lying spent, the peak past, all slow,
fading fire burning lower,
sounds fade, now just an echo,
we sprawl, all movement slower
passion's embers banked, still glow,
lazy touching, tracing, feeling,
drowsy voices murmer soft & low
words of love, words of healing
in sweet collapse, bare skin to skin,
limbs entwined, won't yet let go,
no more content we've ever been
than now in loving's afterglow
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
long letter
An open letter to G. County School Superintendent S. Mc:
I am in receipt of a letter sent home with my children who both attend G. County schools. In it you propose – no, you state as an established fact that the schools will be segregated by gender, a decision reached without public knowledge or input prior to the fact. My response will be limited to this issue of single gender schools.
Mr. Mc., your letter says that with regard to single gender schools you have “researched the data and spoken with experts.” You claim that “the facts are undeniable” that single gender schools are “working”: a bold claim, but not a true one. The idea that single sex schools are better than coed ones is not supported by research. In fact, there is evidence indicating that single sex schools have their own set of problems. Given the recent upheaval and continued financial strain our school system, I wonder why you insist on ignoring the truth and creating chaos.
Your claim that “the facts are undeniable” is easily denied. There is no definitive research on single gender schools that indicates their superiority. For instance, the United States Department of Education commissioned a study released in 2005 that found: “The actual research evidence...is equivocal. As a result of the obstacles to conducting true randomized experiments, few or no studies have provided definitive evidence for or against single sex schooling.” In other words, while researchers have studied the issue, there is no definitive evidence for or against single sex schooling being of any benefit. If the United States Department of Education says there is no strong evidence in favor of it, why do you say otherwise?
In fact, much of the research is of such poor quality that it cannot be used to determine anything: “What would be useful would be to separate fact and evidence from fiction by converting as many claims as possible to testable hypotheses and performing the necessary research. For those who are open to using research to determine which type of schooling is more efficacious, many of the important arguments have not been tested. Similarly, a number of criteria and desired outcomes expected to result from these explanatory processes have not been examined. Even those criteria that have received greater attention have not been tied to specific hypotheses or explanatory mechanisms. Much more work and explication are needed.”
Please note that this is not my opinion. It is the conclusion reached by the United States Department of Education.
It’s not only the United States Department of Education who says that research is lacking or of poor quality. Many education journals have the same message. For instance, there is a 2006 article in “Teachers College Record” (Volume 108 No.4, April 2006) a peer-reviewed education journal. Writing about the controversy over the issue of single gender school research, the journal noted that “both sides concur that research findings supporting single-sex schooling are inconclusive.” In other words, even the most recent research doesn’t support anything. It is inconclusive. This is the opposite of your claimed “undeniable” facts.
The United States Department of Education commissioned another study to look at as much research as possible on single gender schools. This report, also released in 2005, states in part: “Research in the United States on the question of whether public single-sex education might be beneficial to males, females or a subset of either group (particularly disadvantaged youths) has been limited…no reviews on this topic have been conducted using a systematic approach…”
How can you claim the evidence is “undeniable” when the United States Department of Education admits that research is limited? This report, entitled “Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review” looked at 2,221 research studies and concluded that most were of such poor quality that only 40 met the review criteria and were included in the final report. Of the studies the U.S. Department of Education deemed good enough to include, they had this to say: “Any positive effects of single sex schooling on longer-term indicators of academic achievement are not readily apparent. No differences were found for postsecondary test scores, college graduation rates, or graduate school attendance rates.”
Read that again, if you dare. Positive effects of single gender schools “are not readily apparent” and there are “no differences” in test scores or college graduation rates. Why then do you say “it’s working” if you have “researched the data” as you claim? Apparently you used different data than the U.S. Department of Education.
Even the U.S. Education Department, with their review of over 2,000 studies was hard pressed to find many good ones. Most so-called research studies are nearly useless. The Department noted: “Many of the remaining studies have other conceptual or interpretive flaws. Many of the studies lacked well-developed hypotheses, and the hypotheses were often not linked directly to the outcomes being studied.” I have read several of these studies and I agree with the U.S. Education Department when it noted that “critics have argued when a single sex school has been superior, it is because the single sex school had superior characteristics unrelated to its single-sex status. These could include a religious framework, private school status, a more educated parent body, and a more select student body. Thus, controlling statistically between two schools or school systems has been the only way to establish whether single sex schooling is superior on a level playing field.”
