BEYOND TITLE IX: GENDER EQUITY ISSUES IN SCHOOLS

Also available in format (88K).

Copyright © 1993.
The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center
5272 River Road, Suite 340 Chevy Chase, MD 20815
(301) 657-7741

The NETWORK, Inc.
300 Brickstone Square, Suite 900 Andover, MA 01810
(508) 470-1080

The contents of this publication were developed under a grant by the Department of Education. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

PREFACE

Beyond Title IX: Gender Equity Issues in Schools, developed by the Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, Inc. and The NETWORK, Inc., is one of two publications designed to provide an overview of Title IX and gender equity issues in education. The companion piece,An Annotated Summary of The Regulation for Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, is an update of an earlier edition developed by the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. This edition was prepared by the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, Inc., and The NETWORK, Inc.

Beyond Title IX: Gender Equity Issues in Schools provides an overview of key gender equity issues which schools are encountering today. An Annotated Summary of The Regulation for educators to the requirements of Title Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 alerts IX, clarifies interpretation and application, and explains recent changes that have taken place. The developers hope that these two documents provide a concise overview of Title IX and gender equity issues in education and steps to take to ensure nondiscrimination and equal education opportunity for all.

For ordering information, please see the last two pages.

INTRODUCTION

Do male and female students receive equal educational opportunities at school?

The answer to this question is both yes and no.

Title IX of The Education Amendments of 1972 mandates that schools not deny any student participation in any educational program or activity on the basis of sex. The reality is that while many schools adhere to the legal requirements of Title IX, they do not necessarily grant girls a full measure of equal educational opportunities.

At one level, schools have made much progress in eliminating sex discrimination from their policies, programs, and practices. However, vestiges of sex discrimination, sex bias, and sex stereotyping remain. These vestiges continue to have a powerful and often negative influence on many students.

For example, although a policy prohibiting females from enrolling in vocational education courses historically nontraditional to their sex would be rare, girls and young women are not enrolling in large numbers in carpentry, auto mechanics, heating and air conditioning installation, or other such courses. The fact that females still have not achieved educational equity, even though schools may have met the letter of the law, is then, the primary focus of this document.

Designed to accompany an updated, annotated summary of the Title IX regulatory requirements, this companion publication focuses on the key gender equity issues facing schools. These issues were identified by a number of gender equity experts across the country as the issues that schools encounter most often. They reflect the inequities that exist even though schools may claim full compliance with Title IX. They are the issues that still must be addressed if schools are to ensure equal educational opportunity for students without regard to their sex.

Major gender equity issues identified include:

There are two additional concerns that while not related to Title IX, have increasingly come under the purview of schools: increasing the self-esteem of girls and awareness of date or acquaintance rape. These concerns are included in this document because they are gender equity issues that are of growing concern among educators.

Each of these ten equity issues is presented in the following format. First, the issue is discussed briefly, including supporting data. Next are key questions to determine the extent to which a particular equity issue is a problem for a school or school district. Finally, there are selected strategies that schools can implement to increase equity, along with a list of resources that can assist in achieving these objectives. The publication concludes with a summary statement regarding schools' ongoing responsibilities for ensuring gender equity.

GIRLS AT RISK OF DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL

Although definitions abound, we define students at risk as those who are in danger of dropping out of school because they are alienated from school, have a low level of achievement, and/or have a range of personal problems.1 External factors over which schools have little or no control (poverty, families with low educational levels, minority status, for example) also contribute to students dropping out. While all at-risk students share many of these factors, at-risk girls have a particular set of circumstances that need to be recognized.

