Back
to WEEA Digest List
Teacher Preparation:
Blueprinting Equity
JANUARY 1996
Contents:
by Jo Sanders
City University of New York Graduate Center
Many grant-funded projects in the United States have dealt with advancing
gender equity in education. Nevertheless the low level of awareness
of gender equity among classroom teachers is astonishing. Why hasn't
there been more progress?
One reason is that professional education associations rarely feature
major speeches on gender equity, and when a workshop on gender equity
is given, most of those in attendance are already convinced of the importance
of the issue and are doing something about it. The mainstream educational
media occasionally run articles on gender equity but it is hardly a
top priority.
Another reason for the lack of awareness of gender equity among so
many teachers has been in the types of activities gender equity specialists
have carried out over the past 20 years. A major activity has been to
increase the awareness of classroom teachers about gender equity through
the primary vehicle of the inservice workshop. There have surely been
thousands of them-held at local, state, and national professional meetings,
at universities, and in schools, and taught by gender equity specialists
who are professors, gender equity grantees such as myself, the occasional
classroom teacher or administrator, and local, state, or national education
agency employees.
I see several reasons why this vast effort has not had as much effect
as we might have hoped. For one, most of the workshops are the "quick-fix"
type of an hour or two. While activities designed to create awareness
of gender inequities are certainly essential, teachers, like the rest
of us, have developed sexist attitudes and beliefs over a lifetime.
An hour or two aren't enough to create substantial "cognitive dissonance."
Second, most of the workshops stop with awareness of the problem, passing
lightly over solutions, and without solutions there can be no progress.
Third, classroom teachers have many professional agendas competing for
their attention.
Gender equity specialists must have the active and widespread cooperation
of classroom teachers. We do not personally teach girls in K-12 classrooms,
nor do most of us teach prospective teachers. Without enlisting classroom
teachers and professors of education in substantial numbers to address
gender equity in their teaching, our work can be of no benefit to girls
in schools.
This article addresses a critical link-the involvement of educators
in gender equity-and specific ways I have found to be successful in
moving them from a lack of interest to active commitment.
Teacher Education Equity Project
I designed a gender equity instruction project to reach teachers before
they enter the classroom: at the preservice teacher education stage
of their careers. The Teacher Education Equity Project serves 60 professors
of education in mathematics, science, and technology at 40 colleges
and universities in 27 states from Alaska to Florida. It is funded primarily
by the National Science Foundation, with additional support from IBM,
Hewlett Packard, and AT&T for a total of $1,028,000 over the
three years 1993-1996. We have a full-time staff of three.
Participants receive, expenses paid, a five-day seminar and a three-day
follow-up meeting, a minigrant of $750 per participant, and extensive
publicity about their participation. In exchange, they do three things:
teach gender equity to their students in education methods classes,
share what they learned at the seminar with their colleagues, and carry
out an approved minigrant project relating to gender equity in preservice
teacher education.
Seminar sessions included An Overview of the Issues in Gender Equity
in Education, a review of 20 areas of gender equity (language, legislation,
testing, sexual harassment, and others) to convey a sense of the systemic
nature of sexism in education; Research Overview of Girls and Women
in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education and Careers, an analysis
of the effect of societal norms, educational experiences, and student
dispositions on girls' and women's attitudes, grades, test scores, motivation,
and persistence; Classroom Interaction and Peer Harassment, an examination
of biased classroom interactions via role play and strategies for making
the classroom a more equitable place; Feminist Approaches to Teaching
Mathematics, Science, and Technology, a session that presented three
approaches to syllabus design based on models of feminist pedagogy;
Evaluating Gender Equity Projects, a session with principles, tips,
and materials for evaluation; and Gender Equity in Preservice Mathematics/Technology/Science
Education, three concurrent sessions at which a book of activities for
professors of education to use in methods courses with education students
was presented to participants.
The minigrant projects are quite varied. One involves education students
in planning and teaching an existing week-long summer camp program on
math, science, and computers for 150 seventh and eighth grade girls.
Another has math and science education students design and carry out
gender equity action research projects in their field experience schools
for course credit.
What Works?
