Abstract

Historically, the existence of inequities and inequalities between genders in US society has been well documented; and in contemporary society, many inequities continue to manifest themselves in a variety of social systems, including education, juvenile justice, and the economy.  Such inequities demand strong responses from practitioners, scholars, policy makers, and others who support the principles of equality, equity, and social justice. This article identifies and discusses contemporary issues that are representative of gender inequity within the systems of education, juvenile justice, and economics.  The authors explore ways in which historical and contemporary gender inequity issues have impacted and continue to impact student achievement, drug use, delinquency, poverty, and homelessness.  Furthermore, the authors offer concrete suggestions and recommendations for teachers, school leaders, and policy makers on ways to bridge the gender equity gap.

Introduction
Reference to at-risk students for this article is defined by the NCREL (2001) definition. The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) (2001) used Hixson’s definition of the term at-risk and suggested that students “are placed at-risk by adults…when they experience a significant mismatch between their circumstances and needs, and the capacity or willingness of the school to accept, accommodate and respond” (as cited in the At-Risk section, p. 5). Such students include those involved in circumstances of substance abuse, juvenile justice systems, poverty, homelessness, and alternative schools as they relate to race and gender. The circumstances for being at-risk based on substance abuse and involvement with the juvenile justice system were chosen for discussion in this article because they matched a report from the U.S. House of Representatives (2000), which puts substance abuse and juvenile justice issues at the top of the list of factors that contribute to students’ failure in schools. In addition, poverty and homelessness were listed as factors that contribute to students’ failure in schools due to their dramatic and deleterious effects on learning and achievement. Alternative schools were listed in the report as supports to school success for students at-risk of failure in schools. In addition, minority students, particularly males, are disproportionately represented in alternative schools. Statistics for students who are in circumstances that contribute to school dropout continue to be a crisis and warrant examination by educators to raise the level of awareness.

Statistics for Students At-risk for School Dropout

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2004) indicated that the status dropout rate, one of the several measures of dropout rates, represents the percentage of people 16-24 who are not enrolled in school and who have not earned a high school diploma, GED, or other certificate of completion. According to this measure, males were more likely than females to have dropped out of high school. In 2001, for instance, 12% of young males were dropouts, compared to 9% of young females (NCES, 2004). This is different from the general pattern in the 1970s, when dropout rates were generally similar for males and females (NCES, 2004). These gender differences in status dropout rates were evident within racial/ethnic groups in 2001. For example, in Table 1 dropout rates were higher among White, Black, and Hispanic males than White, Black, and Hispanic females (NCES, 2004). Although Hispanic females were less likely than Hispanic males to have dropped out in 2001, they were still more likely than Black and White males and females to have done so.

Table 1

Gender Differences in Dropout Rates within Racial/Ethnic Groups (2001)

____________________________________________________________

                                                           Percent

Racial/Ethnic Group                      Female                        Male

__________________________________________________________      

 White                                                    7%                             8%

 Black                                                    9%                            13%

 Hispanic                                             22%                           32%

__________________________________________________________

Note. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2004)

The percentage of both males and females who dropped out of high school decreased between 1972 and 2001. The percentage of males who were dropouts decreased from 14% to 12%, while the percentage of females decreased from 15% to 9%. When examined by gender and race/ethnicity, the dropout rate of White males and females, Black males and females, and Hispanic females decreased during this period, while no decrease was detected for Hispanic males (NCES, 2004).     In some instances, the student dropout estimates are attributed to substance abuse which includes alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and inhalants.

Gender and Substance Abuse

Alcohol Use

Substance abuse by school age children creates a barrier for academic success in school. Since alcohol is frequently a common gateway drug to other illegal substances, it is an appropriate beginning for the discussion. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2002), the age at which an individual uses alcohol for the first time varies by gender and has changed over a 35-year period from 1965 to 2000. For example, the mean age of females for the first time use of alcohol in 1965 was 18.2. By 1999, the mean age of first time female alcohol users had dropped to 16.3; however, it rose slightly to 16.6 in 2000. The mean age of males for the first time use of alcohol was 16.4 in 1965 and by 2000, the mean age had dropped to 15.7 (SAMHSA, 2002).

Current alcohol use among adolescents is at high levels and differs in rate of use by gender, grade, race, and geographic region (National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), 2003). Thirty days prior to the administration of the Monitoring the Future Survey (MTF), 20% of 8th graders, 35% of 10th graders, and 49% of 12th graders reported using alcohol. The numbers indicate a high degree of underage drinking. According to the MTF Survey, 20% of 8th grade females reported drinking alcohol at least 30 days prior to the survey administration. Among males in the 8th grade, 19.1% reported drinking alcohol at least 30 days prior to the MTF Survey. Seven percent of males and 6% of females in the 8th grade reported being drunk at least 30 days prior to the survey. Among females in the 10th grade and 12th grade 17% and 27%, respectively, reported being drunk 30 days prior to the MTF Survey. Males and females in each of the grade levels had nearly identical rates of lifetime alcohol use: 47% for 8th grade boys and girls, 66% for 10th grade boys, 69% for 10th grade girls, 78% for 12 grade boys and girls. However, by the 12th grade, boys distinguished themselves from girls in their binge drinking, which is defined as drinking on 20 or more occasions over the past 30 days. Thirty-four percent of boys and 23% of girls in the 12th grade had engaged in binge drinking during the previous two weeks. Statistics regarding abuse of illegal substances other than alcohol by school age children reveal alarming numbers equal to those identified for alcohol abuse. Those statistics are discussed in the following section.

