THE IMPACT OF HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING ON CONTEMPORARY CONCERNS

Linda Eisenmann John Carroll University May 2005

Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to join you and especially to have the opportunity to open this symposium. As a historian of education, I always feel it is important to preface an investigation of current concerns with an exploration of historical antecedents -- and clearly, the organizers of our symposium shared this approach. When examining the educational situation for women, it is particularly important to understand how some of the earlier expectations about women's participation colored their opportunities, as well as influencing our interpretations about their actual performance.

The history of girls and women in American education is one of continually trying to move from the margins to the mainstream. This is most obvious on the collegiate level, where women were rarely viewed as central players; but even for girls, the basics were seen as useful, although the importance of education as preparation for the future was less potent.

This argument may seem surprising today, when women constitute

60% or more of college students. In fact, this current participation rate is often cited as a problem, as if women's greater participation automatically disadvantages men or as if their predominance means that men have been

1 excluded. What I hope to show today, by looking at earlier times when women's participation levels raised questions and their curricular choices seemed to suggest feminization at men's expense, is that such viewpoints need to be tempered with an understanding of the wider context.

I'd like to show how various beliefs about girls, women, and their futures created gendered approaches to education that, over the last two centuries, determined expectations about women's educational choices. I'll describe them in further detail, but first will highlight three of these expectations. The first, which predominated until about the 1860s or so, was that women weren't really interested in education, because there was very little opportunity for them to use anything beyond basic training. The second, which overlapped the earlier notion but lasted until the early 1900s, was that women were not capable of advanced education. The particular concern here was that the strains of collegiate schooling harm them emotionally and physically and emotionally. The third expectation -- which evolved once their participation was accepted -- was that women were best treated in segregated settings and with special curricula. Although coeducation eventually dominated the school and college landscape, this notion of separate treatment has had a long effect on women's participation.

After I sort through these expectations, I'll turn to three

2 misinterpretations that have developed around women's educational history.

These three include, first, a longstanding belief -- which we see today in our concern about women's proportion of the college population -- that women

'feminized' certain fields or institutions by choosing them in large numbers, thereby driving out the males. Second is the current misconception that women have always been disadvantaged in the pursuit of science and math, falling behind boys in an 'achievement gap' and scrambling to establish strong presences in these technical fields. Finally, I'll examine our belief that, since World War II, women have been only minor participants in both the workforce and education, like 'Rosie the Riveter,' pushed out of the mainstream areas. Overall, I will suggest that a clearer understanding of how women's participation has occurred will help us better comprehend the origins, nature, and prognosis for current concerns about an 'achievement gap.'

EXPECTATIONS - Women have no use for education

In thinking about girls and women being excluded from education throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, we first have to remind ourselves how irrelevant formal schooling was to most of the American population. In an agricultural country, advanced training was of little import. Even as

3 industry and business expanded, college remained irrelevant. Only about

2% of the male age group attended college at the time of the Civil War; by

1900, the rate wasn't much beyond 4%. Some boys, and girls too, attended local seminaries and academies, these being stepping-stones to college in the decades before high school became very common. Boys studied practical subjects such as bookkeeping, navigation, and writing. Those few whose families saw college as the way for sons to enter medicine, law, or the ministry, chose a more scholarly academy focused on more traditional languages, arts, and sciences.

Where were girls and women in these developments? Until about the

1840s, most girls – and the majority of boys -- received only rudimentary training that would allow them to read and cipher. Children were often trained in what were called 'dame schools', a setting like today's family day care, where a local women educated neighborhood children of various ages.

Until the Common School Movement of the 1840s and 1850s (sparked by reformers like Horace Mann), little consistency existed. As the movement spread, it pushed for universal education of boys and girls (at least until the age of 12 or 13) with a basic curriculum geared more toward forming character than preparing learned citizens.

No college was even open to a woman prior to 1834 when Oberlin

4 College in Ohio opened its doors. Beyond coeducation, Oberlin had the further distinction of being the first college to admit African American students. This opportunity was unique, however. The only other place where young women received education was in the scattered academies, often with a curriculum less than what men were receiving.

Rather than resulting from outright prejudice, however, this lack of attention to women stemmed from a belief that they had no use for it.

Women could not enter the ministry; they could not practice law or medicine, so what need had they for advanced schooling? Since women's ' proper sphere' ( a frequent 19th century term) was in the home, why waste time and resources on education beyond the basics?

One answer that grew during the 19th century has some implications for today's concerns about achievement. That was a recognition that women

-- as the best influences on young children -- might harness their 'natural' expertise into teaching. Women like Catherine Beecher, Emma Willard, and

Mary Lyon connected the belief that women were best suited by nature and temperament for raising children and the opportunities that existed in the growing school movement. By emphasizing the importance of training women for this work, as well as the economic advantage of paying them about one-third of what male teachers were paid, these women succeeded in

5 making teaching a 'woman's profession' by the end of the 19th century.

