Science Counters Educational Inequality

Education is often thought of as an equalizer, as a way to allow anyone who works hard to pursue their aspirations. However, systemic and structural inequalities in society lead to inequalities in educational opportunities and treatment in schools, making the path toward their aspirations much more difficult for some students.

Mesmin Destin, a professor in Northwestern University’s psychology department, has been working “to think broadly about the ways that psychologists can contribute to the conversation around inequality in education.” The environment surrounding students, from parents and teachers to school systems and broader sociopolitical forces, plays an important role in academic disparities.

“We can design studies to directly show how those affect people individually and to have a better understanding of the mechanisms through which these experiences at the social, societal, and structural levels matter and manifest in people’s lives and perpetuate the inequality that we see,” Destin said.

Gender 

In their search to better understand gender differences in education, psychological scientists have identified the gender-equality paradox. Despite a push toward gender equality in many countries, women remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Paradoxically, these gender gaps are larger in countries that provide more equitable opportunity for women and men.

A 2024 paper in Psychological Science suggested that the gender-equality paradox arises from a difference in boys and girls intraindividual academic strengths, which refers to a student’s advantage in one subject compared to their overall academic achievement. For example, a student who scores poorly in all academic areas but relatively better in reading has an intraindividual strength in reading. Research has shown that boys’ strongest intraindividual subjects are math and science, whereas girls’ strongest intraindividual subject tends to be reading. 

This does not mean that girls are not as good at math and science as boys, but rather that, relative to their overall academic achievement, girls do better in reading.

“It’s not true that girls are not good at mathematics,” Marco Balducci, an author of the paper and postdoctoral researcher in psychology at The University of Turku, said in an interview with the Observer. “They’re normally as skilled as boys or even better. The only issue is that they tend to be even better at reading even if they’re good in mathematics.” 

In his study, Balducci analyzed data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) at five time points between 2006 and 2018, assessing nearly 2.5 million 15- to 16-year-olds from 85 countries. Family wealth data was also collected in the PISA, and gender equality was calculated using the Global Gender Gap Index for each represented country.

In line with previous research, girls scored relatively better in reading than in math and science, whereas boys scored relatively better in math and science than in reading. For science and reading, these sex differences were larger in countries with higher levels of gender equality and, to a lesser extent, in wealthier countries. (The paper refers to sex differences, rather than gender differences because the PISA survey offered only the binary, male or female, option.) Sex differences in intraindividual math ability did not correlate with gender equality or wealth. 

“The stability of the sex differences suggests that there are some innate characteristics involved,” said Balducci. But “the variation across countries suggests that there are also some societal or cultural reasons for them.”

The gender-equality paradox may be due to expectancy-value theory. Individual strengths may contribute to education and job choices more in wealthier, more gender equal countries as there are relatively lower costs of not choosing a STEM field. For example, in those countries, a woman who is better at reading than science may choose a humanities or social sciences career because she feels both that it suits her strengths and that she can afford a non-technological or non-medical career.

Rather than focusing on trying to perfectly equalize the number of men and women in STEM fields, Balducci suggested identifying girls who are better at math and science compared to reading and nurturing that talent from an early age.

Another 2024 Psychological Science paper offered an alternative solution: helping women feel like they belong in STEM classrooms. In an introductory college physics course, an intervention that promoted social belonging (through discussion of challenges at college and stories from both men and women overcoming such challenges) increased both feelings of belonging and cross-gender collaboration. Both male and female students in classes that received the intervention and were more evenly split across genders (classes that were 43% women compared to 25% women) earned higher course grades and higher first-year grade-point averages. Promoting feelings of belonging may help women both succeed and want to stay in STEM fields. 

Socioeconomic status 

Improving a sense of belonging can also help students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Destin’s 2020 article in Current Directions in Psychological Science highlighted how socioeconomic resources and opportunities shaped the identities of students—including how they imagined their future—which affected how engaged they were with school. Adolescents from lower-SES backgrounds who believed socioeconomic mobility was possible were more likely to see college as a prospect, displayed more academic persistence, and had better grades.

“Finding ways to subtly shape what that message and environment is all about can really set a trajectory for somebody over time,” said Destin. “Recently in social psychology and experimental psychology we are showing how that can really make a difference for young people to get that message about their identities, that it’s more nuanced and holistic and positive.”

Destin’s paper cited studies that showed how a psychologically informed approach can shape that message by targeting the different environments students find themselves in, from peers and parents, to classrooms, schools, and school districts. For example, when parents were encouraged to discuss their children’s future, including academic challenges and resources such as financial aid, their children’s grades improved. At the classroom level, when differences in academic performance were visible (such as through raising hands) students from lower-SES backgrounds scored worse, but when students were made aware of possible reasons for the differences in performance (such as differences in familiarity with the task), students across backgrounds scored similarly. Compared to programs that didn’t mention students’ backgrounds, college orientation programs that emphasized diversity and its value had psychological benefits for all students and particularly for the academic achievement of first-generation college students. 