Substance Abuse

In its MTF Survey, the NIDA (2004) reported the use of drugs by teens of several commonly used drugs (i.e., marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and inhalants). The MTF Survey measured drug abuse during an individual’s lifetime, the past year, and the past month. The results of the MTF Survey indicated that inhalants

(i.e., volatile solvents, gases, and aerosols) are the “drugs” of choice for the nation’s 8th graders, slightly ahead of marijuana, followed by cocaine and LSD. Among 10th graders, the preferred drug was marijuana, nearly three times the number favoring inhalants, followed by cocaine and LSD. Among high school seniors, marijuana was preferred nearly five times as much as inhalants, followed by cocaine and LSD. Inhalant use continues to be a gateway drug for many adolescents.

NIDA (2004) reported that 3% of children in the United States have tried an inhalant by the time they reach 4th grade. Inhalant use typically peaked during 7th through 9th grade years, although 8th graders reported the highest rate of current year, past year, and life-time inhalant use. Regarding gender differences, NIDA (2004) reported that more than 10% of females in the 8th grade reported using inhalants compared to approximately 9% of males. In the higher grades, males outnumber females in inhalant use, 4.8% and 3.4%, respectively.

Data from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (2003) indicated that marijuana use among males and females differed only slightly in the 12-17 year-old age range; but the gap in use increased in adulthood. Among 12-17 year-olds, 17.7% of males had ever used marijuana and 16.1% of females had ever done so. Over the past year, 14.4% of males had used marijuana compared to 13.7% of females. During the last month prior to the survey, 8.6% of males had used marijuana, compared to 7.9% of females. As noted by prior statistics, substance abuse by males and females warrant attention and increased intervention. Consequences for continued substance abuse will result in an increase in the number of students being served in the juvenile justice system (Dohrn, 2000).

Issues of Race and Gender in the Juvenile Justice System

Starting in the 1980s, budgets for the juvenile justice system increased exponentially, reflecting a shift in fiscal priorities away from education and child protection to the construction of juvenile detention centers and law enforcement (Dohrn, 2000; Noguera, 1995). This has resulted in what Polakow (2000) termed “an alarming industry of incarceration” (p. 11). Costs to maintain a youth in juvenile detention are over ten times what are spent on that same youth’s education in low income neighborhoods.

Polls consistently indicate that adults believe youth crime is on the increase even when actual statistics indicate otherwise (Dorman & Schiraldi, 2001).   Fueled by these perceptions of a juvenile crime epidemic, policy initiatives have favored a “get tough approach.” Although it has more than a 100 year history, the whole institution of juvenile court is being eroded, moving more toward a punishment and incarceration model.  In the past 10 years, 44 states and the District of Columbia passed laws making it easier for juveniles to be tried as adults (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Statistical (OJJDP) Briefing Book, 1999), further blurring the original distinctions between juvenile and adult courts.

Race in the Juvenile Justice System

Juvenile justice statistics are replete with disproportional responses to youth based on the intersection of race, class, and gender. Bell (2000) made the point that the nexus of color and youth have converged in such a way that the numbers of juveniles of color being confined cannot be accounted for simply by criminal activity alone. The OJJDP found that in every state in the country except for Vermont the number of minority youth detained exceeded their proportion in the general population (Hoytt, Schiraldi, Smith, & Ziedenberg, 2000). Nationally, for example, the proportion of African American youth increased at every stage of the juvenile justice system; while representing only 15% of the total youth population, 44% of youth detained and 58% of youth admitted to state prisons were African American (Yamagata & Jones, 2000). Comparable information for Latinos is not available, Yamagata & Jones (2000) pointed out, because Latino youth were often counted as White.   Bell (2000) and others (Lopez, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997) make the case that assumptions about youth of color, particularly male and low-income or working class, contribute to their overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. There is an assumption that they are prone to aggression, violence, and criminal activity.

Gender in the Juvenile Justice System

While boys make up the majority of juvenile arrests and placements, girls are the fastest growing segment in the juvenile justice system (Rodney and Mupier, 2004). They are also the most invisible (Dohrn, 2004). Girls account for one of every four juvenile arrests, yet they are almost always forgotten when juvenile justice issues are discussed (Chesney-Lind, 1999).

