These numbers are further reduced when the positions of principal and superintendent are examined (Danylewycz, p.30). So, despite equity of imagery in text books, girls are watching a model of men as expert and powerful and women as support staff unfold in schools as they progress through the grades.
Considering the inequity evident in the current work force and the societal tendency to place lesser value on women’s contributions, I have to conclude that girls are being shortchanged in schools.
As Kathy Bickmore succinctly states: “Public schooling, a project of the state, has a built‐in mandate to legitimate the existing (inequitable) social order (Curle, Freire, & Galtung, 1974). At the same time, social and political institutions are made up of human beings, whose passive consent and active agency
continually ebb, flow, and reshape them” (Bickmore,2006 pg360). This speaks to the ideas presented within this course regarding the two-way shaping of culture; that culture shapes individuals and is simultaneously shaped by them. Therefore as long as there are inequities in human culture some of these inequities will permeate into educational institutions. If public schools act as legitimators of existing social order than they must be shortchanging girls as women are not yet equal in society.
Like creativity, progress requires time to marinade and infuse the population. Likewise, science and technology discoveries take time and will infuse and inform public awareness and opinion. The science of the 1950’s, for instance, was certain that boy-ness and girl-ness were necessary for normalcy and healthy development. Until this notion was challenged (and dispelled) there was no room to move on to the assessment of sexual stereotypes in schooling and school materials or the development of alternate materials with counter-stereotyped ideas. Similarly, the “add women and stir” (Coulter, 1999, Pp115) method of countering gender bias in text books was a fair attempt at a solution to the problem of gender bias in text books. This method of adding on was, however, insufficient to create equity in classrooms; a more holistic approach was required. Without the information gained regarding the shortcomings of the add-on method (women can be firefighters…too) perhaps the next step would not have been as evident. Women are not improved by being socialized to be more ‘male’. For society to obtain the greatest value from its citizens the true nature of the individual ought to be valued for its strengths and weaknesses (MacKinnon, 1987, p. 38-39). This would mean a re-valuing of the work of women in addition to their strengths of character. Women are different but equal; “fairness is not sameness” (The Ontario Curriculum, Science and Technology, 2007, p31). Though these ideas in policy do not translate into practice perhaps with time they will change the status quo.
I contend there has been significant progress for women in education which afford women many more opportunities today than a century ago. Women have gained access to universities and professions but there is still a tangible sense of men at the top and women in supporting roles; the male doctor/female nurse, male captain/female flight attendant phenomenon. An American study found that 2.6% of airline pilots are women and 13.5% of the positions in architecture and engineering are occupied by women (Bachman, Hebl, Martinez & Rittmayer, 2008). One need only visit an airport to confirm that the majority of flight attendants continue to be female.
Furthermore, as girls advance in school the representation of female role models decreases. A 1986 study concluded that, “women constitute about 95% of child care providers, 72% of elementary teachers, but only about 35% of secondary teachers and 17% of university teachers” (Danylewycz 1986, p.29). These numbers are further reduced when the positions of principal and superintendent are examined (Danylewycz, p.30). So, despite equity of imagery in text books, girls are watching a model of men as expert and powerful and women as support staff unfold in schools as they progress through the grades.
Considering the inequity evident in the current work force and the societal tendency to place lesser value on women’s contributions, I have to conclude that girls are being shortchanged in schools.