From a situation where all teachers were men, we find women filling 80% of the teaching posts by about 1875. The first belief, then -- that women had no particular use for education, and thus didn't need it -- eased aside as teaching became an acceptable, even coveted, opportunity for middle-class white women.

#2 Women aren't capable

As women increasingly turned to education as preparation for teaching, they sought to stay longer in school and college. However, this raised concerns about the impact on their health. Because the life of a scholar seemed incongruous with maternal expectations, physicians and educators began to express concern about women's constitutions, especially the effect of study on their reproductive health. The most famous of these challenges came from a Harvard-educated physician named Dr. Edward

Clarke, who in 1873 published a book called Sex in Education; Or, a Fair

Chance for the Girls. In this book (based on only a few cases) Dr. Clarke heightened concern for women's health by outlining the physical and mental deterioration in women who devoted inordinate time to study. They became weak and listless, contracting more than their share of diseases. What's

6 more, as Clarke explained, their reproductive capacities were affected. In a time when women's menstrual cycles were poorly understood, the belief was that energy devoted to 'brain work' was energy diverted from reproductive organs.

Clarke's findings, and an ominous threat to racial health, seemed justified when a group of studies over the next few decades found that college-educated white women were marrying and producing children at a much slower rate than women without such education, and more problematic for an era troubled by assimilating thousands of new immigrants, more slowly than poorly-educated immigrant women. These studies gave rise to a concern termed 'race suicide', blaming higher education for the threat to

America’s racial purity.

Many educators, and women themselves, challenged the medical warnings and the not-very-subtle accusations that they were harming their race. M. Carey Thomas, later the famous president of Bryn Mawr College, wrote that Dr. Clarke's book was a 'gloomy spectre' always 'rattling its chains' in the minds of young women seeking college. Eventually, studies gathered different data affirming women's healthy progress through college and their rising rates of marriage and motherhood. But the long-lasting concern that advanced education did not suit expectations for women had

7 played itself out in yet another threat.

#3 Segregation and separate curricula

If you believe that women have different needs for education, you might decide to provide their schooling is in separate venues with a differentiated curriculum. Over time, this issue of single-sex education held a strong strand in women's schooling.

About thirty years ago, when we really began to focus on the

'achievement gap' for girls and women, several studies showed that successful women (such as those in "American Men of Science") had attended women's colleges. As we will trace in this symposium, a debate continued around the question of whether girls and women receive more favorable treatment and support in single-sex settings.

In many ways, this issue of single-sex schooling ocurred not because everyone wanted to offer women special support and encouragement, but rather because women were ostracized from mainstream settings. American education has often admitted newcomers first in segregated settings, as

African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and immigrants have all experienced.

Until the rise of public universities late in the 1800s, women most often attended female seminaries, academies, and colleges. Even at Oberlin

8 women took a "Ladies course" of study. At most state institutions female students were in either the normal course (teacher training) or in home economics. After all, why mix girls with the boys headed in very diffferent directions? Ellen Swallow Richards, the first woman to graduate from MIT, earned her doctorate in chemistry, but was not able to teach other than home economics.

On the school level, the issue played out quite differently. As contentious as coeducation was in colleges – and in European countries -- in schools it proceeded without much incident. As David Tyack and Elisabeth

Hansot have observed, Americans’ comfort with younger children studying together assumed that girls would 'civilize' the boys, and that their propensity to behave better and study harder would raise the academic bar.

By high school, the separate curricula organized by expectations for students' futures kicked in. Generally, the older students become, the more likely they have been to experience segregated settings and differentiated curricula.

The strength of these three expectations for women's involvement has led, over time, to some misinterpretations of historical data. In other words, our assumptions about how women and girls should use education has

9 affected our understanding of certain historical developments. Let me begin with the worry over 'feminization', that is, a fear that women's increasing choice of a particular curriculum or institutions automatically threatens men's opportunities.

#1 'feminization'

The most obvious worry over feminization occurred just after 1900 as the comprehensive high schools were becoming popular. As I noted, earlier high schools were specifically geared toward students expecting to attend college. But, as the high school grew, it expanded into the general, technical, and career-oriented tracks that tried to offer something for every teenager. The plan worked, but with one sticky issue: more girls than boys attended and graduated. Girls were especially drawn to the commercial track because, first, it promised a job; and second, unlike boys who could find acceptable work without much educational preparation, girls could enter the safe world of clerical or store jobs only with some training.

As girls continued to outnumber boys, educators began to focus on

'the boy problem,’ and tried whatever they could to enhance the appeal of high school to males. Efforts included expanding the commerical and technical tracks away from areas that would attract girls; expanding sports;

10 and generally putting resources into convincing young men that high school was not a girls' institution.

On the college level, feminization played out more around curriculum than sheer numbers. Boys had long predominated in the humanities, for instance, seeing these as the best preparation for professional careers. When girls entered colleges, they often pushed for equal access to the humanities, especially classics, seeing there not so much access to fields like law or ministry, but rather as good preparation for teaching careers.