This lack of focus on girls involved in the juvenile justice system has a long history. It includes those who daily are in contact with them, offering de-gendered practices of detention without any consideration that it is young females they have in their charge. Policy makers too collude in not bringing girls into the conversation. Chesney-Lind (1999) pointed out that Congress, in its most recent overhauls of juvenile justice legislation, focused overwhelmingly on “violent” juvenile offenders, code for boys. The feminist community has offered little in the way of leadership on these issues. As Dohrn (2004) noted, “Girls caught in the juvenile justice system have been an addendum to feminist concerns and a footnote within child advocacy,” “an irritating subset of a male system” (p. 303).

Girls in custody account for 15% of incarcerated youth. In the case of minority girls, while the incarceration of girls “skyrocketed 65% between 1988 and 1997, the increase for African American girls was 123% whereas that for white girls was 41% (Dohrn, 2004, p. 309). Arrests for girls for violent offenses have dramatically increased since the mid 1980s, initially lending credence to the notion that girls have become more violent (Chesney-Lind, 1999). Arrests of girls increased 83% in the 1990s, a decade that saw a major drop in youth crime overall (Dohrn, 2004). Two themes intersect to help explain the increased involvement of girls in the juvenile justice system: the social construction of the aggressive girls  and the re-labeling of offenses that then warrant arrest.    

Social construction of aggressive girls and re-labeling of offenses. Girls initially enter the juvenile justice system primarily for status offenses, a constant over the past 25 years:

     Status offenses are those violations of parental authority, behaviors that   

     would not be criminal if committed by an adult, such as curfew   

     violations, incorrigibility, running away, truancy, un-governability,

     person in need of supervision, or minor in need of care and protection.  

     (Dohrn, 2004, p. 310)
 

Girls come then to the attention of the juvenile justice system for non-criminal behaviors and actually are arrested and detained for these behaviors more often than their male counterparts (Dohrn, 2004).  

Profiling young offenders. Girls arrested for violent offenses report significantly higher rates of abuse than their nonviolent counterparts; one in four of them report having been sexually abused (Chesney-Lind, 1999). Ironically, from its earliest years, the juvenile court has frequently institutionalized girls for offenses such as “sexual immorality” and “waywardness” (Chesney-Lind, 1999). The court has in effect set itself as arbiters of girls’ sexual behavior while being less proactive in terms of protecting these same girls from being sexually abused.
 

Youth who have low levels of academic achievement, disabilities, or who are dropouts are more likely to be found among juvenile offenders (Baltodano, Mathur, & Rutherford, 2005; Rodney & Mupier, 2004). Christle, Jolivette, and Nelson (2005) pointed out that the majority of court-involved youth have experienced academic failure, school exclusion, and dropout. Issues of juvenile detention then are tightly tied to the failures of the educational system. Under zero tolerance regulations, behaviors that in the past might have been handled at a school level are now routinely handed off to the police (Noguera, 1995), resulting in what some have described as the “school to prison pipeline” where youth are better prepared to do time than to pursue higher education (Herr & Anderson, 2003; Nolan & Anyon, 2004). Also linked to youth and the juvenile justice system is the issue of poverty and gender equity.
 

Impact of Poverty on Students’ School Success

The interaction between gender and poverty is multidimensional and complex, but there are certain generalizations that can be made. One, women in the U.S. are 25-30% more likely to be poorer than men (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2001), and two, some ethnic minority women in the U.S. are poorer than White men and women, as well as minority men (Hardy & Hazelrigg, 1995; Schaffner-Goldberg, 1990; Waters & Eschbach, 1995). Equally important, not only are women poorer than men, but they are also becoming increasingly poorer as time progresses (Buvinic & Gupta, 1997) and due to their care-taking responsibilities, their children are greatly affected (Cagatay, 1998). Some of the following dimensions of gender and poverty and their conceptualizations will be discussed: (a) feminization of poverty; (b) female-maintained households; (c) racial feminization of poverty; and (d) female related poverty and its implications on children and their education.
 

Definition and Dynamics of Poverty

The definition of poverty has undergone changes as well, going from a narrowly focused concept to one with a broader focus that examines the causes (Baulch, 1996). The more narrow traditional term meant a lack of access to resources, assets, and income that result in a state of lack of materials. This most recent definition resulted in assessing poverty in an absolute rather than relative to other indicators. The broadly-based term of poverty has permitted for the “causes” to be examined. This move has allowed for poverty to not only include lack of material goods, but to include lack of “dignity and autonomy” (Jodha, 1986). Increasingly, as poverty becomes redefined the process by which the poor can access goods rather than their lack of resources becomes more evident. With the newer conceptualizations, the poor are seen as active agents in seeking out their own resources rather than those who lack resources. This newer definition of poor includes assets such as social capital and household relations (Moser, 1996; Moser, 1998). This notion has led to an empowerment of the poor, which is considered critical to the elimination of poverty (Chambers, 1996). The move from “income poverty” to “human poverty” allows for added dimensions of poverty to be considered, such as access to clean water, health services, and levels of literacy.
 