While 44 percent of young women cite pregnancy or marriage as their major reason for dropping out, the remaining 56 percent leave for a myriad of other reasons.2 Many of the reasons reflect a sense of alienation from school: a lack of individual success and/or that school is not worthwhile, reasons that both girls and boys cite for leaving. Additional factors related to girls dropping out include having a large number of siblings, mother's educational level, and belief in traditional gender-role stereotypes.3

Another factor putting some girls at risk is the low rate for which they are identified for special education services. In the past, about two-thirds of students receiving special education services have been male.4 However, new data are emerging that lead educators to rethink the gender patterns in special education. Instead of innate genetic and/or physiological conditions, the patterns may stem from girls being under-identified and boys being over-identified based on traditional role behaviors for both sexes.5 Although girls drop out of school at a rate only slightly lower than that of boys, they are less likely to return to school or to obtain a general equivalency diploma once they have dropped out. In a study done in urban areas, 42 percent of the males returned to school and graduated but only 25 percent of the females did so. Furthermore, African American and Hispanic males return at a rate about 10 percent higher than females of those racial/ethnic groups.6 Moreover, even students who return to earn a GED do not earn as much money in the work place as those with a standard diploma.7

Key Questions

Even though schools cannot control all of the factors that contribute to students dropping out, they do have the responsibility to make sure that in the areas they do have control, they promote student retention. Here are some areas to check:

Possible Next Steps

Selected Resources

GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT/TEACHER INTERACTIONS

Although most teachers believe that they treat girls and boys the same, research indicates that they frequently do not. Studies show that teachers often exhibit differential behavior even though circumstances do not warrant it. The teacher' sex seems to have little bearing on the outcome; it is the sex of the student that seems to make a difference. For example:

Some researchers suggest that differences in treatment contribute to girls' lower self-esteem, lower self-confidence, and reduced risk taking. Others believe that societal factors play a major role. More research on student-teacher interactions that examines the relationship between teacher behavior and student performance, along with studies that look at interactions of gender with race, ethnicity, and social class, needs to be conducted.

Key Questions

The only way to determine if these data are reflected in your classrooms is to conduct some observations to check for the following behaviors:

Possible Next Steps

Selected Resources

GESA (Gender Expectations and Student Achievement, 1990), a staff development program designed to increase equity in interactions. Delores A. Grayson, GRAYMILL Consulting, 8450 Hickman, Suite 29, Des Moines, IA 50325, (515) 252-8650.

THE PARTICIPATION AND ACHIEVEMENT OF GIRLS IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE

Historically, student enrollment patterns in mathematics and science courses have reflected significant sex differences. For example, girls have been more likely to take the minimal number of mathematics and science courses required for college while boys have been more likely to take advanced courses beyond the basic requirements.13 However, recent studies show that these patterns are changing, especially in mathematics, as girls and boys enroll in and complete mathematics courses at a more similar rate.14 The declining gap in course enrollment is reflected in the most recent National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) data. Although differences in scores are decreasing overall, they do increase as the students get older. According to the 1989-90 NAEP data, the average proficiency for males in science was 10.2 points higher than for females at age 17. In mathematics, the average proficiency for males was 3.4 points higher than for females at the same age.15

Regardless of data reflecting only minimal differences in courses taken between males and females, there are still significant discrepancies in the scores of males and females in mathematics and science assessments at the secondary level for college bound populations. For example:

Whether these differences in test scores reflect the number of courses taken, actual achievement in mathematics and science, bias in the tests themselves, or other factors is not clear. For whatever reason, by the end of high school, girls express more negative attitudes toward both mathematics and science than do boys.20

Researchers debate the many causes for girls’ negative attitudes, i.e. societal pressures such as conflicts in sex-role and peer expectations, inequitable school practices, and lack of support for achieving females. Whatever the cause, many times girls' negative attitudes result in their experiencing psychological barriers, such as insufficient matriculation, low self-concept, and fear of success.21

Regardless of contributing factors, the fact is that decisions are made on the basis of scores on these tests that negatively impact female students. The impact goes beyond college acceptances and scholarships - - repercussions include barriers to career choice and success in the work place.

