| |
The California
Experiment
What happened in California? Didn't they try single-sex public
schools there? Didn't that 'experiment' show that single-sex
public education won't work?
In 1997, the governor of California, Pete Wilson, initiated
a 12-school pilot program in single-sex schooling. The program
was terminated shortly after Governor Wilson left office the
following year. To date, there has been only one study of the
California pilot project. That study was published by Amanda
Datnow, Lea Hubbard, and Elisabeth Woody in May 2001; it was
entitled "Is single gender schooling viable in the public
sector? Lessons from California's Pilot Program." To read
the Datnow report, click here.
According to the Datnow report, "the program was undermined
by implementation challenges. Educators were hampered at the
outset by short timelines to propose and begin operation of
the academies. . . These difficulties were compounded by an
absence of legislated funding. . . staff and leadership turnover,
a lack of political support, and [other] funding problems."
In addition, "most educators saw the $500,00 state grant
as a way to help address the more pressing educational and social
problems of low achieving students" rather than taking
advantage of the special environment of the single-sex classroom.
[Those quotes are from the Executive Summary, findings #1 and
#2.]
The Los Angeles Times reported that students for the single-sex
schools were "drawn from the alternative and correctional
education system. Many have spent time in juvenile detention
centers, fallen behind in mainstream schools or encountered
personal troubles at home. Without help, most are in jeopardy
of not graduating." (Nick Anderson, "Separate but
equal," Los Angeles Times, December 7 1997, Metro section,
p. 1.)
This finding was echoed in the Datnow report. For example: "The
majority of the 36 seventh and eighth grade boys were classified
by the school staff as having behavioral problems, and six had
learning difficulties. . . . [One school had] trouble recruiting
girls because fewer girls have discipline and academic problems
that would lead them into the alternative school system. . .
The boys academy had the reputation of being 'the school for
the bad kids.'. . . a dumping ground" for the most problematic
students. (p. 34 of the Datnow report)
The Datnow report, as you can see, made it clear that the California
program was profoundly flawed from the outset, and could not
be used as a meaningful indicator of the success or failure
of single-sex education in public schools. Nevertheless, the
report was widely perceived in California as pronouncing a negative
verdict on single-sex education.
This perception led to a blistering review by Christina Hoff Sommers entitled "Give same-sex schooling a chance," published in Education Week, September 26 2001, pp. 36ff. Sommers noted that the Datnow report "never [states] whether single-sex schools improved grades, test scores, or attendance." According to Sommers, "anecdotal evidence suggests" that student performance did improve in the single-sex schools. Sommers' principle criticism of the Datnow report is that it focussed narrowly on the question of how single-sex education affected the students' views on gender, rather than examining how single-sex education affected the students' academic performance. You can read Sommers' article here.
Sommers labeled Datnow and her associates as "gender wardens" who "repeatedly put the aim of eliminating gender stereotypes ahead of the academic and moral needs of children." For example, the Datnow report criticized an instructor who allowed an all-female class to choose to read Pride and Prejudice while allowing the all-male class to read All Quiet on the Western Front. Sommers countered that it is precisely choices such as these which allow teachers to take advantages of the single-sex environment. You can read Sommers' article here.
Top |
|
|
|
|
|