Female Related Poverty and Its Implications on Children

In 2005, school enrollment figures reported the following statistics for children in the following four ethnic groups: White (62.6%), Hispanic (17.9%), African American (14.7%), and Asian American (4.8%). By 2025, the projected school enrollment for the four ethnic groups is: White (54.8%), Hispanic (24.3%), African American (14.2%), and Asian American (6.7%) (U.S.Bureau of the Census, 2000). Most assuredly, the decrease in White school age children and the increase of Hispanic children, a group most affected by female poverty, will present certain challenges as it relates to education.
 

Social class, a family’s ranking in society, is determined by annual income, occupation, amount of education, place of residence, affiliation with certain organizations, way of dressing, and material wealth. These will all play an important role in determining the type of education a child receives. Due to a history of discrimination for certain ethnic minority groups and lack of the aforementioned descriptors, many minority children will be described as coming from a low socioeconomic class or high poverty status. Poverty rates for American children in 2001 were at 15.8%; however, poverty rates for African American, Native American, and Hispanic American families were about three times higher than for White children. An important question that comes from this information is who gets educated, what will the quality be, and what are the future job prospects for those children?
 

The most important predictor of employment is graduation status. Rates of graduation for the four ethnic groups in discussion are: White, 74.9%; Hispanic, 53.2%; African American, 50.2%; and Native American, 51.1% (Swanson & Hoskyn, 2004). The achievement gap between low-SES minority students and White students is one of the most researched topics in terms of how social class affects learning (Alson, 2002/2003; Bell 2002/2003; Denbo, 2002, Hrabowski, 2002/2003; Ladson-Billings, 2002; Lee, 2002; Nieto, 2002/2003; Singham, 2003).
 

The reasons given for this achievement discrepancy are living conditions, family environment, classroom environment, and student characteristics. Three of the reasons, with the exception of classroom environment, are directly or indirectly tied to the mother’s poverty level.     

The family environment of children from low socioeconomic families tends to be one of growing up in a one-parent family. This dynamic places the children in several at-risk situations. One, a risk of not providing the support needed. For example, some authors studying this dynamic indicated that while a one-parent family does not necessarily guarantee a child’s poor school performance, a two-parent family is likely to be more effective in providing a positive influence (Levine & Levine, 1996). Two, some ethnic groups such as Latinos and African Americans have been known to be at a greater risk of poor school performance due to the lack of support from their parents. Three, students from low socioeconomic conditions tend to have restricted life experiences that provide the basis for learning.
 

Research indicates that a positive attitude toward school is highly correlated to classroom environment. A study involving low socioeconomic African American students in 3rd through 5th grade demonstrated that students who like school were most likely to have a relationship with a teacher that was caring and supportive (Baker, 1999).
 

Teacher expectancy with low socioeconomic and low and high performing students have had mixed results. Earlier studies investigating teacher expectancy effects revealed that teachers do form opinions about students based on their ethnicity and socioeconomic level, that they communicate those beliefs, and that students responds to what teachers expect (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). Most recent research on teacher expectations however has found both positive and negative effects (Good & Nicholls, 2001).
 

Studies on student characteristics of low socioeconomic students indicate they are not as likely to be motivated by school and a need for achievement (Cooper & Dorr, 1995). For example, Latino and African American students are more likely to think that they can get a job without an education (Okagaki, 2001). Given that these students do not have educational plans and leave school early, they are destined to take low-paying, dead-end jobs. An encouraging finding, however, has indicated that females from ethnic and racial minority students place a higher value on academic achievement.
 

Females are poorer and getting progressively poorer than males in national settings for a variety of reasons and due to their care-taking responsibilities, their children are adversely affected. As women move and look for ways of employment, they change many institutions and traditionally held beliefs.
 

Gender Equity and Homeless Students

Poverty, as discussed in an earlier section of this article, and lack of affordable housing are primary causes of homelessness (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2002). Welfare reforms since 1997 and lack of affordable housing in American exacerbate the problem. As a result, it is estimated that 3.5 million people experience homelessness and of that group 39% of are children and youth (Urban Institute, 2000). Comparably, children make up about 25% of the U.S. population; hence, children in homeless situations are overrepresented as a group. Statistics related to people in homeless situations should be interpreted with caution because data are difficult to collect and definitions vary by agency. For this article, students in homeless situations will address those who lack permanent housing as a result of extreme poverty, unstable living environment, or unsafe conditions (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2002).
 

The lack of a permanent residence undermines success in school for boys and girls. Students in homeless situations are at-risk of school failure due to the factors associated with poverty (i.e., unemployment, domestic violence and abuse, mental illness, and abuse of drugs and alcohol). Children in homeless situations are twice as likely to be in poor health and to go without food as other children. They are four times as likely to have delayed development which impacts academic readiness and performance (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2002).
 