Key Questions

Possible Next Steps

Selected Resources

STUDENTS ENROLLING IN AND COMPLETING VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
COURSES HISTORICALLY NON-TRADITIONAL TO THEIR SEX

At a policy level all courses are (or should be) open to all students, regardless of gender. However, attracting girls to vocational education courses historically nontraditional to their gender is considered to be important because of the higher wages earned in technical occupations dominated by males. Gains that have occurred in vocational education since the passage of Title IX appear to be minimal and modest. State-level sex equity coordinators (a position mandated by federal legislation since 1976) informally report that although there have been success stories for individuals (a female plumber, auto mechanic, or carpenter, for example), the program enrollment patterns reflect minimal change.

Since national data on vocational enrollments by sex, race, or ethnicity are not complied nationally (only state by state), we have to look at national employment figures to help assess the impact of what is (or is not) happening at the local school district level. In doing so, we recognize the limitations of the data collection documenting vocational education and training and labor market outcomes for women and men in nontraditional occupations. We also know that the proportion of students enrolled in nontraditional vocational education programs is likely to increase more rapidly than their representation in related occupations.

Data from the past decade show a slight decrease in sex segregation in the work place. In comparing the 20 leading occupations of women in 1984 and 1992, the only change in the top five is the order: secretaries, cashiers, managers and administrators, registered nurses, and bookkeepers. However, a closer look shows small increases of women moving into optometry, engineering, firefighting, farming, and accounting, for example. Change is occurring, but the pace is slow.24

The possible causes for the persistent sex segregation in vocational programs are multiple and not always easily identified or remedied. Possible factors include isolation from friends by being in a separate school (such as a vocational-technical school) or separate part of a building; lack of female role models as teachers; absence or small number of other female students; hostile learning environment, especially because of sexual harassment; apparent lack of employment opportunities for women in a particular field; and strong societal traditions of sex-appropriate careers. Lack of awareness of programs, peer pressure not to enroll in any form of vocational training, and lack of support for students who wish to enroll in vocational education are also possible factors. In fact, the historical patterns have been so difficult to break that some policymakers now believe that pursuing pay equity in the workplace (increasing the pay in many traditionally female occupations to that of men in comparable occupations) is likely to have a greater pay off than attempting to increase the number of women in male-dominated fields.

On the other hand, the changes taking place in vocational education - - introduction of apprenticeships based on the European model and the 2+2 tech-prep programs (2 years of training in high school followed by 2 years postsecondary study) - - offer new educational opportunities for recruiting young women. Creating a potentially stronger link between education and training, and higher wage jobs, these programs can provide female and male students additional career paths to acquiring highly marketable skills and/or further education.

Key Questions

Possible Next Steps

Selected Resources

GENDER BIAS IN STANDARDIZED TESTS

On average, girls get better grades than boys at all levels of schooling but score lower than boys on key standardized tests administered to 11th and 12th graders. For example, boys outscore girls (with discrepancies greatest for African American and Hispanic girls) on both the verbal and mathematics sections of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)25 and on all subsec- tions of the American College Testing Program except English (ACT).26 As a result girls lose millions of dollars in scholarship funds.27 In 1988-89, 63 percent of the National Merit Scholarship semi-finalists were boys while only 32 percent were girls (sex of 5 percent of the students not identified). Since girls continue to earn better grades, there is continued evidence that the test is biased in favor of boys.28

Since eligibility for Merit Scholarships is based solely on the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test/National Merit Scholarships Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT), girls are being denied their fair share of these scholarship funds as well as access to some of the most prestigious colleges and universities.