It is clear to me that most of the participants in the project have
become committed and effective activists. As one participant from Oregon
wrote,1
"It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what it was that changed my
lens for viewing the world, but that's exactly what happened. I can't
go into a classroom without thinking about these issues. . . . My teaching
looks and feels different. It is very exciting."
This outcome is all the more remarkable in that most of the participants
did not start out with background knowledge in women's studies or gender
equity. Many were not even aware of the widely publicized findings a
few years ago of two studies on biased classroom interaction patterns.
2 What,
then, accounts for their transformation?
Seminar content. A participant from South
Dakota wrote that "the intense training we received during our
training session in Minneapolis made a lasting impression." It
was deliberately intense, because the strength of years of unexamined
sexist assumptions requires considerable force to pierce. Nationally
known instructors reinforced the message. As a seminar participant wrote,
"Your guest speakers were great people who raised the credibility
of the entire program." The instructors were chosen not only for
their expertise but their teaching ability: clarity, liveliness, warmth,
and ideological moderation, the last because I was concerned that speakers
perceived as "radical" would alienate novices.
The first session at the seminar was important in setting the tone.
I invited participants to describe the various gender gaps they had
discovered in their schools, colleges, or universities. For the next
hour and a half that's what they did, so that each saw that her or his
gender imbalance wasn't unusual, they learned that most of them had
been surprised at what they had discovered, and they began to get a
sense of each other as colleagues.
Many participants have mentioned the materials they received at the
seminar as particularly helpful: a thick packet of 18 brochures and
books plus five looseleaf binders-one a 540-page compendium of materials
for my overview session on gender equity, one of handouts for the other
sessions, and three of activities to be used to teach preservice education
students about gender equity in math, science, and technology. 3
For people new to gender equity, the vastness and the range of materials
was a revelation and helped to convince them that there was indeed a
problem with education for girls and that researchers and teachers had
developed extensive solutions. An Oregon participant said, "The
notebooks presented things in a global way and broke the issue apart
in a more systematic way. The research base was really helpful in convincing
our faculty there is validity in what we are trying to do here."
Her second sentence is very important. I felt it was essential that
participants take home a good selection of research on gender equity,
because they needed to have tools readily available for dealing with
resistance from colleagues charging "feminist extremism."
As a participant from Idaho said, "I love the resource materials
we came away with. They are a much needed crutch and springboard, particularly
because they are 'middle of the road' and not 'radical.'"
Seminar atmosphere. I told participants
that the gender imbalances they reported were not their fault; they
did not create the problem, although they inadvertently contributed
to it like everyone else in a sexist society (including myself), but
it was in their power to fix it. This point is essential, because many
newcomers to gender equity are afraid we are going to accuse them of
oppressing poor defenseless little girls. They're angry with us before
we say a word, which obviously does not produce a good learning environment.
Similarly, I permitted no male-bashing because most novices assume
simplistically that sexism is exclusively men's fault. ("There
are no girls in Physics because all the science teachers in my school
are men," for example, could not go unchallenged.) It is simply
not true that male teachers are the problem and female teachers are
the solution: there are plenty of helpful men and sexist women. Male-bashing
effectively releases men from any responsibility for gender equity solutions-if
maleness causes sexism then they can't help being sexist, which I do
not accept. In addition, male-bashing would have insulted and alienated
the third of the participants who were men, thus defeating the very
purpose of the project for them.
A further aspect was the creation of a group ethos. Newcomers to gender
equity can feel quite alone when their new commitment is not shared,
or is even disparaged, by colleagues. Eventually enough colleagues become
interested that the isolation tends not to last, but initially it is
very important to reassure the novice that she or he is not alone.
Follow-up. The essence of our follow-up
is one well described by a participant from Pennsylvania: "This
project works because you've made us accountable for portions of it.
So many workshop/seminars are simply presentations of information without
any responsibility for participant involvement afterward. You've maintained
contact and pushed us to be active. By making us accountable, you've
brought us into the project fully."
The electronic network we established for the Teacher Education Equity
Project has been extremely successful. The network contains information
about participants' activities; summaries of newly approved minigrant
projects; news of resources (print, electronic media, conferences);
requests for panelists for conference sessions on the project; discussions
of various project-related topics; and so forth. Participants strongly
preferred that the network not be opened up to the world at large, thus
enabling the network to function as group "glue."