Destin said everyone can contribute to improving the message students receive. “How are you interacting with young people, and how are you interacting with the people and forces that are interacting with young people? There’s always a place there to start.” 

One place to start is to interrogate assumptions made about people that are based on their backgrounds and identities.

“We often flatten [people’s] experiences and their cultures and look only through the lens of deficits—perceived, presumed deficits—rather than thinking about the rich array of challenges, strengths, values, and assets that come with all backgrounds,” said Destin.

Recognizing the individuality of strengths, rather than casting everyone with one brush, is important, he added.

“Really working and fighting to see people as human and as complex and as worthy of our attention and investment is an ongoing, everyday practice that people can do,” he said. 

Race 

Thinking about each of the levels of influence on students’ educations—from classrooms, schools, and school districts to state and federal policies—can also lead to different ways to tackle issues related to racism.

“By using psychological principles that focus on ecological systems, we can think: how are these students situated within these broader environments and how do we change the environments in ways that allow Black youth to thrive and to do better?” Seanna Leath, an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said.

Related content: Inclusivity Spotlight on The More You Know: Essential Truths for Social Justice Research, Practice, and Policy

In a 2025 paper in Current Directions in Psychological Science, Leath discussed how the psychological principles across two frameworks—the Psychological Framework of Radical Healing for Communities of Color and the Community Health and Resistance Through Storytelling framework—can be used to improve academic, social, and psychological outcomes in Black youth. The principles include critical consciousness, cultural authenticity and self-knowledge, collective memory, justice, community resistance, and radical hope. 

Rather than focusing on individual students and their motivation, achievement, or behavior—and often blaming them for any shortcomings—the focus changes to how school environments might be preventing Black students from accessing what they need to succeed. 

“The things that Black youth need to thrive in education, they’re no different from other students,” said Leath. But Black youth are less likely to have access to these things, such as positive teacher-student relationships, second chances after misbehavior, or extracurricular activities.

The work represents a shift from documenting racial oppression, racial trauma, and race-based stress, to thinking about racial healing and more positive psychology concepts. It’s not only important to be descriptive about disparities and harms that are happening, Leath said.

“It’s also really important to be prescriptive around what are some of the things that we could tangibly try to change,” she said. 

The next step is to apply the frameworks and collect data: how can teachers implement it? What does it look like as a workshop or as part of students’ curriculum?

“School districts could take these frameworks and see how they’re useful and apply them in different ways,” said Leath. But, “it has to be many things working in tandem at once,” both a top-down approach addressing broad disparities and work at the local level with teachers and parents, she added.

Rather than coming up with all the solutions themselves, adults should actively listen to youth voices and ideas, Leah suggested.

“Now is also really a time to focus on how youth are making sense of this for themselves within education,” she said. “Sometimes they come up with better solutions than we would.” 

The current climate

Although these methods show promise for improving academic achievement and opportunities for marginalized students, the Trump administration has halted some of this research. Leath has had multiple grants canceled. Still, even if she can’t collect new data, she plans to continue to publish and see how she can help the communities and her existing partnerships.

U.S. Readers: Act Now to Share your Concerns with Your Representative and Senators

“Maybe there won’t be a lot of new advances in terms of projects, but it gives us a chance to really focus on what is already existing and improve practices there,” she said. “The work has to continue to happen and these youth still need us.” 

Destin agreed. “It’s really scary for the state of our science if we shy away from important questions and ignore the things that we’ve learned based on fear of what might happen,” he said. “There will always be ways, as psychologists, to talk about the work, talk about the processes, talk about the things that we’ve learned, because again, they matter for all people.”

Feedback on this article? Email [email protected] or login to comment.

References

Balducci, M., Larose, M.-P., Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2024). The gender-equality paradox in intraindividual academic strengths: A cross-temporal analysis. Psychological Science, 35(11), 1246-1259. 

Binning, K. R., Doucette, D., Conrique, B. G., & Singh, C. (2024). Unlocking the benefits of gender diversity: How an ecological-belonging intervention enhances performance in science classrooms. Psychological Science, 35(3), 226-238.

Destin, M. (2020). Identity research that engages contextual forces to reduce socioeconomic disparities in education. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(2), 161-166.

Leath, S., Mims, L., & Butler-Barnes, S. (2025). Addressing anti-blackness in education through psychological approaches to racial and radical healing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 34(1), 12-20.