There is much controversy over why males outperform girls on standardized tests, with some believing that the reason lies in the fact that males and females approach learning differently and therefore analyze and solve problems differently. These tests may be designed in a manner more conducive to the way males solve problems. Furthermore, the context of questions is important, with both girls and boys doing better on questions with content familiar to them; and if more items favor boys, they have an advantage. References to males in standardized test items consistently outnumber those to females. Finally, girls complete fewer items and are more likely than boys to check an "I don't know" option and fail to complete the test.29

Data from the revised SAT, an experimental prototype scheduled for its first administration in 1994, show a small increase in validity based on gender. According to an Educational Testing Service (ETS) report, "...test revisions produced a modest reduction in the gender-related prediction difference for the verbal area, but a negligible change for the mathematical area."30

Since there is a movement toward alternative testing, educators will need to be even more alert to bias in performance based testing where sex, appearance, language, mannerisms, and other factors may have a strong influence on an unaware evaluator.31

Key Questions

While educators, advocacy group members, and publishers' representatives attempt to determine the causes of the discrepancies in scores, here are a few things to watch out for:

Possible Next Steps

Selected Resources

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING STYLES

There has been much discussion about differences in learning styles (information processing routines that function in a trait-like manner at the personality level). Often taken out of context and distorted, facts regarding learning styles are misleading and can be detrimental to educational efforts. Data indicating a difference in learning styles related to psychological type, culture, race, sex, or ethnicity do not mean that a group of students can learn in only one way. They simply mean that students of the group have a preference - - much like a preference for right- or left-handedness. Nor do the data show that all students of a particular gender or racial/ethnic group possess that preference.

All students need to experience success, and their chances of doing so are greatest when they have a significant number of opportunities to learn in their preferred mode(s). At the same time, all students need some level of skill in learning in their non-preferred modes. For example, consider a student who learns best by the use of manipulative materials but who has no instruction through a hands-on approach. Learning is more likely to be less enjoyable and/or somewhat less efficient and successful than if the student could use her/his preferred mode. This difference in learning styles is reflected in students' choice of courses and their like or dislike of the instructional strategies. Students who learn only in their preferred mode are ultimately at a disadvantage also because they are less likely to develop skills in their nonpreferences. Teachers who are aware of different learning styles can vary their instructional techniques so that students are more efficient and successful learners who enjoy what they do.

Research shows differences for males and females on three of the major approaches to learning styles: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicators and the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children's decision making scale, the Kolb Learning Style Inventory's dimension on taking in information, and Herman Witkin's field independence and field sensitivity (the latter also shows a difference related to race and ethnicity).32

In terms of classroom implications, schools are geared more to the learning styles of white males, which tend to be individualistic and competitive. In contrast, many girls prefer cooperation over competition, acknowledging and building on others' ideas to define common meanings over individual contributions, and understanding over assessment. Also, girls are more social and comfortable in group situations. As a result, girls are likely to be more productive in situations involving group instruction, including cooperative learning.33 It is important to reiterate that the characteristics just described will apply to a majority of - - but not all - - girls as well as to a minority of boys.

Key Questions

Possible Next Steps

Selected Resources

Contact The NETWORK, Inc., 300 Brickstone Square, Suite 900, Andover, MA 01810, (508) 470-1080; or the Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, Inc., 5454 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1500, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, (301) 657-7741, for infor- mation on training in learning and teaching styles in a multicultural setting.

TEEN PREGNANCY AND PARENTING

Starting in 1987, the teenage birth rate began to climb, reversing a 16-year trend of declining or stable rates. In 1990, 68 percent of births to females under age 20 were to unmarried mothers. Moreover, teen birth rates vary by race and ethnicity with the highest rates for African Americans and Hispanics and the lowest for Asians/Pacific Islanders and whites.34 These data point out that our nation, including our schools, have not yet resolved a major social concern.

Of the more than 1 million young women who will become pregnant this year, half will choose abortion; half will choose to have a baby,35 with less than 3 percent of those placing the child for adoption.36 Regardless of their decision, these students are at a high risk for either dropping out of school or having their school interrupted.

Teenage pregnancy and parenting has serious educational and economic consequences for girls; by reducing their chance of receiving a quality education, they significantly narrow their life options. The age at which a girl has her first child is closely related to her chances of living at or below the poverty level and receiving AFDC.37 In addition, teen mothers are at a greater risk of having babies with low birth weight; babies who are addicted to drugs, or babies who have AIDS.

