Product Description
In the 1990s, several books argued that girls need more special attention in school than boys. In the 2000s, other books have said it’s boys that need the special attention. Not this smart and timely book. Instead of pitting boys’ needs against girls’, Gender in Urban Education focuses on the relationship between them, showing you how to create gender equity in the classroom and why it’s vitally important to your students to do so. Backed by up-to-the-minute resear… More >>
Gender in Urban Education: Strategies for Student Achievement
Tags: 1990s, Achievement, education, education strategies, Gender, gender equity, Girls, relationship, Strategies, student, student achievement, timely book, Urban, urban education
#1 by spm on April 13, 2010 - 11:06 am
“Gender in Urban Education” claims to avoid “pitting boy’s needs against girl’s (needs).” Unfortunately, this claim is accomplished by simply denying that urban boys have any educational needs. It is highly significant that the gender gap in grades, school discipline, college attendance, arrest rate, and mortality rate – the areas of primary concern for boys in general and urban boys in particular – receive little to no attention in this book.
A key insight into the philosophy of this book can be seen in the Introduction with the sentence, “The strategies described in this book either include boys or can be adapted to include boys.” The formulation of this statement indicates that the primary focus of this book is on the educational needs of girls, with boys thrown in as an after-thought. A second telling statement, again found in the Introduction, is when reference is made to a teacher who “formed a girl’s lunchtime talk group.” The authors appear to be surprisingly “gender blind” to this statement and the universal truth behind it that secondary school teachers (particularly urban secondary school teachers) put considerably more effort into teaching girls than they do boys.
Despite a claim that this book is based on “up to the minute” research, several relevant areas are not adequately addressed. First, despite the fact that one author is a member of the National Writing Project, no real mention is made of the gender gap in language arts participation and performance. Thus, the growing trend of teachers constructing elective language arts classes as a “Girls-Only Club” is not discussed. Second, in the discussion on sexual harassment, boys are described exclusively as perpetrators, and girls are described exclusively as victims. In this, the authors disregard the AAUW’s own findings that the gender distribution in both categories is virtually identical. It is again interesting to note that no discussion is made of the recent increase in the number of female teachers arrested for sexual assault of secondary school boys.
Despite new packaging, this book is simply a rehash of old material. The authors fundamental thesis – that only girls have educational needs in today’s schools and that boys are the primary cause of those needs – has been discredited.
Rating: 1 / 5