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.

Boys in Crisis???

This week we are taking a look at the gender issue in schools and the research that informs the discussion/debate. Lots to be considered here. Recent reports from Newsweek, Esquire, and even a segment on the Today show suggested that boys are lagging in performance outcomes from previous studies. Then along comes a research study done by Education Sector reported on their web site and in the Washington Post on June 26, 2006. This “independent education think tank” suggests that the current “crisis” is contrived and boys are doing better than ever (with the exceptions of Hispanic, Blacks, and the poor). The primary reason for this contrary position stems from their analysis of boys’ and girls’ performance outcomes. In fact, they suggest, boys are doing better than ever! Girls, too, are demonstrating greater academic achievement and the research indicates that the gap between boys’ and girls’ performance outcomes is shrinking considerably. This “fact” is the reason for sounding the ‘boy crisis’ alarm. It’s not that boys are making any less academic gains than in the past; it’s that girls are closing gender achievement gaps that have existed for many years. So what’s the “media” up to? I wonder if this would be as “news worthy” if it was structured as a positive education occurrence rather than another criticism of the education system as not being responsive to the needs of its citizenry. And actually, what the ‘boy crisis’ does is divert the public attention toward an issue (gender) that everyone can feel politically responsive toward rather than attending to the REAL issue: that being the race and poverty considerations which clearly demonstrate student achievement gaps in ALL the research!

Just as this ‘gender’ research is being published, so too, is research that focuses on single-sex schools. In a Times Online (UK) article of 6/26/2006, it is suggested that neither gender demonstrates achievement benefits from being educated in single-sex schools rather than co-ed schools. If single gender schools do demonstrate more successful student outcomes it is a result of student selection for admittance to the school rather than gender! Well, who woulda thunk it!

Where is all of this going? A couple of weeks ago I attended the commence exercises of Elmira College, a co-educational private school in up-state New York. This college is the first woman’s institution of higher education (1855) in the United States only becoming co-educational in 1969. At Commencement, the honored guest and primary speaker was Colonel Eileen Collins, Unites States Astronaut and Space Shuttle Commander of our space program’s “Return to Flight” mission after the Columbia disaster in 2003. A graduate of the Elmira, NY schools and Corning Community College in Corning, NY, Col. Collins completed undergraduate and graduate degrees at Syracuse and Stanford respectively. Throughout her address, I don’t recall her mentioning, even once, about a “gender gap” during her education experiences. She did, however, talk about how she would cross the campus on her way to school and have conversations with the college kids, how school was exciting and interesting, but most of all how it was viewed as an important part of growing up. I’m sure most of you are familiar with Jonathan Kozol’s book Savage Inequalities (1991). Although, it has been a few years since I read it, I don’t recall him detailing in any of his presentation specific gender inequality. Lots of race and poverty issues, but no gender issues that seem to impact students’ learning capacities or life opportunities. In a more recent book Unequal Childhoods (2003), Annette Lareau offers an ethnographic study of class, race, and family life in these United States that has created a bifurcated nation of haves and have-nots. And, again, gender is not a focus for social or academic achievement being demonstrated by our children today. So where is the media on this? Have they missed the opportunity to talk about the good that is happening in our education system as it relates to gender? I’ll leave that question for your comments.

Next week we will continue this topic with much less ranting about the media but more in-depth discussion about what our nation is doing for girls in education. We’ll take a look at Secretary Spellings’ comments regarding math and science and girls; we’ll also see what the real outcomes of girls’ achievement in those areas are.

Starting the talk!

A beginning focus for a teaching and learning conversation often comes from the philosophical roots of our professional practice and experience. I am no different! My passionate opinions are grounded in profound and substantive educational knowledge, as well as my 30 plus years of K-Grad student and colleague interactions. Let me share with you where I am coming from. You may find something to agree with; you may find something to challenge; you may find something to provoke your professional or personal balance. All responses are welcome!