The network has been our main vehicle for follow-up. An Alaska participant
commented, "The listserv has been very beneficial. Even though
I haven't sent a lot of messages to the group, I feel that reading the
messages posted on a weekly basis keeps me informed and committed to
the project. I believe without the bulletin board it would be easy to
get distracted with other projects and let things slide. When I see
what others are doing, I feel a real obligation to follow through."
We also produce a newsletter every two months with material that has
appeared on the network, partly to give everyone a hard copy organized
by topic that they can share with others if they choose, partly to send
to the five non-network participants, and partly to have an ongoing
report to send to funders, seminar instructors, advisory committee members,
and others.
Another form of follow-up activity is the participants' minigrant projects.
I visited one project in Utah where a professor chose to use her $750
to pay modest stipends to students who helped her teach a five-hour
workshop for area teachers on gender equity, and to pay for lunch and
materials for the teachers.
The three-day follow-up meeting for the Teacher Education Equity Project
was taught primarily by the 60 participants, as they reported on what
they learned in their minigrant projects and shared what they accomplished
in their classrooms and institutions.
Conclusion
The Teacher Education Equity Project is an approach that clearly has
worked to change educators, in this case professors of education, from
uninformed to committed. In the first year of their participation the
60 of them taught 5,000 preservice teachers about gender equity, and
these new teachers are graduating to their own classrooms where they
will influence the development of hundreds of thousands of girls and
boys over the years. The 60 professors also taught 5,000 others-inservice
teachers, colleagues, parents, and so forth about gender equity. In
addition, they made about 150 presentations to colleagues locally and
nationally. And this is the record of only one year. We can change the
world, and dramatically.
This article is adapted from the paper "How Do
We Get Educators to Teach Gender Equity?" prepared for "Is
There a Pedagogy for Girls?" A Colloquium Sponsored by UNESCO
and the Institute of Education, University of London, London, England,
January 10-12, 1995. As of July 1, 1996, Ms. Sanders will be at the
College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle.
Notes
- This quotation and the succeeding ones were written by professors
of education participating in the Teacher Education Equity Project
in response to my request for advice from them for this paper.
- A Call to Action: Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America,
commissioned by the American Association of University Women, Washington,
D.C., 1991, and The AAUW Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls,
commissioned and published by the AAUW with the study carried out
by the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1992.
- A book of classroom, homework, and field experience activities
for teacher educators in science, mathematics, and technology is being
developed to teach students about gender equity issues and solutions.
Jo Sanders, Janice Koch, and Josephine Urso, Gender Equity in Teacher
Education (working title). Please contact the publisher, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J., at (201) 236-9500 for ordering information
on this forthcoming publication.
by Patricia A. Pokay, Eastern Michigan University
and
Marta Larson, University of Michigan
Researchers and educators alike have recently begun to recognize the
need for our teacher preparation programs to be inclusive of multicultural
and gender equity issues; but while some accrediting bodies have standards
concerning multicultural education, there are no such standards concerning
gender equity. Although equity issues have recently begun to be infused
into curricula, these often vary by course and instructor within an
institution. Thus, education students are often ill prepared to deal
with multicultural gender-fair issues in their own future classrooms.
There is almost no research exploring gender equity issues in teacher
preparation programs and little research concerning multicultural issues.
Most of the research is focused on classrooms in general rather than
on student knowledge, attitudes, and preparation for their own future
role as teachers. If information concerning the degree to which students
are prepared to deal with gender and multicultural equity issues were
available to faculty teaching education courses, those who believe these
issues are important would be in a better position to integrate them
into the curriculum.
A logical place to begin to influence the classrooms of the future
is in teacher preparation programs. Contrasting faculty beliefs about
the amount of equity information they integrate into their curricula
with student recollections regarding the information they received about
equity while preparing to become teachers might reveal how effective
faculty efforts were.
Thus, the intent of this study was to survey students in teacher education
programs and their faculty to determine (a) how students and faculty
define multicultural gender-fair education, (b) what percent of courses
deal with equity issues, (c) student and faculty beliefs about student
level of preparation in dealing with equity issues when teaching, (d)
student and faculty attitudes and beliefs concerning equity, and (e)
what experiences each has had in teacher education with these issues.