Although barriers to school attendance for young mothers have declined, many schools are still reluctant to face issues of teen pregnancy because of personal and societal values and beliefs. Research confirms that traditional sex education courses alone do not prevent pregnancies. However, most schools are fearful of providing a comprehensive curriculum on sex education, health and birth control information and services, assistance in receiving support services, and - - once students become parents - - access to day care, health services, and other services that are so necessary for students to remain in school. For example, out of the more than 20,000 secondary schools in the country, only 306 have school-based clinics; and of that number, 60 provide birth control services.38 The issue continues to grow as girls are having babies faster than we can provide solutions or support.

Key Questions

Possible Next Steps

Selected Resources

SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF STUDENTS BY THEIR PEERS

One sex equity issue, which has come to the forefront recently, is sexual harassment of students by other students. Many districts are now reviewing their sexual harassment policies to make sure that they prohibit sexual harassment of students by their peers. The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has issued a groundbreaking finding in affirming that elementary school boys' sexual taunting of girls did indeed constitute sexual harassment.39

Sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexual attention. That includes leering, pinching, fondling, grabbing, suggestive verbal comments, spreading sexual gossip, subjecting someone to sexually oriented materials, pressure for dates and/or sexual activity, unwelcomed physical con- tact of a sexual nature, sexual assault, and rape. Although the more severe forms of sexual harassment are likely to come to the attention of school officials, the less severe forms are not. In fact, the traditional interpretation of many of these behaviors is that they are just typical of the age group and have been largely ignored. What educators are now realizing is that these behaviors can be devastating to students and can cause them to drop out of a program or class or to avoid certain school situations, thereby having a negative impact on their educational experience and denying them equal educational opportunity.

Sexual harassment of peers is found in all grade levels. It often starts in the elementary school with teasing or other inappropriate remarks regarding another's body, as well as bullying and playground roughhousing. Although the impact of sexual harassment is greater for girls, boys also experience harassment. Same-sex harassment, especially with taunts related to homosexuality, are very common.

Key Questions

Possible Next Steps

Selected Resources

AWARENESS OF DATE OR ACQUAINTANCE RAPE

Although we have come to associate acquaintance or date rape with college campuses, it does happen with elementary and secondary school students. We know that from the statistics on increasing rates of sexual activity among teens, an increase in the proportion of pregnant teens, and the prevalence of newspaper and anecdotal accounts of incidents.

Acquaintance rape is sometimes difficult for women and men to define as they may be confused about “normal” male behavior versus a woman's willingness to engage in sexual activity. If it is difficult for adults to define, then it is even harder for young people, who are just beginning to understand the complexities of a sexual relationship.

Although the school cannot control what happens to students outside the bounds of the school day, educators can help students understand that acquaintance rape is a form of violence against women and girls, and can also ensure an educational environment in which girls feel safe. Educators can also then promote a school climate based on respect and dignity and model that behavior for students and help them behave accordingly.

Key Questions

Possible Next Steps

Selected Resources

INCREASING THE SELF-ESTEEM OF GIRLS

Self-esteem - - it's illusive, intangible, hard to quantify, but extremely important. A child's sense of self develops early and is highly resistant to change.40 Moreover, pre-teen and teen girls with low self-esteem are more vulnerable to depression, drug and alcohol abuse, early pregnancy, and dropping out of school.41 A recent study done by the American Association of University Women found declining self-esteem in girls. Although at ages 8 and 9, girls are confident and assertive, by the time they emerge from adolescence they have a poorer self-image, less confidence about themselves and their abilities, and more limited views about their future. Sixty-seven percent of the boys reported they felt "happy the way I am" with 60 percent of the girls feeling positive about their lives at the pre-teen level. Eight years later, 46 percent of the boys still felt positive, while only 29 percent of the girls were still feeling good about themselves.42

When and how does it happen? According to the study, family and school rather than peers have the greatest impact on the self-esteem and aspirations of young people. The study found that pride in schoolwork and students' feelings of being good at things declines rapidly through adolescence for both boys and girls. However, as boys found that others express confidence in males' ability to do things, they grew in self-esteem. As girls found that others, including their teachers, believe that females cannot do things they believe they can, their self-esteem declines. Thus, teachers can play a key role in building self-esteem in girls.

