The math/science pipeline in public schooling is best described as a phenomenon in which, beginning in late middle/junior high school, the number of female students, students with lower socioeconomic status, and students of color in proportion to White male students in advanced math and science progressively shrinks during high school. This article shares the findings from a survey of high school students undertaken to determine the degree to which the nationally recognized pipeline phenomenon exists in five southwestern high schools. Through this study, the authors document a local instance of a national phenomenon. This is especially important in order to address some public school educators' perceptions that the national pipeline phenomenon somehow does not apply to their own schools. Thus, in this article, the authors aim to identify patterns of inequality that might exist in order to create a foundation from which to explore educational inequality more deeply.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
. (1992). How schools shortchange girls: A study of major findings on girls and education. Washington, DC: Author and National Education Foundation.
2.
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
. (1994). Shortchanging girls, short- changing America: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Badagliacco, J.
(1990). Gender and race differences in computing attitudes and experience. Social Science Computer Review, 8, 42-63.
4.
Betz, N.
(1997). What stops women and minorities from choosing and completing majors in science and engineering? In D. Johnson (Ed.), Minorities and girls in school (105-140). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Chronicle of Higher Education
. (1996, June 14). Characteristics of recipients of doctorates, 1995. Chronicle of Higher Education, 42(40), A25-A26.
6.
Deboer, G.
(1984). Factors related to the decision of men and women to continue taking science courses in college. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 325-329.
7.
Eccles, J.
(1987). Gender roles and women's achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135-171.
8.
Eccles, J.
(1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609.
9.
Farmer, H.
, & Sidney, J. S., with Bitters, B., & Brizius, M. (1985). Sex equity in career and vocational education. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education (pp. 338-359). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
Gaskell, J.
(1984). Gender and course choice: The orientation of male and female students. Journal of Education, 166, 89-102.
11.
Holland, D.
, & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Howe, K.
(1997). Understanding equal educational opportunity: Social justice, democracy, and schooling. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
Klein, S.
, & Ortman, P., with Campbell, P., Greenberg, S., Hollingsworth, S., Jacobs, J., Kachuck, B., McClelland, A., Pollard, D., Sadker, D., Sadker, M., Schmuck, P., Scott, E., & Wiggins, J. (1994). Continuing the journey toward gender equity. Educational Researcher,23, 13-21.
14.
Kymlicka, W.
(1991). Liberalism, community, and culture. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
15.
Linn, M.
, & Petersen, A. (1985). Facts and assumptions about the nature of sex differences. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
Lockheed, M.
(1985). Women, girls and computers: A first look at the evidence. Sex Roles, 13, 115-122.
17.
Michigan Department of Education, Office for Sex Equity in Education
. (1990). The influence of gender-role socialization on student perceptions: A report based on data collected from Michigan public school students. Unpublished report.
18.
Nelson, C.
, & Watson, J. A. (1990-91). The computer gender gap: Children's attitudes, performance and socialization. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 19, 345-353.
19.
Oakes, J.
(1988). Tracking in mathematics and science education: A structural contribution to un- equal schooling. In L. Weis (Ed.), Class, race and gender in American education (pp. 106-125). Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
Oakes, J.
, & The RAND Corporation. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 153-222). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
21.
Powell, A. G.
, Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
22.
Rosser, S.
(1990). Female-friendly science: Applying women's studies methods and theories to attract students. New York: Pergamon.
23.
Sadker, M.
, & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Simon & Schuster.
24.
Sadker, M.
, Sadker, D., & Klein, S. (1991). The issue of gender in elementary and secondary education. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 269-334). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
25.
Schmuck, P.
, & Schmuck, R. (1994). Gender equity: A critical democratic component of America's high schools. NASSP Bulletin/January 1994: Democracy in Education,78(558),22-31.
26.
Scott, E.
, & McCollum, H. (1993). Gender in classroom and school policy. In S. K. Biklen & D. Pollard (Eds.), Gender and education: 92nd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 174-190). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Scott, K.
, & Schau, C. G. (1985). Sex equity and sex bias in instructional materials. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education (pp. 218-232). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
Shashaani, L.
(1993). Gender-based differences in attitudes toward computers. Computers and Education, 20, 169-181.
29.
Shashaani, L.
(1994). Socio-economic status, parents' sex role stereotypes, and the gender gap in computing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26,433-451.
30.
Sommers, C. H.
(1996). On the gender equity barometer: Where the boys are. Education Week,25(38).
31.
Stage, E.
, Kreinberg, N., Eccles (Parsons), J., & Becker, J. R., with Aldrich, M., Anton, K., Callanan, M. J., Casserly, P., Cohen, C., Cook, N., George, Y S., Humphreys, S., Jacobs, J., Lantz, A., Malcom, S., Pfafflin, S., Resek, D., Shaw, C., Smith, W., Turner, H., Vetter, B., & Weiss, I. (1985). Increasing the participation and achievement of girls and women in mathematics, science, and engineering. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education (pp. 237-268). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32.
Ware, N.
, & Lee, V. (1988). Sex differences in choice of college science majors. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 593-614.
33.
White, K. R.
(1981). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461-481.
34.
Yee, D.
, & Eccles, J. (1988). Parent perceptions and attributions for children's math achievement. Sex Roles, 19, 317-333.