Method
Teacher education faculty and students enrolled in student teaching
from seven colleges and universities across the country responded to
the invitation to participate in this study. All participation was voluntary.
The goal was to have a stratified sample of large and small, public
and private, geographically diverse institutions, with a wide variety
of student demographics represented. At each institution, all faculty
involved in teacher training and all student teachers were asked to
complete a survey. Six of the seven schools submitted data, with five
schools submitting data that was complete enough to analyze. Therefore,
the results that follow are based on these five schools and raise some
good questions for further study.
Each section of the survey contained questions concerning race, class,
gender, disability, and language differences. In addition, information
was collected concerning the demographics of the school population and
how equity is incorporated into the school program (i.e., one course
on equity or infusion throughout courses).
Student information was collected from student teachers because they
have generally completed most of their course work. Teacher information
was collected from as many teacher education faculty members as possible
from each institution. Demographic data included the student enrollment,
a percentage breakdown of student enrollment by gender and race, the
number of students currently student teaching, the number of faculty
and instructors, and a percentage breakdown of faculty by gender and
race.
Descriptive analyses were conducted for students and faculty separately
by school. Student perceptions were compared to faculty perceptions
for each question. In addition, differences between schools were noted.
Results
One issue addressed in the debate over the inclusion of multicultural
gender-fair education is whether it should be taught as a separate course
or infused throughout the curriculum.
When asked whether the school had a specific course that addressed
multicultural and/or gender-fair education, some faculty and students
believed there was such a course at their school while others believed
there was no such course. This result was true for all five schools
surveyed.
Those who believed there was such a course were further asked whether
it was a required course and to describe its content. Again, there was
no consensus from any of the schools as to whether the course was required.
Examination of the written responses to this question revealed that
those who described a specific course often were not describing the
same course even though they were from the same institution.
There is no course that is devoted to these topics that both faculty
and students can identify at any of the institutions surveyed. While
many people believe the issues are covered, there is no consensus on
how or where this is happening.
In order to explore the infusion approach to multicultural gender-fair
teaching, faculty and students were asked two questions concerning their
courses. First, they were asked how many of their courses dealt with
the issues of analyzing bias in instructional and testing materials;
teaching from diverse points of view; working with students with limited
English proficiency; developing student self-confidence; incorporating
multicultural history; addressing learning styles; and dispelling misconceptions,
stereotypes, and prejudices.
Developing student self-confidence, addressing learning styles, and
dispelling myths were the topics addressed most often. These topics
were followed by teaching from diverse points of view, addressing multicultural
history, and developing bias-free testing. Generally, faculty responded
that they addressed all of these issues in most of their classes. Students,
however, said that the latter set of topics were addressed in only some
of their classes. Finally, analyzing bias in instructional materials
and working with students with limited English proficiency were listed
by both groups as the topics dealt with in the fewest number of courses.
The second question on infusion in the classroom asked faculty and
students how many of their education courses prepared students to deal
with the following issues in their own teaching: conducting equitable
discussions; incorporating diverse viewpoints; working with varying
levels of English proficiency; encouraging student control of success;
incorporating the best experiences of all cultures and both genders;
equitable handling of discipline problems; and dispelling misconceptions,
stereotypes, and prejudices.
Again, similar patterns emerged in all schools surveyed. Both students
and faculty considered encouraging student control of success, dispelling
myths, conducting equitable discussion, and incorporating diverse views
as items that students were more prepared to deal with in their own
teaching. Both students and faculty believed students were less prepared
to deal with incorporating all experiences into the curriculum, using
equitable discipline, and utilizing teaching techniques for varying
levels of English proficiency.
It must be noted that faculty and students were actually addressing
these questions differently. Faculty responded to the number of their
own courses where these issues were taught while students responded
to the number of total courses that dealt with the issues. Faculty felt
that they deal with most of these topics while the broader picture that
the students presented is that this trend does not extend to all teacher
education courses.
An additional question addressed student preparation for dealing with
these issues in their own teaching whether or not the issues had been
covered in courses. Faculty were asked how prepared students are to
deal with these issues in their own teaching while the student question
was more personally directed at how prepared the individual student
was to deal with these issues in her/his own teaching.