Philosophy of:

Ø Education
In his book Simple Truths, Kent Nerburn reminds us that “[e]ducation is one of the great joys and solaces of life. It gives us a framework for understanding the world around us and a way to reach across time and space to touch the thoughts and feelings of others” (p.13). Lessons about the way children learn, lessons about the way teachers practice their craft, lessons about inclusive education, collaborative culture, effective assessment, and lessons about research that change practice are all part of my “Philosophy of Education”. This “garden of education” must be cultivated in a holistic, systemic manner if we are to practice our vision of teaching and learning in a meaningful, challenging, connected, technological, and socially responsible manner.
John Dewey, in his writing and research, informs us that experience is the groundwork of learning. Our living is the foundation for what we learn and our learning allows us to scaffold new learning to create a knowing, thinking human being. Lev Vygotsky, researching and writing early in the twentieth century, also affirmed experience as a critical component of a person’s learning. He recognized that we learn when a more able peer or adult interacts with us during a time when our prior experiences have provided the foundation for the next level of learning. This social cognition I believe to be the learning structure for acquiring all knowledge. Children learn when the information is meaningful, has a relationship to prior learning, is delivered by a more able peer or adult, and is structured to engage.


Ø Teaching & Learning
I believe effective instruction must recognize that teaching needs to be based on high standards and high expectations while focusing on each student’s needs. The Deweyan influence is strongly felt in a literature-rich, discussion-based, interdisciplinary curriculum classroom where the craft of teaching is constantly being reflected upon and modified to meet the changing needs of children and curriculum.
An inquiry/discovery oriented teaching and learning environment will engage children in "...a variety of internal developmental processes that ... operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). Children's experiences also are critical components needed for learning to occur. The development of instruction that encourages children to venture into classroom learning based on interest and prior experience must be of primary consideration. Implicit in a child's interest area is a foundational level of experience. Involve children's minds by structuring learning opportunities to include peer interaction, exploration, and discovery.
Children construct knowledge and develop meaning from their learning by having personal and environmental interactions. By creating an environment and opportunities that engaged children in active learning, teachers will establish the ingredients necessary for learning to occur.
I feel today’s teaching and learning must move beyond the traditional segregated curriculum, the didactic instruction offering the "facts" of learning. Educators must be developing and initiating learning that is constructed so curriculum for children will be dialectic, inquiry-oriented, exploratory, challenging, and engaging. That is to say children will inquire about possibilities, select direction to discover, and choose their own methods, means, and materials for learning. We must be designing teaching and learning that encourages children to work in groups, using a range of sources of information that are relevant to the world outside of the classroom. We must be encouraging students not only to acquire knowledge but also to reflect on their learning experiencing.
Today, teaching and learning must consider the learner and encourage children to become engaged in their learning based on their own experiences and previous knowledge. Children inquire, discover, and acquired meaning from their learning when the environment and curriculum are structured for them to do so. "[I]nquiry is ... the most effective route to understanding, which should be the goal of learning and teaching at all levels in the educational system" (Wells, 1995). This kind of learning will insured that classrooms will "...resound with the voices of articulate young people in dialogues always incomplete because there is always more to be discovered and more to be said" (Greene, 1995, p.43).
Teachers and students engaged in dialogue will establish a process for learning that will create joint responsibilities and mutual growth (Freire, 1993, p.61). It is crucial for children to be part of the development of their learning by engaging in dialogues with adults about common interests. These dialogues allow the children to express personal beliefs and begin to comprehend the adult perspective. Engaging children in their learning, making them the designers of, rather than objects of instruction, and connecting their personal experiences to their needs, creates relevant, meaningful, vibrant, and substantive learning .


Suggested readings and references that contributed to the thinking behind this ‘philosophy’.

Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In Jackson, P. (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan, pp. 216-247.
Dewey, J. [1900, 1902], (1992). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Dodd, A.W. (1995). Engaging students: what I learned along the way. Educational Leadership, 53, (1), 65-67.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.
Heald-Taylor, B.G. (1996). Three paradigms for literature instruction in grades 3 to 6. The Reading Teacher, 49, 6,456-466.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Levin, R.A. (1991). The debate over schooling: Influences of Dewey and Thorndike. Childhood Education. Winter. 71-75.
Nerburn,K. (1996). Simple truths: Clear and gentle guidance. Navato, California: New World Library.
Shanahan, T. (Ed.). (1994). Teachers thinking, teachers knowing. Urbana, Il: National Council of Teachers of English.
Shannon, P. (Ed.). (1992). Becoming Political. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Westhoff, L.M. (1995). The popularization of knowledge: John Dewey on experts and American democracy. History of Education Quarterly, 35, 1, 27-47.
Wells, G. (1995). Language and the inquiry-oriented curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 25, (3), 233-269.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.