On Sex-Segregated Schooling

NYT has an in-depth article on
teaching boys and girls separately in school based on proposed differences in everything from artistic preferences to optimal operating temperature.

While I have blogged previously on using scientific input to improve educational methods, I am somewhat skeptical of the extent to which segregation is advocated. A large reason is that while the mean may show a slight differential between the sexes, the spread has significant overlap and we regularly see a healthy number of outliers. I, for example, took a Thundercats lunchbox to school and read all the books in the library on "creepy-crawlies" like ants, spiders, and snakes, and I know I would have been utterly miserable in an all-girls' classroom.

Assuming that these differences are scientifically provable (or non-disprovable) for a majority of the population, we are left with a naturalistic/normative conflict between what is "optimal" now and what we forsee as future needs (such as the need to interact comfortably with males and females).

One thing we can take away from this is that we ought to exercise caution when advocating extreme changes in schooling to avoid backlash effects (as are becoming apparent in the marked decrease of boys' success in school). Also, there is no clear-cut answer on how to improve our education system, but there are many academic disciplines we ought to access in order to enrich the discussion.

Addendum: A few more thoughts on this. First, an important question inherent in any push for change the question must be asked: "Are we running away from something, or running towards something?" In other words, in segregating boys and girls, are we avoiding a harm, or seeking a benefit?

Second, I observe that while girls suffered in school in previous generations due to overly low expectations, the current hypothesis for boys is that they suffer from overly high or unrealistic expectations. I'm sure a gender theorist would have some interesting comments on this.

Third, I have noticed that a majority of problems develop at the interfaces between contrasting systems or paradigms. In this case, it will be when we make a shift from a school system that adapts to the strengths and weaknesses of girls and boys to an adult world where people are expected to adapt to the needs of society ("including a competitive workplace that was designed around men's strengths and is only slowly changing," the feminist in me notes). Assuming that such an education system presents significant benefits, I am concerned with how we will help children make the transition to adulthood.

Interested in Feminist Engineering?

Feminist engineering professor seeks motivated, pioneering graduate student candidate.

Alice Pawley is an assistant professor at Purdue University who is interested in recruiting graduate students to study engineering with some feminist theory thrown in. She is also soliciting suggestions on how to increase outreach to potential candidates and how to structure a program to be appealing to students considering graduate studies.

If you have suggestions, go swing by. And feel free to pass this info on to engineering students who might be interested in interdisciplinary studies and/or feminism and engineering. It is so exciting to see new programs like these in development!

[Editor's Note: Two really nifty feminist engineering blogs: She's Such a Geek! and Thus Spake Zuska.]

Better Schooling Through Biology

Nancy Kalish, in a NYT Op-Ed advocates using biological research to provide guidance in reforming our education system in light of data that show adolescents would benefit from a high school schedule that started later.

Excerpt:

Research shows that teenagers’ body clocks are set to a schedule that is different from that of younger children or adults. This prevents adolescents from dropping off until around 11 p.m., when they produce the sleep-inducing hormone melatonin, and waking up much before 8 a.m. when their bodies stop producing melatonin. The result is that the first class of the morning is often a waste, with as many as 28 percent of students falling asleep, according to a National Sleep Foundation poll. Some are so sleepy they don’t even show up, contributing to failure and dropout rates.

Moving the start time of high school back by one hour showed significant benefits, both specific to education and in peripheral gains, like student safety:

In 2002, high schools in Jessamine County in Kentucky pushed back the first bell to 8:40 a.m., from 7:30 a.m. Attendance immediately went up, as did scores on standardized tests, which have continued to rise each year. Districts in Virginia and Connecticut have achieved similar success. In Minneapolis and Edina, Minn., which instituted high school start times of 8:40 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. respectively in 1997, students’ grades rose slightly and lateness, behavioral problems and dropout rates decreased.

Later is also safer. When high schools in Fayette County in Kentucky delayed their start times to 8:30 a.m., the number of teenagers involved in car crashes dropped, even as they rose in the state.

This is but one example of how science can constructively inform policy and provide a directed goal to which we can strive as we reform conventional methods that were influenced not by anticipated benefits, but from mere logistical necessity. With the significant shifts in lifestyle following the departure from an agrarian industry base and the advent of the Internet and other telecommunications technologies, there is no reason why we cannot come up with a system that is not just feasible, but beneficial to groups said policy seeks to benefit.