Many other factors influence the academic performance of students in homeless situations. In studies investigating causes of students dropping out of school, researchers have reported that low grades, high rates of absenteeism, and mobility are key factors (Rumberger, 1987; Rumberger, 2000; Rumberger & Larson, 1998; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986). Because of frequent moves, illness, and absenteeism, children in homeless situations are less likely to attend school. Students living in poverty were three times more likely to drop out than other students (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). Clearly, students in homeless situations experience many risk factors related to school success.
 

Most of the homeless families with children were led by adult females and almost half of these were fleeing domestic abuse. Gender equity issues can be viewed as a microcosm of the issues evident with persons living in poverty.
 

Prior to 1987, limited assistance was available for those experiencing homelessness. After much prompting from local governments, federal legislators responded with the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (PL100-77), which was the first federal response to homelessness (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1999). Adopted in 1987 and amended several times, the Act provides provisions and assistance to persons experiencing homelessness. The McKinney-Vento Act was reauthorized in 2002 as part of the No Child Left Behind legislation to broaden educational services for homeless students. To address some of the risk factors experienced by homeless students such as mobility and lack of enrollment documents, the amended McKinney-Vento Act requires school districts to allow homeless students to remain in attendance at one school for the remainder of the academic year, regardless of relocation by the child’s family. Such provisions, at the preference of the parent, allow for greater stability and academic growth for children in homeless situations. Additionally, districts are required to provide transportation services and to review policies to ensure that barriers for students in homeless situations are removed (National Center for Homeless Education, 2002.

To facilitate the enrollment process, districts are required to enroll students in homeless situations with limited or no documentation. Often, families in homeless situations are unaware of services available and lack the resources to secure help. Each district must appoint a liaison for the homeless to provide information about services, educational rights, and opportunities to allow for participation in the educational process. In general, Title I, Part A federal funding is provided to districts for students that are most at-risk of failing. The law recognizes that students in homeless situations are among the most at-risk students; as a result, they are automatically eligible for Title I services, regardless of current academic performance (National Center for Homeless Education, 2002). Students in homeless situations are some of the most at-risk students attending schools, if they attend at all. Collection of statistics describing those in homeless situations is difficult due to mobility and the temporary nature of being without a home. People experiencing homelessness vary in age, ethnicity, and gender, and most experience an economic hardship.
 

Gender Equity and Students in Alternative Schools
 

In the past two decades, public concern about violence, weapons, and drugs on elementary and secondary school campuses, balanced with concern about sending disruptive and potentially dangerous students “out on the streets,” has spawned an increased interest in alternative schools and programs. Yet, little research has so far been conducted on alternative education on a national basis. The 2001 “District Survey of Alternative Schools and Programs,” conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2003) through its Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), is the first national study of public alternative schools and programs to provide data on topics related to the availability of public alternative schools and programs, enrollment, staffing, and services. The focus of the study was on alternative schools and programs that serve students who are at-risk of educational failure, as indicated by poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, suspension, pregnancy, or similar factors associated with early withdrawal from school.

The study presents a snapshot of alternative schools and programs for at-risk students during the 2000–01 school year. The findings from the study indicated that 280,000 at-risk students were enrolled in 1,390 alternative schools. Of this population, 62% of the schools were located in urban regions, 41% of the schools were located in suburban regions, 35% of the schools were located in rural regions, and 26% of the schools enrolled minority students who formed 5% of the student population. Forty-three percent of the schools enrolled minority students who formed between 6 to 20% of the student population. Fifty-one percent of the schools enrolled minority students who formed between 21 to 50% of the student population. Sixty-two percent of the schools enrolled minority students who formed more than 50% of the student population. This article identifies the gender inequities students in alternative schools face and the underlying dynamic that shape this issue.
 

Cummings (2002) conducted a study on the differences in peer relations among groups of at-risk students in alternative charter schools. In particular, he investigated the impact of peer relationships on the students’ tendencies to commit delinquent acts. He centered the study around gender in relation to two theories: the interpersonal theory, which implies that children commit delinquent acts to keep their negative peer relationships; and the differential association theory, which posit that children engage in delinquent acts because of their affiliations with juvenile offenders. Cummings (2002) found that when the students reported positive relationships with their peers, they also admitted to committing delinquent acts. He also learned that gender was the determining factor of these behaviors. The boys committed more delinquent acts than did the girls. In particular, they committed violent offenses to remain in good standing with their male and female peers. The girls committed property offenses to remain in good standing with their male and female peers.

Tilling (2004) studied the status of at-risk males in alternative schools. The results indicated that the boys were viewed as being behavior problems. Many boys also reported that they were allowed to form only powerless, inferior relationships with their teachers and principals. The boys furthered protected their masculine identity by challenging students who called them “faggot,” “homos,” and other disparaging names.