To see what the Education Department is talking about, I read several studies included in its report. Very typical is the Carpenter and Hayden study (1987). Reading the conclusions, I saw that the researchers found single sex schools had higher test scores for girls. However, when I read the details, I found that this was from a study which compared one private Catholic girl’s school versus a coed public high school. I don’t think it really surprises anybody to learn that such a comparison gives the advantage to the Catholic school, with its traditionally high academic rigor and very involved body of parents. This is what the Education Department means when they question whether such studies are on a level playing field.
A better study included in the U.S. Department of Education report is one by Garcia (1998) who compared two public high schools. Garcia, in contrast to the Carpenter and Hayden study, found that the coed high schools had higher SAT scores overall than public single sex schools. This is a more level playing field, comparing public schools to public schools. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Mc., the results do not support your contentions.
Where single sex education has been tried in public schools, the results have not necessarily been superior as you claim. In fact, sometimes the results have been worse than coed classes. Again, my data comes from some of this research that you claim to have done. For instance, in the peer-reviewed journal “Educational Studies” (Volume 32 No.3 Sep. 2006) Colette Gray and Joanne Wilson explored the experiences of teachers with single sex schools, by surveying one such school. Their study four years after single sex education was introduced found that “contrary to its stated aims, the majority of teachers believe that, since the introduction of single-sex classes, academic performance and classroom behavior have deteriorated.” Do we want academic performance and classroom behavior to deteriorate in our schools as they did in the school in the survey?
An editorial in the April 8, 2004 edition of “The Christian Science Monitor” agreed that performance can actually deteriorate in single sex schools. The “Monitor” noted that single sex classes were tried in California in the 1990s, but the program, despite high costs, didn't work. “The boys' schools degenerated into a disciplinary disaster, becoming little more than magnets for troubled youth," wrote the “Monitor.” This is especially troubling given that the stated aim of the G. County proposal is to help our boys do better. More chillingly, the “Monitor” ended by observing that segregating schools on any basis means that “whenever groups have been segregated, the least-valued group has ended up with fewer resources and fewer opportunities.” Which group will be least-valued here? Why do we want to repeat past mistakes here?
The academic literature in the field of education simply does not support your assertion, Mr. Mc., that segregation by gender is beneficial. In anything, there are indications of potential problems: “Single sex schooling fails to socialize and discipline rowdy males, thus potentially harming both males and females in the long run. Single sex male schools have more peer harassment. Female-only schools have fewer resources than male-only and coed schools; hence, they have poorer schooling. It is expensive and wasteful to have parallel programs for males and females.” The quoted material here is not my opinion. Rather, it comes from a 2004 report from the American Institutes for Research done for the United States Department of Education. It is simply not true to claim, as you do, that research supports what you and the board have decided to do to our schools.
Probably most galling of all is the manner in which this decision was made: in secret without parental input. Indeed, the school board claims a legal right not to listen to its constituents. School Board Chariman J. G. is quoted in the “News” as saying that the board’s attorney claims that the board has no legal obligation to allow public comment, and the board has a policy “that we don’t allow public comment at special called meetings.” Fair enough. We remind you, Ms. G., that the School Board is an elected body who, if they don’t have to listen to our voices, do still have to abide by our ballots. We would further remind the Superintendent that his six-figure salary is paid by the sweat of our brows, not his, and that you are both our employees. We are your bosses, not your subjects, though your behavior makes it plain which you believe.
I invite you to do as I have done, produce studies from prestigious peer-reviewed educational journals. Show us your research and your experts who can refute the conclusions of the U.S. Department of Education. Instead of bludgeoning us with your conclusions, why not solicit our input beforehand? What you have done is write your own laws in stone, which you plunk down in the middle of the highway, telling us the road we thought we were traveling is closed and to follow your new path. Given the opaque nature of your decision making process, the disdain for any accountability, and your zealously-adhered-to lack of any legal requirement to listen to us, is it any wonder that we might have questions as to whether we are being asked to follow a visionary leader or whether we are walking over a cliff?
