Gender Parity in American Schools

The Gender Parity That Never Was

Gender parity in American schools has historically been a contentious issue. Through the eyes of different authors, the world has witnessed a world of imagination filled with theoretical justifications that have been essential in providing a framework for curriculum as well as extracurricular activities. In this essay, I undertake to unveil the different angles Orenstein and Stabiner take to express their opinions justified on the psychological basis as to what differences exist between the boy and the girl child.

A critical analysis into Orenstein and Stabiner “Reading Critically, Writing Well,” Peggy Orenstein's "The Daily Grind: Lessons in the Hidden Curriculum" (p. 96 - 100), and Karen Stabiner's "Boys Here, Girls There: Sure, if Equality's the Goal" (p. 325 - 330) gives an in-depth reality into the contentious issues that exist between boys and girls. Reading Orenstein’s article is like reading a passage from a fictional chapter book.  On the other hand, Stabiner’s writing is very matter of fact and does not try to paint a picture where students are quoted and talking. Orenstein writes a little snippet of her observation for that hour she was in the math class. Orenstein’s style is more of a story telling and trying to paint a picture of a scene. Whereas, Stabiner is less specific, she sounds like journalist reporting information. Stabiner’s writing style is more scientific in that she uses facts and numbers drawn from other sources (stabiner 323).

Similarities between the two articles can be easily established basing on the ideological arguments that are established within the class setting, the two authors have greatly capitalized on the gender inequalities that exist between the boys and the girls. Orenstein and Stabiner both establish a rapport between math and science exploring the norms and beliefs that exist in classroom settings.in her observations; Peggy does not give her view on education specifically in her article.  Peggy does, however, talk down about how Amy does not seem to have her own personality, and that Amy changes personality like she changes her jeans. However, this is extremely critical and judging on Peggy’s part, since she is reported to have only observed Amy that day for what could have been two or three hours at the most. Peggy is keen to notice how Amy sits in a “typical feminine pose” (Orenstein 97), judging how girls act “typical.” Peggy notices how the boys are, “more physically mature and sprawling in their chairs” (par. 9), painting the picture that boys do not care about how they look. As Stabiner indicated in her article, brain research has shown us that girls and boys develop and process information in different ways; they do not even use the same region of the brain to do their math homework, he notes (Stabiner 328).

The analysis of Ornstein's article camouflages in an opinion dominated argument to excoriate human judgment on coed schools. Orenstein does seem to paint the picture that the boys in the classroom are bullies, that the girls in the classroom play the traditional role of being ‘ladylike’ and submission. Orenstein also paints the teacher as a bit incompetent or unable to control her own classroom. Peggy notices how the boys in the classroom are yelling out answers and the teacher does not really do much to stop them, even though the teacher knows the boys are intimidating the other students. The boys even bully the smart girl in the classroom. The teacher starts a new lesson. The teacher asks a female student for an answer and a boy blurts out the answer, interrupting the girl. The teacher does not reprimand the boy but accepts his answer. Stabiner’s article just specifies the facts (Stabiner 323). Following this argument, the reader can agree, disagree, or decide to pursue looking up the facts themselves. Education in America is a controversial subject. As Stabiner states, “Educators at single-sex schools already get it: Equality is the goal, not the process. There may be more than one path to the destination — but it is the arrival, not the itinerary that counts” (Stabiner 326).

The authorship of Orestein is targeted to an audience that appreciates play and colorful representation of ideas. The audience for Stabiner would be someone who wants more facts, perhaps someone who is looking to make a decision about placing their child in a same sex school. Stabiner states in her article, “If the intention is to strengthen the public school system by responding to new information about how our children learn, then these classes can serve as a model of innovative teaching techniques, some of which can be transported back into existing coed classrooms” (par. 20). In Orenstein’s article, it is difficult for the reader to get any sense of a stance about school one way or another.  

The Overall analysis into the compelling reasons to offer to differ as well as agreeing judgments in school activities based on gender is an undertaking well to reckon in psychological studies. The authors have persuasively taken sides to confidently state that boys and girls have distinct differences that set them apart both in school and in other activities in general. Stabiner has  persuasively brought forward the need for same-sex schools should be in every district because of all the benefits she listed, notably, girls being more confident, abler to pursue advanced fields in math and science, high graduation rate, higher rates of pursuing college after high school, and low pregnancy rates(Stabiner 329). On the other hand, Orenstein’s conclusively finds it essential to omit to overanalyze the capitalization on gender as it entails to the overall definition of a good schooling life.

Works Cited

Orenstein, Peggy. Schoolgirls: Young Women, Self-esteem, and the Confidence Gap. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Print.

Stabiner, Karen. "Boys Here, Girls There: Sure, If Equality's the Goal." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 12 May 2002. Web. 24 July 2016.