Connor (2004) examined the impact of gender on the self-esteem among students in alternative schools. The results from the study showed that gender did not have a statistically significant effect on the self-esteem of male or female students. The results indicated that the interactive effect of gender and ethnicity had a statistically significant effect on the students. In particular, African American males and females had higher self-esteems than did the White males and females.
 

In 2002, Loutzenheiser focused on the regular school experiences of girls in alternative school. She gathered their testimonies on how they began to feel disconnected from regular schools. The girls reported that they received the same treatment given to boys. However, they emphasized that the teachers and overall student population caused them to experience feelings of inferiority and insecurity. Both groups labeled the girls as being “damaged” and “dangerous” students. The teachers also overlooked their interests and needs. These experiences caused them to feel excluded from regular school.
 

In returning to the regular classroom, most at-risk females join traditional female students in experiencing the ultimate classroom injustice: gender inequity. They receive less attention and praise from their teachers than do males (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Unlike boys, they are given few opportunities to explain ideas, facts, and theories (Marshall & Reihartz, 1997). Finally, they are more likely than boys to be placed in low ability groups and learning environments.
 

More than one million girls experience pregnancy each year (Child Trends, 1993). Consequently, many teenage mothers quit school or pursue alternative routes to completing their education, mainly the G.E.D. (Child Trends, 1993). Many of them fail to realize their career ambitions. Most schools have responded to this crisis by adding sex education classes to their curricula (Child Trends, 1993). But the instruction has not produced a significant reduction in teenage pregnancies. Even worse, many sex education programs place the blame, burden, and responsibilities for the pregnancies on the girls (Edelson, 1998).
 

Single-Gender Education
 

Many people oppose and support single-gender schooling (Morse, 1999). Riordan (1990) argued that single-sex schooling greatly benefits high-risk students, especially female students. He stated that when girls attend single gender schools, they are more willing to assume leadership positions. They also show a higher self-esteem than do girls in coeducational classrooms (Riordan, 1990). Morse (1999) stated that single-gender classrooms also allow at-risk female students to remain focused on instruction without the distractions found in coeducational classrooms.  Riordan (1990) further purported that single-gender schools provide at-risk girls with more same-sex role models, a deeper sense of belonging, and better overall access to teachers and achievement.
 

The California single-gender academies project was created to meet at-risk girls and boys interests and needs. The project yielded mix results. One of the key outcomes indicated that single gender schools created opportunities for more meaningful interaction between the teachers and at-risk students.

In addition to same-sex schooling, teacher education programs can play a major role in promoting gender equities for high risk students. Current research shows that gender equity is not a significant component of teacher education programs (Sanders, 1997).
 

Pokay and Larson (1996) state that both school districts and teacher education programs have begun to realize the need to include gender equity instruction into their curricula.
 

Recommendations

The following recommendations for use and for future research are offered for consideration based upon the finding of the synthesis of the literature in this article.

1. Educators and parents should become more informed about the treatment and interventions for students who may be abusing substances or suffering from mental health issues.

2. Policies for changing the destination of women are needed.

3. When funds are appropriated for both international and national efforts, proposals should address how funds will be earmarked for ethnic minority women and children.         

4. Policies where the distribution and compensation for both “unpaid” and “paid” labor needs to be equal for both males and females.

5. Encourage boys and girls to collaboratively address academic and social issues that to relate to their genders.

6. Treating all sexual harassment cases with the appropriate resources and consequences.

7. Providing students and teachers with joint training on the meaning of gender equity.

8. Securing funding for all teachers to receive training on gender equity.

9. Creating gender sensitive dropout prevention programs.

10. Decrease school characteristics that have been identified as hindering the academic achievement of many children (i.e., inflexible schedules; narrow  curriculum; a priority focus on basic/lower order skills; inappropriate, limited, and rigid instructional strategies; over-reliance on standardized tests to make instructional and curricular decisions; tracking; isolated pull-out programs; and teachers’ and administrators’ beliefs and attitudes toward both students and their parents.

11. Further research regarding the homelessness of students to better plan for and educate the students

12. Take into account females and children when considering empowerment strategies, such as research that includes means of women and children telling their stories.

13. Restructuring the No Child Left Behind Act to include specific funding and resources for same-sex schooling.
 

Conclusion
 

Increasing numbers of students are entering schools from circumstances and with needs that schools are not prepared or sometimes not willing to address. Changing societal realities and expectations require that schools attend to issues that were traditionally addressed by families and other community institutions. The combined trends of a decreasing proportion of youth and increasing educational requirements for all occupations at all levels require educators to ensure that a significantly larger percentage of students attain higher levels of skills and knowledge. In addition, a significant number of social problems are, at least in part, the result of inadequate education. For the aforementioned reasons and others that may not be listed, concern for those students at the margins of public schooling must be at the center of the discussion on how to restructure schools to meet the academic needs of all students.

