Over the course of the last two centuries, the marginalization faced by females of all ages is undisputable. Had the question of whether girls are shortchanged in school been asked even a couple decades earlier, there would be compelling evidence to suggest so. However, when considered from a contemporary perspective, I believe that our research suggests otherwise. At the very least, it is now seems clear that a combination of historical sex-role socialization and subsequent educational reforms have left us questioning which gender is being shortchanged, if not both.
Arguments to support both sides of this issue are well sustained. Based on data from HRSDC, it is important to consider that in 2010, a higher percentage of women (71%) than men (65%) aged between 25 and 44 had completed a post-secondary education. Moreover, the proportions of both men and women participating in university education increased between 1990-1991 and 2005-2006; however, the increase of women was twice that of men. As seen in the Statistics section, the EQAO testing results over the past five years highlight a similar tendency towards equity, as the gender gap has shown to be in favor of female students in both reading and writing. Moreover, in mathematics, the percentage of female students at or above the standard is the same or slightly larger than males.
Despite the picture painted above, the converse needs to be further addressed. Research compiled by Statistics Canada found that during a ten year spread from 1998 to 2008 at the undergraduate level, female numbers in mathematics, computer science, architecture, engineering and related technical fields remain markedly lower than those of their male counterparts. We see a slight improvement at the graduate level; however, this gender gap is far from equitable in this case. Furthermore, women also continue to find themselves chasing behind their male peers in terms of salaries, casting a certain doubt over the disconnect between socio-economic realities and preached etiquettes on gender equity.
However, one of the more enlightening features of the research came with the conclusions drawn by Allan and Madden in their 2006 article, ‘Chilly Classrooms for Female Undergraduate Students: A Question of Method?’ Their study emphasized how their data could be interpreted in two distinct ways, in order to reach the two distinct conclusions that schools do in fact shortchange girls and that they also do not (Allan & Maddan, p.702). In light of these findings, it is essential to remain skeptical of claims of gender shortchanging on either side of the argument, and consider our own responsibilities as educators who can disable or facilitate this ongoing concern. As we look to further emphasis the concept of gender equity, we as teachers play a critical role in disengaging these stereotypes during the students’ formative years. Gender should not play a significant role within the classroom dynamic, and efforts should instead be placed upon expanding each student’s individual potential.
Ultimately, as Ontario progresses towards a truly gender-neutral curriculum, it is essential to consider the implications of contemporary culture’s sex-role socialization agenda, especially in terms of its impact on the educational platform. Students must be taught to develop their natural predispositions based on personal interest, and not have their surrounding cultures dictate their academic framework. History, both distant and recent, clarifies that females have clearly been academically marginalized. However, as educational reforms and subsequent findings suggest, our schools have grown more balanced, suggesting that it is no longer the case that girls are specifically shortchanged in their classrooms. Moving forward, the goal remains to achieve greater equity both inside and outside of the classroom, where agendas will hopefully be placed less on gender cues and more on academic ability.