Although students felt that only a portion of their classes prepared
them, they rated themselves as being prepared to deal with encouraging
student control of success, dispelling myths, conducting equitable discussions,
and incorporating diverse views. In addition, they felt somewhat prepared
to deal with the other issues of incorporating all experiences, handling
discipline, and working with varying levels of English proficiency.
Faculty tended to agree with student perceptions, although in one case,
that of dealing with incorporating all experiences into the curriculum,
students rated themselves as more highly prepared than did the faculty.
Conclusions
Findings suggest that in all of these schools, exposure to issues of
multiculturalism and gender equity was sporadic and probably dependent
on the students' choice of instructor. It was unclear whether any of
these schools had courses that were designed specifically to deal with
multicultural and gender equity issues. In addition, infusion of these
issues varied greatly both within schools and across schools. If infusion
is to be used as the avenue of dissemination, differences within courses
where several faculty teach the same course must be addressed. At the
schools in this study, like most schools, the instructor has a great
deal of control over what is taught in the course and how it is taught.
While academic freedom needs to be preserved, we need to ensure that
students who take the same course from different instructors get essentially
the same course. This is the only way the infusion model will be effective.
While the initial results of this study allow us to describe patterns
emerging in teacher education programs, a possible long-term result
is to provide institutions with a way to evaluate their own efforts
in promoting multicultural gender-fair education to identify areas that
may need to be strengthened.
This study was conducted in 1992 under the auspices of
the National Coalition for Sex Equity in Education (NCSEE) Task Force
on Teacher Preparation. Researchers included Betty Barber, Dr. Trevor
G. Gardner, and Dr. Patricia A. Pokay, all of Eastern Michigan University,
Ypsilanti, Michigan, and Marta Larson of the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
by Judith Dorney
State University of New York--New Paltz
The Women Teaching Girls (WTG) retreats offer an alternative to more
conventional ideas and practices in the education of teachers. A hallmark
of the retreats is the development of community among women teachers
who come together to critically reflect on their own education as girls
and women and their teaching practice and relationships with girls.
The development of community is dependent upon the women's ability
to give voice to their thoughts and feelings as they consider together
their educational experience. The retreat process very literally serves
to "hear women into speech"1 and in
so doing moves the thoughts and feelings of the women educators into
a more public forum. In addition, authentic relationships are able to
take root among the women, allowing them to work together to create
a community of support. This community then becomes a source of courage
and imagination as the women work to speak and act within the more public
world of the school.
Girls and Women Teachers
The WTG retreats originally grew out of a project designed by the Harvard
Project on the Psychology of Women and the Development of Girls and
the Laurel School for Girls in Ohio. The Laurel-Harvard Project is one
of a number of research projects undertaken to better understand how
girls develop and what part schooling might play in that development.2
These projects or studies, with different populations of girls, reveal
some similar threads. There is, for example, strong evidence to suggest
that all girls, at the edge of adolescence, are subject to private and/or
public silencing of their voices, a loss of a sense of authority about
what they know from experience, and a tendency to idealize relationships.
The Retreats
Members of the Harvard Project, Lyn Brown, Katie Cannon, Carol Gilligan,
Jill Taylor, and myself, joined women educators from the Laurel School
and later from the Boston Public Schools in a series of three WTG retreats
with each group. Drawing on the work of Maria Harris,3
who outlines five steps (Silence, Remembering, Mourning, Artistry, and
Birthing) in a pedagogy that takes women and girls as students and teachers
seriously, I designed and facilitated the majority of these retreats
in consultation with women at the schools. Our task was to work in each
of these steps on issues, questions, and concerns connected to our experiences
as women students and teachers.
The women participants have attributed many stories of change in their
teaching practice and relationships to the retreat experiences and to
the felt support of other women educators in their schools. In certain
cases the retreat steps enabled them to make new determinations about
what and how it was important to teach. In other cases the women told
stories of their own courage in speaking up and speaking out in moments
when they would have previously been silent. And there were stories
of support for girls who struggled to address injustices in their own
education.