References

Alson, A. (2002/2003). The minority student achievement network. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 76-78.
 

Baker, J.A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 57-70.
 

Baltodano, H.M., Malthur, S.R., & Rutherford, R.B. (2005). Transition of incarcerated youth with disabilities across systems and into adulthood.  Exceptionality, 13(2), 103-125.
 

Baulch, B. (1996). The new poverty agenda: A disputed consensus. IDS Bulletin.
 

Bell, J. (2000). Throwaway children: Conditions of confinement and incarceration. In V. Polakow (Ed.). The Public Assault on America’s Children: Poverty, Violence and Juvenile Injustice. NY: Teachers College Press.
 

Bell, L. I. (2002/2003). Strategies that close the gap. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 32-34.
 

Bettio, F., Simonazzi, A., Solinas, G., & Villa, P. (2004, January). The “care drain” in the Mediterranean: Notes of the Italian experiences. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Working Party on Labour  Market Segmentation., Brisbane, Australia.
 

Buvinic, M. & Gupta, G. R. (1997). Female-headed households and female maintained families: Are they worth targeting to reduce poverty in developing countries? Economic Development and Cultural Change, 143-168.
 

Cagatay, N. (1998). WP5 Gender and poverty (Working Paper Series). Retrieved June 1, 2006, from www.undp.org/poverty/publications/wkpaper/wp5/wp5nilufer.PDF
 

Chambers, R. (1996). Whose reality counts?  London: IT Publications.
 

Chesney-Lind, M. (1999). Challenging girls’ invisibility in juvenile court. Annals, AAPSS, 564, 185-202.
 

Child Trends, Inc. (1993). Facts at a glance. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
 

Christle, C.A., Jolivettte, K., & Nelson, C.M. (2005). Breaking the school to prison pipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency. Exceptionality, 13(2), 69-89.
 

Connor, J. (2004). The relation of age, ethnicity, and risk behaviors to self-esteem among students in non-mainstream schools. Adolescence, 7(14), 121-132.
 

Cooper, H., & Dorr, N. (1995). Race comparisons on need for achievement: A meta-analytic alternative to Graham’s narrative review. Review of Educational  Research, 65(4), 438-508.
 

Cummings, M. (2002). Charter schools’ effectiveness in violence prevention. Educator’s Corner, 1(3), 1-2.
 

Denbo, S. J. (2002). Institutional practices that support African American student achievement. In S. J. Denbo & L.M. Beauleiu (Eds.), Improving schools for  African American students (pp. 55-71). Springfield, IL.: Charles C. Thomas.
 

Dohrn, B. (2000). “Look out kid, it’s something you did” The criminalization of children in V. Polakow (Ed.) The Public Assault on America’s Children: Poverty, Violence and Juvenile Injustice,(pp.157-187). NY: Teachers College Press.
 

Dohrn, B. (2004). All Ellas: Girls locked up. Feminist Studies,30, 302-324.
 

Dorman, L. & Schiraldi, V. (2001). Off balance: Youth, race & crime in the news. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org
 

Edelson, P. (1998). Teenage pregnancy. New York: Facts on File Publishing Company.
 

Good, T. L., & Nichols, S. L. (2001). Expectancy effects in the classroom: A special focus on improving the reading performance of minority students  in first-grade classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 113-126.

Hardy, M.A. & Hazelrigg, L. E. (1995). Gender, race/ethnicity, and poverty in later life. Journal of Aging Studies, 9, 43-63.
 

Herr, K. & Anderson, G.L. (2003). Violent youth or violent schools? A critical incident analysis of symbolic violence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6, (4), 415-433.
 

Hixson, J. & Tinzmann, M.B. (1990). Who are the “at-risk” students of the 1990s? Oak Brook, CA: NCREL. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/equity.htm
 

Hoytt, E.H., Schiraldi, V., Smith, B.V. & Ziedenberg, J. (2000). Pathways to juvenile detention reform: Reducing racial disparities in juvenile detention.Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from  http://www.aecf.org/publications/pdfs/pathways8.pdf
 

Hrabowski, F. A., III. (2002/2003). Raising minority achievement in science and math. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 44-48.
 

Jodha, N. (1986). Common property resources and the rural poor in dry regions in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 21 1169-1181.
 

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). What we can learn from multicultural education research. Educational Leadership, 51(8), 22-26.
 

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends. Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
 

Lopez, N. (2002). Rewriting race and gender high school lessons: Second generation Dominicans in New York City. Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1187-1203.
 

Loutzenheiser, L. (2002). Being seen and heard: Listening to young women in alternative schools. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(4), 441-464.
 

Marshall, C. & Reihartz, J. (1997) Gender issues in the classroom. Clearinghouse, 70 (6), 333-338.
 

Morse, S. (1999). Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for girls. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 615.