Regards,
DB
I am in receipt of a letter sent home with my children who both attend G. County schools. In it you propose – no, you state as an established fact that the schools will be segregated by gender, a decision reached without public knowledge or input prior to the fact. My response will be limited to this issue of single gender schools.
Mr. Mc., your letter says that with regard to single gender schools you have “researched the data and spoken with experts.” You claim that “the facts are undeniable” that single gender schools are “working”: a bold claim, but not a true one. The idea that single sex schools are better than coed ones is not supported by research. In fact, there is evidence indicating that single sex schools have their own set of problems. Given the recent upheaval and continued financial strain our school system, I wonder why you insist on ignoring the truth and creating chaos.
Your claim that “the facts are undeniable” is easily denied. There is no definitive research on single gender schools that indicates their superiority. For instance, the United States Department of Education commissioned a study released in 2005 that found: “The actual research evidence...is equivocal. As a result of the obstacles to conducting true randomized experiments, few or no studies have provided definitive evidence for or against single sex schooling.” In other words, while researchers have studied the issue, there is no definitive evidence for or against single sex schooling being of any benefit. If the United States Department of Education says there is no strong evidence in favor of it, why do you say otherwise?
In fact, much of the research is of such poor quality that it cannot be used to determine anything: “What would be useful would be to separate fact and evidence from fiction by converting as many claims as possible to testable hypotheses and performing the necessary research. For those who are open to using research to determine which type of schooling is more efficacious, many of the important arguments have not been tested. Similarly, a number of criteria and desired outcomes expected to result from these explanatory processes have not been examined. Even those criteria that have received greater attention have not been tied to specific hypotheses or explanatory mechanisms. Much more work and explication are needed.”
Please note that this is not my opinion. It is the conclusion reached by the United States Department of Education.
It’s not only the United States Department of Education who says that research is lacking or of poor quality. Many education journals have the same message. For instance, there is a 2006 article in “Teachers College Record” (Volume 108 No.4, April 2006) a peer-reviewed education journal. Writing about the controversy over the issue of single gender school research, the journal noted that “both sides concur that research findings supporting single-sex schooling are inconclusive.” In other words, even the most recent research doesn’t support anything. It is inconclusive. This is the opposite of your claimed “undeniable” facts.
The United States Department of Education commissioned another study to look at as much research as possible on single gender schools. This report, also released in 2005, states in part: “Research in the United States on the question of whether public single-sex education might be beneficial to males, females or a subset of either group (particularly disadvantaged youths) has been limited…no reviews on this topic have been conducted using a systematic approach…”
How can you claim the evidence is “undeniable” when the United States Department of Education admits that research is limited? This report, entitled “Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review” looked at 2,221 research studies and concluded that most were of such poor quality that only 40 met the review criteria and were included in the final report. Of the studies the U.S. Department of Education deemed good enough to include, they had this to say: “Any positive effects of single sex schooling on longer-term indicators of academic achievement are not readily apparent. No differences were found for postsecondary test scores, college graduation rates, or graduate school attendance rates.”
Read that again, if you dare. Positive effects of single gender schools “are not readily apparent” and there are “no differences” in test scores or college graduation rates. Why then do you say “it’s working” if you have “researched the data” as you claim? Apparently you used different data than the U.S. Department of Education.
Even the U.S. Education Department, with their review of over 2,000 studies was hard pressed to find many good ones. Most so-called research studies are nearly useless. The Department noted: “Many of the remaining studies have other conceptual or interpretive flaws. Many of the studies lacked well-developed hypotheses, and the hypotheses were often not linked directly to the outcomes being studied.” I have read several of these studies and I agree with the U.S. Education Department when it noted that “critics have argued when a single sex school has been superior, it is because the single sex school had superior characteristics unrelated to its single-sex status. These could include a religious framework, private school status, a more educated parent body, and a more select student body. Thus, controlling statistically between two schools or school systems has been the only way to establish whether single sex schooling is superior on a level playing field.”