Our work with women and with girls highlights an often underestimated
reality, namely, that women and girls can and do teach each other. Schools,
which are a common meeting ground for both, offer abundant opportunity
for this kind of educational encounter. The WTG retreats take this meeting
ground seriously, joining the voices, stories, and realities of female
students and women teachers. These joinings present the possibility
for the development of educational community and as such offer a way
to reconsider the education of girls and the education of the women
who teach them.
Notes
- N. Morton, The Journey Is Home (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985).
- L. M. Brown and C. Gilligan, Meeting at the Crossroads: Women's
Psychology and Girls' Development (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1992); C. Gilligan, J. Taylor, D. Tolman, A. Sullivan, P. Pleasants,
and J. Dorney, The Relational World of At-Risk Adolescent Girls
(unpublished manuscript, 1992); Greenberg-Lake: The Analysis Group,
Shortchanging Girls. Shortchanging America (Washington, D.C.:
American Association of University Women, 1991); A. Bowker, Sisters
in the Blood: The Education of Women in Native America(Newton,
Mass.: WEEA Publishing Center/EDC, 1993).
- M. Harris, Women and Teaching (New York: Paulist Press,
1988).
To order WEEA materials call our distribution center
at 800-793-5076. Prices are subject to change.
Equity in Education Series (set of 4) #2761 $16.00
Educators' key tool in meeting the diverse needs of all students in
their classrooms is the Equity in Education Series. The four booklets
in the series set, Gender Equity for Educators, Parents, and Community
(#2762 $5.00), also available in Spanish, La Igualdad de género
para educadores, padres, y la Comunidad (#2800 $5.00); Gender Stereotypes:
The Links to Violence (#2763 $5.00); School-to-Work: Equitable Outcomes
(#2764 $5.00); and Gender-Fair Math (#2765 $5.00) (1) help educators,
parents, and community members understand their crucial roles in furthering
equity in the schools and in society; (2) provide educators and parents
with clear, current information; (3) help identify bias and respond
to it; and (4) offer activities and other hands-on tools to use in K-12
classrooms.
Sisters in the Blood: The Education of Women in Native America #2743
$23.50
A landmark publication, Sisters in the Blood is the first book to examine
the educational situation in all its intricacies for girls and women
in reservation communities. Based on her interviews with nearly 1,000
Native American women, author Dr. Ardy Bowker discusses the factors
that create school success as well as those that do not encourage it.
She allows the women to speak for themselves. Their stories paint a
clear picture of the barriers to success in education for Native American
girls and women. Bowker also places these experiences in the larger
context of U.S. education.
ESL: The Whole Person Approach #2699 $18.50
An innovative approach to ESL teacher training, this guide introduces
a holistic, humanistic method of bilingual education to the practitioner.
The text fully integrates bilingual education with gender equity concepts
both to improve Latino/Hispanic students' English proficiency and to
remove gender bias from the multicultural curricula.
The Hidden Discriminator: Sex and Race Bias in Educational Research
(set), #2691 $10.00
Provides an in-depth examination of stereotypes and bias in educational
research and explores the hidden effects of bias on decision making
and program design. Reveals numerous examples of bias in research-past
and present-and concludes with guidelines for evaluating and eliminating
sex and race bias in research. The set consists of a book and one each
of five pamphlets addressed to teachers, administrators, counselors,
students, parents, and communities. The pamphlets are sold in packets
of 10. Expecially appropriate for distribution at workshops, in classes
conferences or to guide individual research.
Checklists for Counteracting Race and Sex Bias in Educational Materials
#2042 $6.00
An easy-to-use handbook of guidelines and checklists to help you evaluate
bilingual and multicultural curriculum materials for the presence of
race and gender bias.
GESA: Teacher Handbook. For ordering information contact GrayMill
Publications at 909-246-2106.
Identifies five major areas of classroom disparity and offers research-based
strategies designed to counter inequities due to gender and race. This
invaluable tool will help teachers look at the impact of gender, race,
and ethnic biases on their teaching and discover what happens when they
reduce bias in their classrooms.
The Equity Principal: Administrator's Handbook. For ordering information
contact GrayMill Publications at 909-246-2106.
School administrators have an important responsibility to infuse a gender-fair
environment into their schools. The Equity Principal emphasizes the
importance of including equity as a criterion for excellence for today's
increasingly diverse population of learners and combines equity concepts
with research on effective schooling and administration.
