Girl Talk....

The intent this week, as mentioned at the conclusion of last week’s post, is to take a look at what’s currently happening with girls’ education --- at least what’s “making news”. The U.S. Secretary of Education, girls and math/science programs, the National Math Advisory Panel, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress form the fodder for this week’s post.

On May 15, 2006 Secretary Spellings (USDOE) addressed the first National Summit on the Advancement of Girls in Math and Science. Her comments included the announcement of an intense research project, spearheaded by the Institute of Educational Sciences, to find reasons why girls are ‘turning away’ from careers in math and science. She also identified some of the members of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel and its charge. (After a decade of literacy gurus like Marilyn Adams, Ried Lyon, and Louisa Moats, is it time for our federal DOE to board the current NCLB bandwagon of science and math achievement gaps?) Much of Sec. Spellings’ address considered initiatives that may help to curtail the perpetuation of stereotypes that girls are not as successful in math or science as boys: reviewing research, partnering with national organizations representing girls, and attempting to infuse math and science “professionals” in our schools. All seem to be worthy initiatives, but are they really needed? Is there really a gender issue? Are girls really “underserved” in our education system? Might this be another attempt of the politicos to manufacture a “crisis” that will focus the attention of our citizenry AWAY from the real issue of socio-economic differences that are driving student choices, outcomes, and achievement?

While reviewing information on the National Summit on the Advancement of Girls in Math and Science, I came across some provocative and worthy information regarding the involvement of girls/women and math/science activities. The first is an audio collection of stories that detail accounts of women engaged in the fields of mathematics, science, and technology. Women in Science offers these ‘portraits’ and encourages parents, teachers, and young girls to recognize the possibilities for girls in math, science, and technology careers.

Many programs throughout the US focus their attention on girls. Take for example the Tall Ship Education Academy. Noted for taking girls ‘out of the classroom’ to participate in learning experiences that involve the practical application of math and science, this academy is like an Outward Bound experience but not co-educational. And then there is the annual math summer camp for girls at the University of Nebraska or the nationally recognized Girlstart programs in the Austin, TX area. The list seems endless!

So, with all this attention being paid to the math/science gender gap issue, I thought I’d take a look at some data to see if there is substantive merit for the “girl fervor”. The natural place to go would be the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Assessment of Education Progress: specifically, the NAEP 2005 science assessment results. This is where the USDOE collects its achievement data and here’s what some of it looks like:

• Both boys and girls at the fourth grade level performed “significantly” better on the 2005 assessment than they did on the 2000 assessment. The difference between boys’ (149 to 153) and girls’ (145 to 149) scaled scores remained the same: 4 points.
• 
  In eighth grade, boys’ achievement decreased from 153 in 2000 to 150 in 2005 while girls’ achievement increased from 146 in 2000 to 147 in 2005. Neither group recorded “significant” change in scaled scores.
• 
  In twelfth grade there did occur a “significant” difference in scaled scores…not from the 2000 assessment but rather from the 1996 assessment. Boys recorded a 154 in 1996, 148 in 2000 and 149 in 2005 while girls recorded a 147 in 1996, 145 in 2000, and 145 in 2005.

What does this mean regarding the ‘gender gap’ and ‘girl initiatives’ that seem to be engaging the educational consideration of our nation? I’ll leave that for you to ponder. However, while reviewing other trends in the NAEP data there seemed to be some very striking and “significant” differences in both the race and socio-economic data: some good, some not so good. “Gaps” are closing in those areas yet are still considered to be “significant”. (A detailed explanation of “significant”, a statistical description, can be found on the NAEP site.) Maybe we should be considering why our children’s achievement levels seem to decline from fourth grade to twelfth grade. Yes????

FYI: A web-based search for boys’ programs in math or science most consistently reveals information that compares boys to girls rather than any specific initiatives focused on boys.