As they did so, male educators often lamented that fields such as languages, English, and the classics were becoming 'feminized.' Educators like G. Stanley Hall advanced the idea of 'sex repulsion,' explaining that, as women advanced into a field - whether in schooling or in the professions - it

‘naturally’ repelled men. Some of this thinking led to quotas in colleges and universities. Cornell, Michigan, and Penn State universities all limited the numbers of women in their classes; Stanford established a limit of one woman to every three men.

I treat this issue as a 'historical misinterpretation' because the fears of feminization occurred from an assumption – rather than evidence – that women would drive out men and devalue the educational experience.

11 #2 Women's use of and performance in science

Since the 1970s, increased attention to 'the achievement gap' for women in sciences obscures some important facts. Females have, infact, pursued science education in significant numbers since the 19th century.

Kimberly Tolley and Nancy Beadie suggest that more girls than boys studied science at 19th-century academies. In addition, nearly 30% of the doctorates received by women at the turn of the 20th century were earned in the sciences. Given the more recent imbalances for women in science, we incorrectly tend to assume that the current situation mirrors the past.

In early academies and colleges, boys frequently turned to the study of classical languages, cultures, and philosophy to mark their educated status and challenge themselves intellectually. Early on, girls had few opportunities to use the classics, but they found in the sciences an equivalent discipline. The sciences could help girls make critical observations, apply theoretical principles, and pursue logical thinking. They were especially drawn to fields like natural philosophy (our equivalent of physics), botany, chemistry, and astronomy. Advertisements for academies in newspapers and catalogs emphasized science as a core element to girls' training and more as an 'add-on' for boys. Given that such training often required extra fees, it is striking that girls and their parents invested in science curricula.

12 As they entered colleges, women also pursued science in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The women's colleges (including the Seven Sisters) were especially strong in science. Margaret Rossiter has shown that schools specialized in certain fields, such as Vassar in astronomy and physics, and

Wellesley in botany and psychology, and created what she called 'protegee chains' - an early equivalent to the 'old boys' network' where established professors hand-picked their successors.

Only later in the 20th century did the lack of clear employment opportunities begin to affect women's participation in science. With limited opportunities in industry, medicine, or government, women's involvement in science training waned. Then, as science became big business around

World War II, women had a weaker track record and fewer opportunities to prove their capacities. In terms of the 'achievement gap' in science, then, history would show it as a more recent development, and one that can be countered by historical examples.

#3 'Incidental students'

A third instance of expectations outweighing our analysis occurs with post-World War II educational involvement. A little-known fact about women's collegiate attendance - often overlooked in the current concern over

13 their disproportionate numbers - is that in 1920, women constituted nearly half(47.3%) of college students. Their proportion declined a bit during the

Depression, but was strong again during the Second World War. In fact, women's attendance kept many institutions open during wartime, making up nearly half of the student body.

However, the power of images of 'Rosie the Riveter' being unceremoniously dropped in favor of returning male veterans has colored not only our current view of women's participation, but those of contemporary observers, as well.

It is true that women's participation rate dropped after the war. From a high of 49% during the war, women constituted about one-third of enrollments in the next decade. The impact of the GI Bill, as well as the propensity for more male vets than female to use the Bill, created male- oriented colleges. Further, the cultural spirit of the times lauded domesticity over careerism. Women, who had performed so patriotically during the war by adding their labor to the workforce, were now encouraged to reestablish normalcy through marrying, raising families, and defending the nation through defending their homes.

Betty Friedan notwithstanding, women did not, in fact, abandon college during this era. But, given the attention to male veterans, the rise of

14 the Cold War, and the growth of research universities and big science, women became increasingly incidental in the world of higher education. A few educators did concern themselves with women's needs, and some even identified females as important resources of America's scientific and technical needs - an important concern during the Cold War. More often, however, colleges focused on curricula geared to women's apparent futures as wives and mothers, or, if as workers, those who would contribute only temporarily to the workforce. These educators encouraged a basic liberal arts education that, they argued, would prepare women for a range of potential futures, but most importantly, would allow them to broadly educate their sons and be good companions to their husbands.

Some women did, of course, persist with advanced schooling, crafting strong careers in academe, industry, and government. My own work suggests, however, that these women were treated as exceptions rather than as models, and that the primary approach to women's issues throughout the postwar era was of careful individual decision-making, rather than thinking about structural explanations and collective solutions. Once again, the power of expectations colored contemporary educational planning, as well as our own analysis of women’s success.

15 In using this historical lens to introduce our symposium, I am not suggesting that an 'achievement gap' is merely the product of recent thinking, tinged by a propensity to see discrimination. In fact, I hope that my examples show that discrimination against women - sometimes overt and other times quite unawares - has led us to limit expectations of where, how, and why women should participate in education and the workforce. When women’s performance defied expectation, we tended to see what we wanted to see rather than to analyze what the behavior actually meant. As we examine the 'achievement gap' over the next day and a half, let us remember to consider a longer sweep of female performance that might color our view of the present.

16