Reading this, it is easy to get into the weeds: how to keep teachers from being biased; culture wars on which way that bias should swing, etc.
Viewing it from the the frame of regenerative education though, this particular problem is lessened. In this frame, children are not taught from a curriculum that the adults choose. There are no standards, or grading. Instead each child chooses something meaningful to make a contribution. Children are given a framework in which they can understand whatever it is they set out to do. They learn how to problem solve, critically think, and reflect, as they go about trying to make meaningful, real-world contributions that have real consequences. Teachers are there as resources. The feedback doesn't come from teachers, but rather, when they are trying to accomplish something that has real world consequences. You're not graded by an external source against a standard, but instead, you evaluate whether the outcome was really what you set out to be. It folds within it "grit" and "growth mindset", but not for its own sake.
In such a setup, it is no longer about gender bias (conscious or unconscious), or even equal opportunities.
Furthermore, achievement is reframed from effort rewarded in external praise and material gains from society and inverted to what you meaningfully add to the community and society. What develops is intrinsic motivation and purposeful action. There isn't an exhortation to "apply yourself", or the "when you grow up and have to pay your rent and etc". The childhood dreams, aspirations, and imagination is redirected towards something meaningful, instead of being crushed by the grind of adult living. Your ambitions are not about getting your just rewards for working hard, or winning the lottery, or exploiting opportunities.
I think this is a great education model for happy kids in a stable environment, but I'm worried it would compound inequality if applied universally. Many kids don't have much in the way of family or friends encouraging them towards learning. If we take away the structure of a curriculum and the grading expectations of success, will it still be possible for them to succeed?
Viewing it from the the frame of regenerative education though, this particular problem is lessened. In this frame, children are not taught from a curriculum that the adults choose. There are no standards, or grading. Instead each child chooses something meaningful to make a contribution. Children are given a framework in which they can understand whatever it is they set out to do. They learn how to problem solve, critically think, and reflect, as they go about trying to make meaningful, real-world contributions that have real consequences. Teachers are there as resources. The feedback doesn't come from teachers, but rather, when they are trying to accomplish something that has real world consequences. You're not graded by an external source against a standard, but instead, you evaluate whether the outcome was really what you set out to be. It folds within it "grit" and "growth mindset", but not for its own sake.
In such a setup, it is no longer about gender bias (conscious or unconscious), or even equal opportunities.
Furthermore, achievement is reframed from effort rewarded in external praise and material gains from society and inverted to what you meaningfully add to the community and society. What develops is intrinsic motivation and purposeful action. There isn't an exhortation to "apply yourself", or the "when you grow up and have to pay your rent and etc". The childhood dreams, aspirations, and imagination is redirected towards something meaningful, instead of being crushed by the grind of adult living. Your ambitions are not about getting your just rewards for working hard, or winning the lottery, or exploiting opportunities.
It doesn't have to be big things. There are ways to develop this from when a child is a toddler, starting with small contributions. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/09/6169288...