Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women

Journal of Negro Education, The, Fall 2000 by Golden, Cecilia Griffin

Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women, by Yupin Bae, Susan Choy, Claire Giddes, Jennifer Sable and Thomas Snyder. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2000. 99 pp. $10.00, paper. Reviewed by Cecilia Griffin Golden, YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh.

Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women was produced in response to a request made by Congress to the office of the Secretary to the Department of the U.S. Department of Education to prepare a report on the status of educational equity for girls and women in the United States. The study includes presentations of data from varied sources including surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

The book is a statistical report organized around data presented for a series of 44 indicators, which examine educational equity from students' pre-school experiences through post-secondary education. The data are presented for each indicator in many forms. Actual survey questions are included when appropriate. Bar and line graphs are provided and supported by narratives. The following are some of the findings presented:

1. Virtually, no difference in levels of courses taken by girls or boys in mathematics or science, except for physics, where boys are more represented.

2. Repeating grades for ages 5-12 was found more often among boys, as was placement in learning disabled classes.

3. The gaps in employment between males and females have narrowed over time.

4. Women tend to earn less than men with similar educational attainment, but this may partly reflect women's patterns of labor market participation and taking certain kinds of jobs.

5. Course taking patterns show evidence of growth patterns of females and males taking advanced levels of mathematics and science, including calculus and trigonometry.

6. The percentage of students who study calculus, both male and female, has grown to approximately 12% of school populations.

7. Females appeared to have less confidence than males that they could do well in mathematics and science.

8. Black and Hispanic women earned higher percentages of the Bachelor's degrees in 1997 (64% and 57%, respectively) than White, non-Hispanic women (55%).

The aforementioned findings represent only a portion of those included in the study. The study provides useful information and includes data across a broad band of areas. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply those findings to public schools and colleges across the United States, due to the researchers' treatment of the variable of race: "The report focuses generally on overall comparisons between males and females, not on the experiences of various subgroups, which may show different patterns." Ergo, race is introduced as a factor only intermittently.

Decisions around the presentation of the data included in this statistical report do not reflect a commitment to critically analyze the notion of equity in the United States educational attainments. Moreover, while the authors include data for girls and boys of color for a few indicators, they are not included for the majority of the indicators. It would have strengthened the study to include additional data disaggregated by race. The disaggregation of data would be an acknowledgement of the complexity of gender equity issues in the United States related to educational attainment. Neglecting to include the variable of race limits both the questions and the findings. For example, do women, regardless of race, earn similar salaries? The same question could and should also be asked about African American males. Other questions that remain include whether the findings pertaining to males and females taking similar courses apply to all students regardless of race. It should also be pointed out that the variable of socioeconomic status of students is another data point absent from the study. Additionally, disaggregating by public and private schools in one or two indicators is insufficient. The rationale for disaggregation for the indicator is unclear.

It would have strengthened the study to include Black and Latino students throughout the study. As it stands, Blacks and Hispanics only are mentioned in the dropout indicator, with Hispanic male students' rate of graduation as still the lowest in the nation. In failing to include Blacks and Latinos in the repeating grades section, for example, the researchers miss an opportunity to see possible correlations between the indicators of repeating elementary school grades and high school dropout rates. Moreover, other correlations are important to review such as the classification of learning or emotionally disabled and dropout rates, as well as one's assignment to particular levels of course work and labor rates.

In conclusion, the report includes a plethora of important indicators that address the notion of equity between males and females in educational equity. However, reporting the data without critical analyses, notwithstanding correlative arguments, may result in conclusions that are meaningless for policymakers who have interest in improving the schooling experiences for all students who attend public schools in the United States.