Some of you may have read an article in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/education/23single.html?_r=1&emc=eta1) a couple of weeks ago about a new study refuting that any advantage exists for single sex education. The group of psychologists, led by Dr. Diane F. Halpern of Claremont McKenna College, who conducted the study entitled, “The Pseudoscience of Single Sex Schooling,” published in Science magazine, argue that contrary to the findings of some other studies, including one by the U.S. Department of Education, as the subtitle says, “Single-sex schooling lacks scientific support and may exaggerate sexism and gender stereotyping.”[i] Their thesis states the argument even more strongly:
We argue that one change in particular— sex-segregated education—is deeply misguided, and often justified by weak, cherrypicked, or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence. There is no well-designed research showing that single-sex (SS) education improves students’ academic performance, but there is evidence that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism.[ii]
So this is another volley in the battle over educational reform, specifically the value of single-sex education. What should we make of this study? Let’s first look at what they have to say.
First, they argue that once all factors, such as socio-economic background and test scores upon entering a school, are taken into consideration, studies have not proved any advantage to single sex schooling. Indeed, some positive results during the early stages of a reform or a new approach may be attributed to the fact that “people are motivated by novelty and belief in the innovation” which leads to “a short-term gain.” Summarizing, they say:
In short, although excellent public [single-sex] schools clearly exist, there is no empirical evidence that their success stems from their [single-sex] organization, as opposed to the quality of the student body, demanding curricula, and many other features also known to promote achievement at coeducational schools.[iii]
They go on to debunk the brain research, particularly that sited by Dr. Leonard Sax whose book Gender Matters has been widely read (some of you have probably read it). They state, “Neuroscientists have found few sex differences in children’s brains beyond the larger volume of boys’ brains and the earlier completion of girls’ brain growth, neither of which is known to relate to learning.”[iv]
Having dispensed with the research, they go on to claim that single sex education actually negatively affects students. They argue that by definition segregating sexes leads to an increased sensibility to gender and therefore to gender bias. Basically they are using the Brown v. Board of Education argument that separate cannot be equal. They also posit that single sex classrooms “limit[s] children’s opportunities to develop a broader range of behaviors and attitudes.” Finally, because there is no evidence to support the value of single-sex education, the public sector should not waste its resources on single gender classrooms or schools.[v]
Now let’s examine their assertions. As far as the brain research is concerned, I actually largely agree with the authors. While Sax’s book initially resonated with me, subsequently I have heard his work debunked by prominent researchers. Plus I have long had misgivings about brain research supporting gender differences. Historically, scientific research has often justified limiting women. Think of 19th c doctors who claimed that education would harm women because their brains couldn’t handle the strain; some even posited that too much education could cause infertility. In addition, while current brain research is very convincing with its clear imagery of synapses at work, I imagine earlier generations were equally convinced by such scientific theories as phrenology (the study of lumps on the skull). This is not to discredit all brain research by any means. Indeed, we have much to learn from such research with regard to effective learning. However, I don’t believe that it is definitive enough with regard to gender differences.
However, to argue that there is no proof for the value of single sex education, at least as it applies to girls, is not actually true. The National Coalition of Girls Schools commissioned Dr. Linda J. Sax (no relation to Leonard Sax), Associate Professor of Education and a 2007-08 fellow at The Sudikoff Family Institute for Education & New Media at the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, to examine the impact of girls schools. Like the authors of “The Pseudoscience of Single Sex Schooling,” Dr. Sax acknowledges the research on the effects of single gender education offers no conclusive answers, largely because it is so difficult to control for the various other factors that might equally well explain positive outcomes for students who have attended single-sex schools. Using the Freshman Survey, a national survey of college freshmen from across the country conducted annually since 1966 by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute, Dr. Sax addressed this shortcoming in previous research. She was able to mine a large set of data while controlling for factors such as family income, race, parental education, and high school academic programs. The resulting study, “Women Graduates of Single- Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in their Characteristics and their Transition to College,” “compares the backgrounds, behaviors, attitudes, and aspirations of 6,552 women graduates of 225 private single-sex high schools with 14,684 women who graduated from 1,169 private co-educational high schools.”[vi]
Sax finds that even controlling for critical factors like family income, parental education levels, and the rigor of students’ high school curriculum, single sex education, particularly in a non-sectarian independent school (as opposed to a Catholic school), does make at least some difference in a number of key areas:
· Greater academic engagement
· Higher confidence in mathematical ability and computer skills
· Greater interest in engineering careers
· Stronger disposition towards co-curricular engagement, including participation in both student clubs and student government (but not including sororities)
· Greater political engagement[vii]
Most of these characteristics are self-explanatory, but both academic and political engagement bear some explanation. Based on the survey questions, Sax defines academic engagement as “time spent on studying/homework, studying with other students, talking with teachers outside of class, and tutoring other students.” Before controlling for other factors, 62% of independent single-sex alumnae reported devoting eleven or more hours per week studying or doing homework in high school versus only 42% of their coeducational female peers; this distinction remained when individual and school backgrounds were taken into account. [viii] Those girls rated as politically engaged checked “very important” or “essential” with regard to keeping current politically. They also indicated that they discussed politics with family or friends or in class occasionally or frequently. In terms of the first question, 57.9% of graduates of girls schools qualified as politically engaged as compared with 47.7% of female coed alumnae, and again this difference persisted even after controlling for background factors.[ix] Sax’s analysis does prove some positive effects of all-girls education.
Sax’s work should also put to rest the argument that single sex schools exacerbate gender biases. In fact, her research suggests that by developing confidence in math and computer skills and encouraging girls to express interest in engineering, both at disproportionate levels, all-girls schools do the opposite; they counter prevailing gender expectations. As Sax, whose research has all focused on women’s experiences in higher education, observes,
It is worth noting that most of these apparent benefits of single-sex education are in areas that have historically witnessed gender gaps favoring men. In fact, decades of research have shown first-year college women to consistently rate themselves lower than men on their academic abilities, especially when it comes to math and science, and to show less interest in politics (Sax, 2008). Thus, this study highlights areas in which single-sex education may help to mitigate longstanding gender gaps.
So much for negative gender stereotyping.
Finally, single-sex education in the independent school sector hardly qualifies as a novel idea. While the last twenty years have witnessed the founding of a number of new girls schools, most enjoy histories like Holton dating back 100 years or more. Certainly the nature of the education offered in these schools has varied over time and even today varies among us, today we universally embrace the goal of empowering women, or to use our phraseology, inspiring our girls to lead lives of influence.
I told the Upper School girls about this article and solicited their thoughts about the advantages and disadvantages of all-girls education based on their own experience. Not surprisingly, I received a number of articulate, thoughtful responses. I’ll share those with you next week.
[i] Diane F. Halpern, Lise Eliot, Rebecca S. Bigler, Richard A. Fabes, Laura D. Hanish, Janet Hyde, Lynn S. Liben, Carol Lynn Martin, “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling, Science, 23 September 2011, Vol. 333, 1706.
[ii] Halpern et al, 1706
[iii] Halpern et al, 1706
[iv] Halpern et al, 1706
[v] Halpern et al, 1707
[vi] Linda J. Sax, Ph.D., “Women Graduates of Single- Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in their Characteristics and their Transition to College” (Los Angeles: The Sudikoff Family Institute for Education & New Media, UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, 2009), 6.
[vii] Sax, 52
[viii] Sax, 32
[ix] Sax, 40
No comments:
Post a Comment