To see what the Education Department is talking about, I read several studies included in its report. Very typical is the Carpenter and Hayden study (1987). Reading the conclusions, I saw that the researchers found single sex schools had higher test scores for girls. However, when I read the details, I found that this was from a study which compared one private Catholic girl’s school versus a coed public high school. I don’t think it really surprises anybody to learn that such a comparison gives the advantage to the Catholic school, with its traditionally high academic rigor and very involved body of parents. This is what the Education Department means when they question whether such studies are on a level playing field.
A better study included in the U.S. Department of Education report is one by Garcia (1998) who compared two public high schools. Garcia, in contrast to the Carpenter and Hayden study, found that the coed high schools had higher SAT scores overall than public single sex schools. This is a more level playing field, comparing public schools to public schools. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Mc., the results do not support your contentions.
Where single sex education has been tried in public schools, the results have not necessarily been superior as you claim. In fact, sometimes the results have been worse than coed classes. Again, my data comes from some of this research that you claim to have done. For instance, in the peer-reviewed journal “Educational Studies” (Volume 32 No.3 Sep. 2006) Colette Gray and Joanne Wilson explored the experiences of teachers with single sex schools, by surveying one such school. Their study four years after single sex education was introduced found that “contrary to its stated aims, the majority of teachers believe that, since the introduction of single-sex classes, academic performance and classroom behavior have deteriorated.” Do we want academic performance and classroom behavior to deteriorate in our schools as they did in the school in the survey?
An editorial in the April 8, 2004 edition of “The Christian Science Monitor” agreed that performance can actually deteriorate in single sex schools. The “Monitor” noted that single sex classes were tried in California in the 1990s, but the program, despite high costs, didn't work. “The boys' schools degenerated into a disciplinary disaster, becoming little more than magnets for troubled youth," wrote the “Monitor.” This is especially troubling given that the stated aim of the G. County proposal is to help our boys do better. More chillingly, the “Monitor” ended by observing that segregating schools on any basis means that “whenever groups have been segregated, the least-valued group has ended up with fewer resources and fewer opportunities.” Which group will be least-valued here? Why do we want to repeat past mistakes here?
The academic literature in the field of education simply does not support your assertion, Mr. Mc., that segregation by gender is beneficial. In anything, there are indications of potential problems: “Single sex schooling fails to socialize and discipline rowdy males, thus potentially harming both males and females in the long run. Single sex male schools have more peer harassment. Female-only schools have fewer resources than male-only and coed schools; hence, they have poorer schooling. It is expensive and wasteful to have parallel programs for males and females.” The quoted material here is not my opinion. Rather, it comes from a 2004 report from the American Institutes for Research done for the United States Department of Education. It is simply not true to claim, as you do, that research supports what you and the board have decided to do to our schools.
Probably most galling of all is the manner in which this decision was made: in secret without parental input. Indeed, the school board claims a legal right not to listen to its constituents. School Board Chariman J. G. is quoted in the “News” as saying that the board’s attorney claims that the board has no legal obligation to allow public comment, and the board has a policy “that we don’t allow public comment at special called meetings.” Fair enough. We remind you, Ms. G., that the School Board is an elected body who, if they don’t have to listen to our voices, do still have to abide by our ballots. We would further remind the Superintendent that his six-figure salary is paid by the sweat of our brows, not his, and that you are both our employees. We are your bosses, not your subjects, though your behavior makes it plain which you believe.
I invite you to do as I have done, produce studies from prestigious peer-reviewed educational journals. Show us your research and your experts who can refute the conclusions of the U.S. Department of Education. Instead of bludgeoning us with your conclusions, why not solicit our input beforehand? What you have done is write your own laws in stone, which you plunk down in the middle of the highway, telling us the road we thought we were traveling is closed and to follow your new path. Given the opaque nature of your decision making process, the disdain for any accountability, and your zealously-adhered-to lack of any legal requirement to listen to us, is it any wonder that we might have questions as to whether we are being asked to follow a visionary leader or whether we are walking over a cliff?
Regards,
DB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