Key Questions

Possible Next Steps

CONCLUSION

The issues selected for this publication are selective rather than comprehensive. Schools across the country still face a myriad of gender inequities. Some of those not addressed here include increasing the number of women in educational administration, gender issues in drug education programs, gender fair disciplinary policies and procedures, gender implications of enacting a policy requiring students to wear uniforms, and gender bias in sex education/family life programs.

Schools must regularly review their policies, procedures, and programs for evidence of gender bias and discrimination. A one-time audit or compliance review reflects the status of equity in a school or a district at that time. Changing curricula, new policies and procedures, and staff turnover may create new inequities which need to be addressed. Equity has moved from the periphery to the core of our educational system. Education is indeed for all.

ENDNOTES

  1. Earle, J., and V. Roach. 1989. Female Dropouts: A New Perspective. Alexandria, Va.: National Association of State Boards of Education, 4.
  2. Fine, M. 1986. "Why Urban Adolescents Drop Into and Out of Public High School." Teachers College Record 87 (3): 405.
  3. Earle and Roach, Female Dropouts: A New Perspective, 9. See also Zane, N. 1988. In Their Own Voices: Young Women Talk About Dropping Out. New York: NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; and Baca, C. 1989. "Women at Risk Project/Dropout Factors Study." San Diego: San Diego City Schools. Unpublished report, July 11, 1989.
  4. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Surveys. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
  5. DeFries, J.C. 1989. "Gender Ratios in Children with Reading Disability and Their Affected Relatives: A Commentary." Journal of Learning Disabilities 22 (9): 544-545.
  6. Kolstad, A.J., and J.A. Ownings. 1987. High School Dropouts Who Change Their Minds About School. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, of Education Research and Improvement. Mimeograph, Center for Educational Statistics, Longitudinal Branch, April 16, 1987.
  7. Heckman, J., and S. Cameron. 1993. "The Non-Equivalence of High School Equivalence." Journal of Labor Economics 11,1 (January 1993): 1-5.
  8. Sadker, M., and D. Sadker. 1986. "Sexism in the Classroom: From Grade School to Graduate School."Phi Delta Kappan 68: 512.
  9. Kahle, J. 1990. "Why Girls Don't Know." In What Research Says to the Science Teacher - - the Process of Knowing. Washington D.C.: National Science Testing Association, 55—67. See also Lee, V. 1991. "Sexism in Single-Sex and Co-educational Secondary School Classrooms." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 8.
  10. Hallinan, M.T., and A.B. Sorenson. 1987. "Ability Grouping and Sex Differences in Mathematics Achievement."Sociology of Education 60 (2): 63-72.
  11. Grayson, D.A., and M.D. Martin. 1984. "Gender Expectations and Student Achievement: A Teacher Training Program Addressing Gender Disparity in the Classroom." Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., April 23-27. See also Sadker, M., and D. Sadker. 1984. Year 3: Final Report, Promoting Effectiveness in Classroom Instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.
  12. Hillman, S.B., and G.G. Davenport. 1978. "Teacher-Student Interactions in Desegregated Schools." Journal of Educational Psychology 70 (4): 545-553.
  13. Oakes, J. 1991. Lost Talent: The Under participation of Women, Minorities, and Disabled Persons in Science. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 18-19.
  14. Educational Testing Service. 1990. 1990 Profile of SAT and Achievement Test Takers. New York: The College Board.
  15. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 1992. Digest of Education Statistics: 1992. Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 118, 123.
  16. Ibid., 125.
  17. Educational Testing Service, 1992 Profile of SAT and Achievement Test Takers.
  18. Ibid.
  19. Ibid.
