Just how different are boys and girls? In Kathryn Scantlebury's article "Gender Bias in Teaching," she argues that the premise of "treating students the same" regardless of gender is flawed, primarily because there are subconscious differences in how people will treat men and women. Scantlebury then goes on to explore the various gender biases that exist in society and in the classroom, noting the need for self-examination of practices. Despite the fact that these gender biases are indeed well-supported and valid, Scanterbury's assertion that all students should not be treated the same is an overreaction and oversimplification of the issues inherent to the problem of gender inequalities in the classroom.
Many of Scanterbury's assertions are, in fact, quite valid: there have been many subconscious ways in which many in society deal with gender, which often create "a series of microinequities whose impact is cumulative and often ignored" (Scanterbury). The historical and sociopolitical nature of gender bias is well-documented, and so it stands to reason that this phenomenon also exists in the classroom to some extent. By noting the different expectations that are levied against both boys and girls, the author demonstrates the kinds of inequalities that are sometimes experienced in a school setting, and thus demonstrating the need for change.
However, there are quite a few assertions that are flawed in Scanterbury's essay, and which hamper her argument. First, it is implied by many of her statements that girls are often the recipient of greater inequality than boys; while this may be true, evidence is surfacing that more and more boys are receiving gender bias in education, being expected to be "immature" and incapable of operating on the same intellectual level as girls. Furthermore, Scanterbury's assertion that boys and girls learn in fundamentally different ways is also unsupported; Davies (1989) argues that "women reject the dichotomy between masculine and feminine as meta-physical". Finally, Scanterbury's assertion that masculine dominance of the classroom by boys is just considered 'normal' is false; disciplining of bad behavior like that is on the rise (Ching, 2012).
Scanterbury's essay has many logical fallacies. First, Scanterbury indicates that, since some teachers have gender bias, all teachers have gender bias - this is an existential fallacy. Scanterbury's assertion that women are discouraged from studying harder subjects, so only 25% of women are in physics is a matter of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Finally, she creates a false dilemma by saying that treating everyone the same would 'not' result in equality, and only one solution is apparent.
Some of Scanterbury's evidence is weak as well; the author notes over and over again the use of 'target students' by teachers in different ways to speed up downtime; this is not proven in any way, nor is there any information cited. That is weak evidence, and as such it cannot be confidently asserted that the phenomenon exists.
In conclusion, Scanterbury's essay, while well intentioned, is far too general and too damning of existing methods to combat gender bias in the classroom to be an effective argument. She has many logical fallacies in her argument, and she does not present much evidence to prove the trends that she speaks of. Toward that end, it cannot be said that she makes a compelling argument for the particular types of gender-bias interventions that she mentions.
References
Ching, G. S. (2012). Looking into the issues of rewards and punishment in students. International
Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 1(2).
Davies, B. (1989). Education for sexism: a theoretical analysis of the sex/gender bias in
education. Educational Philosophy and Theory (21)1: 1-19.