Infusing an Equity Agenda into Education. For ordering information
contact GrayMill Publications at 909-246-2106.
The Infusion Process Model (IPM) was developed as a tool for implementing
and monitoring educational equity in school districts. The IPM uses
existing organizational structures and communication systems to generate
broad-based advocacy for educational equity. It infuses equity concepts
into all levels of school district operation and permits adaptation
of equity concepts and materials to the needs of individual agencies,
districts, and sites.
National Expert Panel
The WEEA Equity Resource Center facilitates the pilot test of an expert
panel in gender equity for the U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). National gender equity
experts, educators, students, and representatives from different government
agencies will develop criteria to surface best practice and exemplary
and promising materials for gender equity in a number of arenas, and
share these recommendations with the nation through WEEA's World Wide
Web site. The forum on teacher preparation will take place in July 1996
at the annual conference of the National Coalition for Sex Equity in
Education (NCSEE).
Equity Forums
The WEEA Equity Resource Center, with national organizations, cosponsors
and develops forums on key education issues to examine gender equity
implications for gender-based violence; teacher preparation; assessment
and testing; school-to-work; and math, science, and technology. These
forums bring together practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and
others to share information, exchange ideas, and build a solid infrastructure
to support gender equity in education. We will produce materials that
share the learning from the forums quickly and easily with policymakers,
educators, and others.
Bibliography on Gender Equity in Mathematics, Science, and Technology:
Resources for Classroom Teachers
compiled by Starla Rocco and Jo Sanders
Center for Advanced Study in Education
City University of New York Graduate Center
Gender Equity Program
25 West 43rd Street, Suite 400, New York, NY 10036
Classroom teachers and teacher trainers and educators need practical
materials that can be used in classrooms for equitable education: the
need is especially great in the math, science, and technology arenas.
Identifies materials for providing an equitable math, science, and technology
education.
Developing Multicultural Teacher Education Curricula
edited by Joseph M. Larkin and Christine E. Sleeter
State University of New York Press
State University Plaza
Albany, NY 12246
Focuses on teacher education curricula and discusses how to make that
curricula multicultural. A nuts-and-bolts approach accompanied by discussions
of possible problems leads the reader to redesign specific courses to
be multicultural.
"K-12 and Postsecondary Education: Same Issues, Same Consequences"
by Mary E. Dilworth and Stephanie Robinson
Published in the Spring/Summer 1995 issue of Educational Record
American Council on Education
One Dupont Circle
Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-1193
Suggests some ways to prepare teachers to overcome the barriers to academic
success in K-16 for poor students and students of color.
Lifting the Barriers: 600 Strategies That Really Work to Increase
Girls' Participation in Science, Mathematics, and Computers
by Jo Sanders
P.O. Box 483
Port Washington, NY 11050
Based on the experiences of two hundred K-12 educators from every state
in the country, this book contains tested strategies that are teacher-friendly
as well as successful. They range from the simple to the complex, from
the obvious to the ingenious, from the free to the expensive.
Women of Color and the Multicultural Curriculum: Transforming the
College Classroom
The Feminist Press at the City University of New York
311 East 94th Street
New York, NY 10128
Curriculum provides educators and administrators with a guide to multicultural
curricular change-especially with respect to representation of women.
Shows that essential educational change to meet the diversity of students
in U.S. classrooms may be slow or difficult, but it is also complex,
challenging, and intellectually exciting.
Publishing Information
The WEEA Digest is published
by the WEEA Equity Resource Center, a project at Education Development
Center, Inc., under contract #RP92136001 from the U.S. Department of
Education. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the
position of the U.S. Department of Education and no official should
be inferred.
About Us
| Our Services | Resources
to Infuse Equity
Publications | Women
of Achievement | News
Links | Contact
Us | Calendar of Events | Recursos
en Espanol
Home
Gender
Equity Works for All
WEEA
Equity Resource Center
EDC
55 Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02458-1060
Telephone: 800-225-3088 / 617-969-7100
TTY: 800-354-6798
Fax: 617-332-4318
E-mail: WEEActr@edc.org
Send comments, questions, concerns to weeactr@edc.org.
©2002 Education Development Center,
Inc.
|