An official website of the United States government
Little is known about how children and adolescents evaluate unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties based on ethnicity-race and gender in the classroom. U.S. boys and girls, White (40.7%), Multiracial (18.5%), Black/African American (16.0%), Latine (14.2%), Asian (5.5%), Pacific Islander (0.4%), and other (4.7%) ethnic-racial backgrounds, 8 - 14 years, N = 275, evaluated teacher allocations of high-status leadership positions favoring specific ethnic-racial or gender groups during 2018 - 2021. Adolescents, more than children, negatively evaluated unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties that resulted in group-based inequalities, expected peers who shared the identity of a group disadvantaged by the teacher’s allocation to view it more negatively than others, and rectified inequalities. Understanding perceptions of teacher-based bias provides an opportunity for interventions designed to create fair and just classrooms that motivate all students to achieve.
more »
« less
Children and adolescents rectify unequal allocations of leadership duties in the classroom
Abstract Little is known about how children and adolescents evaluate unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties based on ethnicity‐race and gender in the classroom. U.S. boys and girls, White (40.7%), Multiracial (18.5%), Black/African American (16.0%), Latine (14.2%), Asian (5.5%), Pacific Islander (0.4%), and other (4.7%) ethnic‐racial backgrounds, 8–14 years,N = 275, evaluated teacher allocations of high‐status leadership positions favoring specific ethnic‐racial or gender groups during 2018–2021. Adolescents, more than children, negatively evaluated unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties that resulted in group‐based inequalities, expected peers who shared the identity of a group disadvantaged by the teacher's allocation to view it more negatively than others, and rectified inequalities. Understanding perceptions of teacher‐based bias provides an opportunity for interventions designed to create fair and just classrooms that motivate all students to achieve.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1728918
- PAR ID:
- 10645356
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Child Development
- Volume:
- 95
- Issue:
- 6
- ISSN:
- 0009-3920
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 1950-1966
- Size(s):
- p. 1950-1966
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract In response to some resource inequalities, children give priority to moral concerns. Yet, in others, children show ingroup preferences in their evaluations and resource allocations. The present study built upon this knowledge by investigating children's and young adults’ (N = 144; 5–6‐year‐olds,Mage = 5.83,SDage= .97; 9–11‐year‐olds,Mage = 10.74,SDage= .68; and young adults,Mage = 19.92,SDage = 1.10) evaluations and allocation decisions in a science inequality context. Participants viewed vignettes in which male and female groups received unequal amounts of science supplies, then evaluated the acceptability of the resource inequalities, allocated new boxes of science supplies between the groups, and provided justifications for their choices. Results revealed both children and young adults evaluated inequalities of science resources less negatively when girls were disadvantaged than when boys were disadvantaged. Further, 5‐ to 6‐year‐old participants and male participants rectified science resource inequalities to a greater extent when the inequality disadvantaged boys compared to when it disadvantaged girls. Generally, participants who used moral reasoning to justify their responses negatively evaluated and rectified the resource inequalities, whereas participants who used group‐focused reasoning positively evaluated and perpetuated the inequalities, though some age and participant gender findings emerged. Together, these findings reveal subtle gender biases that may contribute to perpetuating gender‐based science inequalities both in childhood and adulthood.more » « less
-
The present study examined the impact of COVID‐19‐related racial discrimination on Chinese American adolescents (N = 213;Mage = 13.95 years,SD = 2.35; 49% girls) at the intersection of race and gender. We explored (1) subgroups of adolescents based on ethnic identity, bicultural identity integration, and behavioral acculturation; (2) their demographic correlates; and (3) whether the association between racial discrimination and anxiety varied across subgroups and gender. Latent profile analysis identified three profiles:bicultural,marginalized, andseparated.Biculturalandmarginalizedadolescents were vulnerable to direct and vicarious racial discrimination, respectively. Moreover,biculturalandmarginalizedboys andseparatedgirls were more negatively affected by COVID‐19‐related racial discrimination. The findings highlight the utility of person‐centered and intersectional approaches in understanding Chinese American adolescents’ experiences of racial discrimination.more » « less
-
The Developing Inclusive Youth program is a classroom based, individually administered video tool that depicts peer based social and racial exclusion, combined with teacher-led discussions. A multisite randomized control trial was implemented with 983 participants (502 females; 58.5% White, 41.5% Ethnic/racial minority; Mage = 9.64 years) in 48 third, fourth, and fifth grade classrooms across six schools. Children in the program were more likely to view interracial and same-race peer exclusion as wrong, associate positive traits with peers of different racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds, and report play with peers from diverse backgrounds than were children in the control group. Many approaches are necessary to achieve antiracism in schools. This intervention is one component of this goal for developmental science.more » « less
-
Children and adolescents (N = 153, ages 8–14 years,Mage = 11.46 years) predicted and evaluated peer exclusion in interwealth (high‐wealth and low‐wealth) and interracial (African American and European American) contexts. With age, participants increasingly expected high‐wealth groups to be more exclusive than low‐wealth groups, regardless of their depicted race. Furthermore, children evaluated interwealth exclusion less negatively than interracial exclusion, and children who identified as higher in wealth evaluated interwealth exclusion less negatively than did children who identified as lower in wealth. Children cited explicit negative stereotypes about high‐wealth groups in their justifications, while rarely citing stereotypes about low‐wealth groups or racial groups. Results revealed that both race and wealth are important factors that children consider when evaluating peer exclusion.more » « less