  20. Dossey, J.A., I.V.S. Mullis, M.M. Lindquist, and D.L. Chambers. 1988. The Mathematics Report Card. Are We Measuring Up? Princeton: Educational Testing Service. See also Mullis, I.V.S., and L.B. Jenkins. 1986. The Science Report Card: Elements of Risk and Recovery. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
  21. American Association of University Women. Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America. 1991. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women.
  22. Campbell, P. B., and C. Shackford. 1990. EUREKA! Program Evaluation. Groton, Mass.: Campbell-Kibler Associates. Report. See also Campbell, P.B. 1991. Douglass Science Institute: Three Years of Encouraging Young Women in Math, Science, and Engineering. Groton, Mass.: Campbell-Kibler Associates. Report.
  23. Girls, Inc. 1991. The Explorer's Pass: A Report on Case Studies of Girls in Math, Science, and Technology. Study conducted by Julie D. Frederick and Heather Johnston Nicholson. Indianapolis, Ind.: Girls, Inc., National Resource Center.
  24. U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. "20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women, 1984 Annual Averages." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor. See also Women's Bureau, "20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women, 1992 Annual Averages"; "Nontraditional Occupations for Women in 1984"; and "Nontraditional Occupations for Women in 1992."
  25. U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics: 1992, 125.
  26. Ibid., 130.
  27. Rosser, P. 1989. The SAT Gender Gap: Identifying the Causes. Washington, D.C.: Center for Women Policy Studies, 22-23.
  28. "Fair Test Examiner" 3, 3 (Summer 1989): 22-23. Quarterly newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, Cambridge, Mass.
  29. Becker, B. 1990. "Item Characteristics and Gender Differences on the SAT-M for Mathematically Able Youths." American Educational Research Journal 27 (1): 65-71. See also Linn, E., et al. 1987. "Gender Differences in National Assessment of Educational Progress Science Items: What Does `I Don't Know' Really Mean?" Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24 (3): 267-78.
  30. Hale, G.A., et al. 1992. A Comparison of the Predictive Validity of the Current SAT and an Experimental Prototype. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
  31. Ibid.
  32. Myers, I.B., and M.H. McCaulley. 1985. Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press. See also Meisgeier, C., and E. Murphy. 1987. Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children Manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press; and Howard, Bessie C. 1987. Learning to Persist, Persisting to Learn. Washington, D.C.: The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center, The American University, 11.
  33. Belenky, M.F., B.M. Clinchy, N.R. Goldberger, and J.M. Tarule. 1986. Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books, 214-229. See also Pearson, C. 1992. "Women As Learners: Diversity and Educational Quality." Journal of Developmental Education, 16, 2 (Winter): 2-8, 10,
  34. Child Trends, Inc. 1993. "Facts at a Glance." Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.
  35. Ibid., 1992.
  36. Bachrach, C. A., K.A. London, and K.S. Stolley. 1992. "Relinquishment of Pre- marital Births: Evidence from National Survey Data." Family Planning Perspectives 24 (1): 27-32.
  37. Child Trends, "Facts at a Glance", 1992.
  38. Waszak, C., and S. Neidell. 1992. School-based and School-linked Clinics: Update 1991. Washington, D.C.: Center for Population Options.
  39. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. 1993. Letter of Finding, Eden Prairie, Minn., Elementary School Sexual Harassment Incident. Chicago, Ill.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights - Region V.
  40. Grayson, D.A., and M.D. Martin. 1988. Gender/Ethnic Expectations and Student Achievement. Des Moines, Iowa: GrayMill Foundation.
  41. Hernandez, B. 1992. Ideas for Action: Helping Girls and Young Women in Your Community. Portland, Oreg.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
  42. American Association of University Women, Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America.