Tolley, Kim. (2003). The Science Education of American Girls. Amy E. Ryken University of Puget Sound

	Tolley, Kim. (2003). The Science Education of American Girls. New York: RoutledgeFalmer Press Pp. xvi + 287 $90 (Cloth) ISBN 0-415-93472-9 $24.95 (Paper) ISBN 0-415-93473-7 Amy E. Ryken University of Puget Sound January 7, 2004 A reprinted page from an 1850s era popular elementary textbook shows an upper class mother and daughter standing over a water basin resting on a linen-draped table in a lovely drawing room. In the accompanying text, written as a conversation between daughter and mother, the daughter shares her observations of the floating and sinking of objects, such as a gold coin and a cork, in the basin. Documentary evidence, like this text page, is examined in this thorough historical study, The Science Education of American Girls, which compares science and mathematics education of American girls and boys from the antebellum era through the twentieth century. This book frames the history of science education for American girls as a complex series of interactions among cultural, institutional, and economic factors. Rather than presenting the history as an either/or dichotomy (either schools shortchange girls or they shortchange boys), it examines the many factors that interact, and ultimately result in the cultural construction of the physical sciences as a subject of study appropriate for boys, not girls. Throughout the book, historical evidence such as textbook pages, enrollment data, and course offerings, is presented in an effort to explore the question, “What then is the process by which females begin to view a subject as a worthwhile area of study?” (p. 216). The Science Education of American Girls will be of interest to historians, science educators, educational policy makers, and gender studies educators. Historians will appreciate the focus on documentary evidence, as well as the course-offering and enrollment trends over an extended time period —150 years. Science educators can gain an understanding of the history of science enrollment trends, as well as an understanding of the connections between mathematics and science course taking. Policy makers can consider the results of institutional structures, such as course requirements for college entrance, on student course-taking patterns. Gender studies educators will find interesting the ways that women and men have actively negotiated domestic and career identities. As the historical story unfolds, two major themes emerge: 1) as ideological beliefs shift, schools become sites for enacting dominant values, and 2) students’ secondary course-taking is linked to their goals for college enrollment and future employment opportunities. The history of science education reform demonstrates how shifting coalitions support or thwart the multiple purposes of education. Tolley, like Kliebard (1995) and Cuban (1990), describes shifting coalitions of reformers. At different times different groups of reformers have emphasized different reasons for studying science, including: the ability to help citizens appreciate America’s natural resources, to prepare workers for scientific fields like navigation and mining, and to increase social standing. These are goals for science education consistent with Labaree’s (1997) framework of democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility. Proponents of new vocationalism advocate that students’ secondary coursework should provide multiple options for the future, including both college and careers (Hershey, et al., 1998; Urquiola, et al., 1997). Examining the history of science education reveals how compulsory school attendance laws, college entrance requirements, and students’ goals for future employment shape secondary course-taking patterns. Like the reformers who emphasize the importance of educational and career pathways that link high school, college and work, Tolley notes that, “Taking up the advanced study of science in college or deciding to become a professional scientist are decisions made only at the end of a far longer process, during which individuals subjectively qualify or disqualify themselves as suited to the field in question” (p. 148). The book is organized into eight chapters. Each chapter examines one key development to explain shifts in science and mathematics course-offering patterns and the cultural construction of science as an appropriate or inappropriate area of study for girls and boys. Chapter 1, “Geography Opens the Door,” reveals that during the postcolonial period geography became an important subject for American girls and boys to study because of its utility, ability to instill national pride, and lead to self-improvement. By learning about the many natural resources in America, women could share their scientific interests with their children and could be closer to God by studying the design of the natural world. In Chapter 2, “Science for Ladies, Classics for Gentlemen,” course-offering patterns of girls and boys from the eighteenth century to the Civil War are examined. At the time, educational opportunities were primarily limited to children from wealthy families. Boys’ education centered on Latin and Greek, as these subjects were required for college entrance and brought social prestige; meanwhile there were limited career opportunities in the sciences. For newly established seminaries for girls and young women, which did not have a curricular history focused on the classics, the study of science beyond geography (e.g., natural philosophy, astronomy, chemistry and botany) brought social prestige to students and the seminary. In Chapter 3, “What Will Be the Use of This Study?,” the types of textbooks and scientific apparatus available to girls are considered. Between 1830 and 1850 the writing style and content of textbooks shifted from a conversational style, with an emphasis on scientific concepts, to a prose style, with an emphasis on advanced mathematics and symbolic notation. By 1850 the mathematical content in chemistry texts used in girls and boys schools was similar. Also during this time, teacher-training institutions provided opportunities for women to use laboratory equipment. In Chapter 4, “From Arithmetic to Higher Mathematics,” math course-offering patterns are examined. After the American Revolution it became important for women to learn arithmetic so that they could