Evidence of disciplinary bias against sexual minority females

LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning) pupils are coming out at earlier ages and becoming more visible in schools, creating a need for research on their educational experiences and outcomes. Exclusionary bias studies, which look at the proportions of pupils suspended or expelled, have historically focused on the bias against pupils of colour, yet sexual minority pupils face similar risks.

Joel Mittleman of Princeton University introduced a new data source for research on sexual minority pupils: The Fragile Families and Childhood Wellbeing Study. It is comprised of data on 4,898 children born in 20 US cities between 1998 and 2000, and at baseline was representative of all births at this time in cities with more than 200,000 people. The recent Year 15 follow up includes information on sexual orientation. Dr Mittleman used this data to relate sexual orientation to educational experiences and outcomes. He found that compared to teenagers solely attracted to the opposite gender:

  • Same-sex attracted teenagers are 29% more likely to experience exclusionary discipline.
  • This risk is stratified by gender, increasing to 95% higher odds of discipline among females. Yet based on parent report, Mittleman attributes only 38% of these disciplinary actions to behavioural problems.

This unexplained gap in discipline raises a red flag indicating that homophobia in schools is not gender-neutral, and warrants further research into the treatment of sexual minority status females versus males.

Source: Sexual orientation and school discipline: New evidence from a population-based sample (January 2018), Educational Researcher, Volume: 47 issue: 3

Do young children favour boys over girls?

A new study published in American Psychologist looks at evidence of bias against women and girls for jobs or activities requiring intellectual ability.

Andrei Cimpian conducted a series of three experiments to test for evidence of gender bias and its developmental roots. In the two initial experiments, more than 1,150 participants (mean age 35 years) were asked to refer individuals for a job. The results showed that participants were less likely to refer a woman when the job description mentioned intellectual ability (43.5% female referrals) than when it did not (50.8%).

In the third experiment, the researchers looked at whether young children favour boys over girls for intellectually challenging activities. Children ages five to seven (n= 192) were recruited from a small mid-western city in the US, and taught how to play a team game. Half of the children were told that the game was for “really, really smart” children, the other half were not. Children were then asked to select three teammates from among six children (three boys and three girls) they did not know.

Initially, the children selected teammates of the same gender as themselves (so, girls chose the other girls, and boys chose the other boys), but by the third selection round they became less likely to select girls as teammates for the “smart” game (37.6% girls selected) than for the control game (53.4%). Girls were less likely to select other girls as teammates across selection rounds, particularly for the “smart” game.

Source: Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability (December 2018), American Psychologist 73(9)