Single Sex Schooling, who's failing and who cares
There has been lots of talk lately about single sex education, and how it might be a way to resolve "the boy crisis". The new director of the Toronto District School Board has put forward a motion to start a "Male Leadership Academy" and has proposed having more "boy friendly" classrooms across the city. Male Leadership Academy as a name drives me crazy. I'm not at all convinced that there is a crisis in "male leadership" - a crisis in male empathy perhaps, but male leadership?
In the Globe and Mail article about this (linked above) Trustee James Pasternak, is quoted as saying:
"You've got to look to the private school system's secret to successes … you see standalone
schools that run prominent gender separated programs," he said in an interview, referring to
"tony, upscale" preparatory schools such as Upper Canada College and Bishop Strachan, which
are for boys and girls, respectively.
"You ask yourself, 'well, wait a minute. What do they know that we don't?'"
Well Mr. Pasternak, Upper Canada College (UCC) was founded in 1829 as a feeder school to the university that became the University of Toronto. Upper Canada College was modeled on Eaton College in England, which was founded as an all boys college in 1440. In 1440, very few Europeans outside of convents were at all concerned about educating girls. King's College did not admit women until 1884, so in 1829 not only was there little interest among the rich in educating girls, but there was little point in helping girls prepare for a university who would not accept them as students for another fifty-five years. What Upper Canada College knows, is that they are based in a 569 year old sexist tradition, and that as a private business, they have done well and continue to do well, as see know reason to change now.
The Bishop Strachan School (BSS) was founded in 1867 as a radical alternative to schools like UCC. It was, at it's inception, an Anglican finishing school where girls were prepared for the rigours of university academics - even if there were few universities who would accept them. BSS was in many ways a response to the sexist admissions policy of UCC and Catholic schools of the time. As UCC has not changed it's admission policies, neither has BSS. They too have a lengthy tradition, and can claim that they are offering equal opportunity to girls not included in UCC.
So, Mr. Pasternak, UCC knows that all-male education was good enough in 1440, and it is good enough for them now. UCC rejects 75% of those who apply to be students - they know that if you only accept the brightest 25% of applicants, you are teaching a bright, uniform cohort, many of whom will go on to higher education. Finally, they understand that "Old Boys", as they call their grads, go on to become part of the "old boy's club" and that preserving wealth and power for the rich is a good business model. Lessons I would say that do not belong in the public system.
Anne McIlroy, of the Globe and Mail recently interviewed Dr Lise Eliot, a neurobiologist, who in her book Pink Brain Blue Brain, "argues that brains are shaped by how kids spend their time - playing with dolls versus balls - and that small, innate differences become amplified over time by parents, teachers and immersion in boy or girl culture." Yes, I have requested Pink Brain Blue Brain from my local library and a review of that will be forthcoming. In the meanwhile, you can read Anne McIlroy's interview Why Boys Need Barbies and Girls Need Footballs.
I am often struck by how many of the arguments about how boys are academically in trouble look at university enrollments. The studies usually claim that 60% of university students are female and that this proves that males are being disadvantaged in public schools. I've argued that this is part of a historical imbalance righting itself. Many North American universities did not initially admit women as students (see my comments about U of T above) and even when they did there were strong societal pressures keeping women out of the classroom.
In a historical context, the number of male graduates still outnumbers female graduates considerably. But let's look at current numbers. Stats. Can. reports that in the 2007/2008 academic year, 57.5%, of students were women and 42.4%, were men. Stats. Can, also reports that the rate of increase in male students was "1.3% in 2007/2008, faster than the rate of growth among women (+0.1%)." Did schools (public and private) fail that group of boys less than the previous year? It was only in 1985 that the female university population in Canada reached 51%, the same percentage as females in the general population - how significant is a 6.5% increase/decrease over 22 years? That hardly seems like a crisis to me.
Females are not the majority of university students in all faculties. This year, the Canada's Higher Education and Cureer Guide reported that there is a substantial male majority among MBA students. "On average, the student bodies of MBA schools in Canada are 64% males and 36% females." at some schools the split was event greater "For example, the Joseph L. Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, Queen's University, and Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario each possess ratios of 75% males and 25% females." Where is the outcry that schools are failing to groom girls for success in business or that we are failing to groom girls for leadership? Is there a "girl crisis" in business school?
While female students outnumber male students in undergraduate programs (57.5%:42.4%) the gap is less in masters level programs (53%:47%) and in doctoral programs, men are 54% of the student population while women make only 46%. So if women are in the majority in undergraduate and masters level programs, but the minority in doctoral programs, are universities failing female students? Are universities failing female PHD students? Do we have a "girl crisis" in higher education?
A gap exists among faculty at universities too. Back to Statistics Canada, where a 2006 report states "Between 1970 and 2001, the percentage of women teaching full-time at Canadian universities more than doubled from 13% to 29%." Wow, so in 2001, the male:female ration among those teaching at Canadian universities was 71:29. The same report also shows that female instructors earned less than their male counterparts. Are Canadian Universities failing to invest in their female graduates? Again, are universities failing female PHD students? And again, do we have a "girl crisis" in higher education?
Another set of numbers that those concerned about "the boy crisis" often point to is suspension rates by sex. They point out that far more boys are suspended than girls. What I find interesting, is that they never site numbers, or historical trends in this area. I suspect this is because the numbers would not support their argument. My guess is that boys have historically been suspended at higher rates than girls, and that in fact, girls are closing the gap. I'll look for the data on that.
Noting that there does not seem to be a general alarm cry about the number of women in MBA programs, the number of women in doctoral programs or the number of women in faculty positions, it seems that the main reason people are so concerned about the number of males in the undergraduate population is that it is males. I have to believe that sexism and understandings of masculinity play into how people are approaching, understanding and manipulating the numbers. I wonder where the data is for newcomer students, students from low income homes, LGBTQ students, groups I would suspect are underrepresented in university and I wonder where the concern is for them. The people behind the "boy crisis" have still not stated their case.