participate in family businesses by keeping accounting records. Initially girls received instruction in arithmetic at home from relatives; however, by 1810 it was commonly listed on courses of study at girls’ schools. Higher mathematics was associated with male vocations like navigation and surveying, and thus did not have the same cultural appeal for women as science. Girls’ schools began to offer higher mathematics as more women teachers had the opportunity to study mathematics, as the need for female teachers grew, and as the schools themselves sought collegiate status. After 1830, both girls’ and boys’ schools offered algebra and geometry and used similar texts. In Chapter 5, “The Rise of Natural History,” the growth of lyceum lectures and nature books, science course-offering patterns, and female employment trends are analyzed. Natural history became a field of study that was seen as aligned with the ideology that domesticity was the appropriate woman’s sphere; studying the minute details of delicate flowering plants and insects built mental discipline and made God’s design visible to women. Opportunities for meaningful participation, such as employment and mentoring relationships with men in museums, university departments, and experiment stations encouraged women’s interest in natural history. Physics was associated with cold factories and machines, and had limited participation opportunities for women. In Chapter 6, “Study Nature, Not Books,” the nature study movement and nature study course-offering patterns are examined. Nature study reformers emphasized the importance of working in the field and observing and describing the natural world, rather than studying from books. In 1892, the Committee of Ten recommended that elementary schools include nature study in their curriculum, thus science became available to students attending public schools, instead of just upper and middle class students. In addition, as nature study was increasingly offered to students, women found employment opportunities beyond teaching, such as the position of nature-study supervisor. In Chapter 7, “Other Paths, Other Opportunities,” enrollments in home economics and science courses are presented. From 1890-1940 the course-taking patterns of both girls and boys shifted. Women’s colleges began to require Latin for admission. So girls’ secondary schools offered, and girls chose to study, Latin and the liberal arts, rather than science, in an effort to prepare for college entrance. As science became associated with business ventures like engineering, mining, and mechanics, boys saw new career opportunities in science, and shifted toward science courses and away from the liberal arts. With compulsory education, more students enrolled in school, and thus home economics and commercial courses were emphasized for working class and immigrant girls. This enrollment trend provided employment opportunities for women professors who couldn’t get jobs in university science departments. In Chapter 8, “Physics for Boys,” science course enrollments and teacher employment data are considered. After the Second World War, science was associated with military applications, not nature study, and educational reformers saw textbooks, rather than observing, as a way to organize instruction and keep boys enrolled in school. With the 1957 launching of Sputnik, educational reformers turned their attention to training students who showed promise in science. Organizations, like Phi Delta Kappa and the National Research Council actively supported men, through grant funding and networking, in their efforts to gain employment as teachers and professors. Thus science, once an area of study and employment appropriate for women, had transformed into a male-appropriate profession for gifted boys and men. Key strengths of this book are the analysis of an extended time period in American educational history and the focus on major developments as an organizing structure, such as the nature study movement and changing course requirements. This organizational structure adds depth to the work, as historical periods are re-examined from different perspectives. However, the structure also makes reading challenging for those less familiar with educational history, as a historical chronology of events is de-emphasized. A visual timeline of key periods and shifts in course offering, enrollment, and employment opportunities would be a welcomed addition to the book. An additional strength of the book is that, documentary evidence, such as course-offerings and enrollment figures, and reproductions of textbook pages, are visible for the reader to consider and analyze. As a female scientist and math/science teacher educator, this book prompted me to consider many questions: Why did I study science? How do my students view science? What is the utility of science in daily life and in specialized science careers? What are the pros and cons of thinking about “science” as a monolithic discipline or as differentiated areas of study? How have mentors impacted my development? What does it mean to mentor others into the study of science? What are the points of connection between mathematics and science education? Tolley’s thorough work raises many questions about how “American views of gender and schooling have been historically mediated by cultural and social conditions, including ideological beliefs and competition in the labor market” (p.221). References Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again, Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13. Hershey, A. M., Silverberg, M. K., Hamison, J., Hudis, P., & Jackson, R. (1998). Expanding options for students: Report to congress on the national evaluation of school-to-work implementation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Kliebard, H.M. (1995). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958. New York: Routledge. Labaree, D.F. (1997). Private goods, public goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81. Urquiola, M., Stern, D., Horn, I., Dornsife, C., Chi, B., Williams, L., Merritt, D., Hughes, K, & Bailey, T. (1997). School to work, college and career. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. About the Reviewer Amy E. Ryken is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington. Her research interests include science education, career academies, and teacher development.