Naturally, societal convenience / cost savings / chosen compromises are part of the structural discrimination that occur, similar how those effects influence di

Naturally, societal convenience / cost savings / chosen compromises are part of the structural discrimination that occur, similar how those effects influence discrimination in other areas of society. As an example, profiling by the police is a fairly common cost savings tactic, but we have rule in place to prevent the police from using it. If it wasn't convenient, cultural, or saved money, then most problems of discrimination would not exist in the first place. It is a bit however about how we frame it. If cost saving efforts create discrimination, then we call the system as being designed in a discriminating way. Call it a naming convention in social science. In general I agree with all those things you say that we should provide to children. Most of that is what my own country laws says that school should provide, and to add, it should be adapted based on the individual child needs and ability. I would add to it what the article just briefly mention, which is that matching gender between teacher and student has a fairly long history of showing improved results. There is still need to do more research on the subject, but there has been studies done since the 70s that shown how gender of those around a person can influence behavior. I have even remember reading in one study that the conclusion should be uncontroversial by now.