Moser, C. (1996). Confronting Crisis: A comparative study of household responses to poverty and vulnerability in four poor urban communities. Washington, DC: The World Bank, (Environmentally Sustainable Development Series and Monograph Series No. 8).
 

Moser, C. (1998). The asset vulnerability framework reassessing urban poverty reduction strategies. World Development, 26(1) 1-19.
 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2004). The condition of  education 2004, (NCES 2004-076). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 13, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004076.pdf
 

National Coalition for the Homeless Education. (2002). The educational rights of students in homeless situations: What LEA administrators must know. Retrieved September 26, 2005, from http://www.serve.org/ nche/downloads/briefs/administrators.pdf
 

National Coalition for the Homeless. (1999). The McKinney Act (NCH Fact Sheet No. 18). Retrieved September 25, 2005, from http://www.nationalhttp://www.nationalhomeless.org/mckinneyfacts.html
 

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2003). Alcohol use among adolescents and young adults. Retrieved March 24, 2005 from http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/79-86.htm
 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2003). The science of drug abuse and addition. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from www.165.112.78.61/ClubAlert/Clubdrugalert.html
 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2004). Teen drug abuse continues: Its key substance abuse patterns that emerged between 2001 and 2004. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from www.dare.com/home/Resources/NIDA.asp
 

Nieto, S. (2002/2003). Profoundly multicultural questions. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 6-10.
 

Noguera, P.A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of responses to school violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 189-212.
 

Nolan, K. & Anyon, J. (2004). Learning to do time: Willis’s model of cultural reproduction in an era of postindustrialism, globalization, and mass incarceration. In N. Dolby & G. Dimitriadis with P. Willis (Eds.), Learning to labor in New Times. NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
 

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) (2001). At-risk. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/next/overview/index.html
 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999). Statistical Briefing Book. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/index.html 
 

Okagaki, L. (2001). Triarchic model of minority children’s school achievement. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 9-20.
 

Pokay, P., & Larson, M. (1996). Multicultural gender-fair issues in teacher preparation.Women’s Educational Equity Act Digest, 12 (1),10-12.
 

Polakow, V. (2000). Savage policies: System violence and the lives of children. In V. Polakow (Ed.) The Public assault on America’s children: Poverty,violence and juvenile injustice, (pp. 1-18). NY: Teachers College Press.

Richardson, V., & Colfer, P. (1990). Being at-risk in school. In J. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds), Access to knowledge: An agenda for our nation's schools. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
 

Riordan, C. (1990). Girls and boys in school: Together or Separate? New York: Teachers College Press.

Rodney, H.E. and Mupier, R. (2004). The special needs of girls in trouble. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13, 103-109.
 

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
 

Rumberger, R. W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 101-121.
 

Rumberger, R. W. (2000, July). Who drops out of school and why. Paper presented at the National Research Council Committee on Educational Excellence and Testing Equity Workshop, Washington, DC.
 

Rumberger, R. W. & Larson, K. A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of high school dropout. American Journal of Education 107(1), 1-35.
 

Sadker, D., & Sadker, M. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Macmillan Publishing.                  
                                       

Sanders, J. (1997) Teaching Gender Equity in Teacher Education. Education Digest. 68 (3), 25-29.
 

Schaffner-Goldberg, G. (1990). The United States: Feminization of poverty admidst plenty. In E. Kremen (Ed.), The feminization of poverty: Only in America. NY: Praeger.
 

Singham, M. (2003). The achievement gap: Myths and reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(8), 586-591.
 

Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 6(1), 1-40.
 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2002). National survey on drug use and health. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-683.
 

Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277-321.
 

Tilling, J. (2004). Resilience and male identity for at-risk male in alternative programs. Paper presented at AARE conference. St. Lucia, Australia. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from www.aare.edu.au/02pap/til02256.htm
 

Urban Institute. (2000). A new look at homelessness in America. Washington DC: Author.
 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). National population projections 1. Summary Files: Projections of the total resident population by 5-year age groups, race, and Hispanic origin with special age categories. Retrieved January 2, 2002, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natsum-T3.html/
 

U.S. Bureau of Census, (2001). Current Population Survey. Population characteristics:  Educational characteristics in the U.S.: March 1997. Retrieved January 20, 2003, from http/www.censu.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov.hstpov7.html
 

United States Congress House Committee on the Judiciary First Session. (2000). Youth, culture, and violence. Washington, DC: U.S.G.P.O., Superintendent of Documents Congressional Sales Office.
 

Waters, M.C., & Eschbach, K. (1995). Immigration and ethnic and racial inequality in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 419-446.
 

Wehlage, G. G. & Rutter, R. A. (1986). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem? Teachers College Record 87 (3), 374-392.
 

Yamagata, E. P. & Jones, M.A. (2000). And justice for some: Differential treatment of minority youth in the justice system. Washington DC: Building Blocks for Youth. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/justiceforsome/