In the Globe and Mail article about this (linked above) Trustee James Pasternak, is quoted as saying:
"You've got to look to the private school system's secret to successes … you see standalone
schools that run prominent gender separated programs," he said in an interview, referring to
"tony, upscale" preparatory schools such as Upper Canada College and Bishop Strachan, which
are for boys and girls, respectively.
"You ask yourself, 'well, wait a minute. What do they know that we don't?'"
Well Mr. Pasternak, Upper Canada College (UCC) was founded in 1829 as a feeder school to the university that became the University of Toronto. Upper Canada College was modeled on Eaton College in England, which was founded as an all boys college in 1440. In 1440, very few Europeans outside of convents were at all concerned about educating girls. King's College did not admit women until 1884, so in 1829 not only was there little interest among the rich in educating girls, but there was little point in helping girls prepare for a university who would not accept them as students for another fifty-five years. What Upper Canada College knows, is that they are based in a 569 year old sexist tradition, and that as a private business, they have done well and continue to do well, as see know reason to change now.
The Bishop Strachan School (BSS) was founded in 1867 as a radical alternative to schools like UCC. It was, at it's inception, an Anglican finishing school where girls were prepared for the rigours of university academics - even if there were few universities who would accept them. BSS was in many ways a response to the sexist admissions policy of UCC and Catholic schools of the time. As UCC has not changed it's admission policies, neither has BSS. They too have a lengthy tradition, and can claim that they are offering equal opportunity to girls not included in UCC.
So, Mr. Pasternak, UCC knows that all-male education was good enough in 1440, and it is good enough for them now. UCC rejects 75% of those who apply to be students - they know that if you only accept the brightest 25% of applicants, you are teaching a bright, uniform cohort, many of whom will go on to higher education. Finally, they understand that "Old Boys", as they call their grads, go on to become part of the "old boy's club" and that preserving wealth and power for the rich is a good business model. Lessons I would say that do not belong in the public system.
Anne McIlroy, of the Globe and Mail recently interviewed Dr Lise Eliot, a neurobiologist, who in her book Pink Brain Blue Brain, "argues that brains are shaped by how kids spend their time - playing with dolls versus balls - and that small, innate differences become amplified over time by parents, teachers and immersion in boy or girl culture." Yes, I have requested Pink Brain Blue Brain from my local library and a review of that will be forthcoming. In the meanwhile, you can read Anne McIlroy's interview Why Boys Need Barbies and Girls Need Footballs.
I am often struck by how many of the arguments about how boys are academically in trouble look at university enrollments. The studies usually claim that 60% of university students are female and that this proves that males are being disadvantaged in public schools. I've argued that this is part of a historical imbalance righting itself. Many North American universities did not initially admit women as students (see my comments about U of T above) and even when they did there were strong societal pressures keeping women out of the classroom.
In a historical context, the number of male graduates still outnumbers female graduates considerably. But let's look at current numbers. Stats. Can. reports that in the 2007/2008 academic year, 57.5%, of students were women and 42.4%, were men. Stats. Can, also reports that the rate of increase in male students was "1.3% in 2007/2008, faster than the rate of growth among women (+0.1%)." Did schools (public and private) fail that group of boys less than the previous year? It was only in 1985 that the female university population in Canada reached 51%, the same percentage as females in the general population - how significant is a 6.5% increase/decrease over 22 years? That hardly seems like a crisis to me.
Females are not the majority of university students in all faculties. This year, the Canada's Higher Education and Cureer Guide reported that there is a substantial male majority among MBA students. "On average, the student bodies of MBA schools in Canada are 64% males and 36% females." at some schools the split was event greater "For example, the Joseph L. Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, Queen's University, and Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario each possess ratios of 75% males and 25% females." Where is the outcry that schools are failing to groom girls for success in business or that we are failing to groom girls for leadership? Is there a "girl crisis" in business school?
While female students outnumber male students in undergraduate programs (57.5%:42.4%) the gap is less in masters level programs (53%:47%) and in doctoral programs, men are 54% of the student population while women make only 46%. So if women are in the majority in undergraduate and masters level programs, but the minority in doctoral programs, are universities failing female students? Are universities failing female PHD students? Do we have a "girl crisis" in higher education?
A gap exists among faculty at universities too. Back to Statistics Canada, where a 2006 report states "Between 1970 and 2001, the percentage of women teaching full-time at Canadian universities more than doubled from 13% to 29%." Wow, so in 2001, the male:female ration among those teaching at Canadian universities was 71:29. The same report also shows that female instructors earned less than their male counterparts. Are Canadian Universities failing to invest in their female graduates? Again, are universities failing female PHD students? And again, do we have a "girl crisis" in higher education?
Another set of numbers that those concerned about "the boy crisis" often point to is suspension rates by sex. They point out that far more boys are suspended than girls. What I find interesting, is that they never site numbers, or historical trends in this area. I suspect this is because the numbers would not support their argument. My guess is that boys have historically been suspended at higher rates than girls, and that in fact, girls are closing the gap. I'll look for the data on that.
Noting that there does not seem to be a general alarm cry about the number of women in MBA programs, the number of women in doctoral programs or the number of women in faculty positions, it seems that the main reason people are so concerned about the number of males in the undergraduate population is that it is males. I have to believe that sexism and understandings of masculinity play into how people are approaching, understanding and manipulating the numbers. I wonder where the data is for newcomer students, students from low income homes, LGBTQ students, groups I would suspect are underrepresented in university and I wonder where the concern is for them. The people behind the "boy crisis" have still not stated their case.