Hamilton, Andrea. (2004). A Vision for Girls: Gender, Education, and the Bryn Mawr School. Reviewed by LaTasha D. Jones, University of North Carolina-Charlotte

Hamilton, Andrea. (2004). A Vision for Girls: Gender, Education, and the Bryn Mawr School. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pp. xv + 237 $39.95     ISBN 0801878802 Reviewed by LaTasha D. Jones University of North Carolina-Charlotte January 8, 2005 In A Vision for Girls: Gender, Education, and the Bryn Mawr School Andrea Hamilton (2004) chronicles the development of an educational institution that began with a radical vision of transformative, single-sex education. Through this historical account, Hamilton highlights the trials and triumphs of sustaining an iconoclastic educational institution. The segments of sustaining Bryn Mawr’s vision can be viewed from three vantage points: transforming society, reflecting society, and overcoming society. While enduring these changes, Bryn Mawr continues to serve as a model for single-sex schools around the country. Transforming Society The founders of Bryn Mawr sought to transform women’s education to move beyond society’s construction of womanhood. The powerful mission that the founders embedded in the school served as a critical framework for its teachers, curriculum, and students. More importantly, it modeled single-sex education for young women everywhere. The teachers that the early founders chose were scholarly and dedicated to the vision of educating young women. Hamilton (2004) recounts that “none of Bryn Mawr’s teachers was married” (p.31). These teachers were not selected randomly, as they set standards and served as role models that were indicative of the school’s mission of transforming society’s vision for women. Myra and David Sadker (1994) in Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls assert that, “The success of single-sex schools…is often attributed to role models and mentors” (p.233). The founders understood that the teacher serves as a role model for students, particularly in single sex education where the students were female and surrounded by female educators. The curriculum offered at Bryn Mawr would set it above other single-sex institutions of its time. Bryn Mawr was exclusively for preparing all young women enrolled to enter college; therefore the curriculum was similar to those that young men were offered at other schools. This was an unprecented account for this time. Hamilton (2004) notes a founder’s response to the challenging curriculum and mission of sending girls to college: The idea that we might be causing inferiority complexes never occurred to me. The notion had not yet invaded school precincts and my own experience, far from leading me to it, made me convinced that the Bryn Mawr College entrance examinations could be passed by every girl who was willing to work hard, very had in some cases, I admit” (p.57). Although some complaints were offered, the founders exuded high expectations for Bryn Mawr students that were indicative through the existing curriculum. The students who attended Bryn Mawr descended from families who were fortunate enough to pay tuition or have some connective power that allowed them to stay at the school while paying reduced, or in some cases, no tuition. Needless to say, students who did not have this power were not admitted to this school or given the opportunity. Hamilton illuminates the lack of diversity in the student population at Bryn Mawr. It is ironic that the founders of Bryn Mawr sought to challenge the norms of society from a critical viewpoint, while perpetuating the dominant culture’s constructs of race and class. Students who were not white or middle/upper class were not admitted to Bryn Mawr. Hamilton (2004) writes, “The Bryn Mawr school founders, even though they espoused many revolutionary ideas about gender, did not tolerate women who broke certain social conventions [or]… threatened reigning expectations for the behavior of middle class women” (p.42). If Bryn Mawr sought to transform society for the better, why were these students not admitted? Reflecting Society As time passed, and the leadership of Bryn Mawr changed, the focus shifted as well. Although the founders of Bryn Mawr sought to transform society’s view of women through the means of education, the new leadership found it more beneficial to emulate societal norms in order to continue educating young women at a high standard. After Bryn Mawr’s “shifting of the guards” in leadership views and mission, the teachers, curriculum, and students somewhat changed as well. When Bryn Mawr’s focus was to transform society, its teachers were admonished not to marry. With the onset of the new leadership this notion was challenged. Students were taught that being feminine and embracing the stifling roles of society was not adverse, if that was the choice that students made. The importance was seen in act of deciding rather than the actual decision made. Hamilton (2004) recounts the words of an alumna regarding this notion, “at long last the teaching profession seems about to be delivered from its coif-less nunhood” (p. 140). She further asserts that this ideology could be inclusive of Bryn Mawr due to their connections with high society organizations. Curriculum in the old thought patterns of nineteenth century education focused on girls receiving a different education from boys. During the early twentieth century, girls were allowed educations that were more similar to that of boys, but still continued to prepare them for the roles they would have after graduation (Hamilton 2004). Although these changes were apparent, Hamilton posits that, “women found it particularly difficult to gain access to the traditionally male professions. Roselyn Mickelson (1989) in “Why Does Jane Read and Write so Well? The Anomaly of Women’s Achievement” finds that women are still not accessing the traditional males professions and if they do so, are not getting the same pay as men would. Hamilton (2004) and Mickelson (1989) raise similar questions that speak to the necessity of women’s schools and changes in women’s attitudes about themselves. The attitude that the new students of Bryn Mawr embodied reflected the change in Bryn Mawr’s mission as Hamilton(2004) reflects on the redefinition of Bryn Mawr: The early Bryn Mawr School had been a “missionary” institution convincing Baltimoreans to embrace an education for girls that they essentially did not want. The modern Bryn Mawr found itself in the reverse position, trying to become exactly what its community did want in a school. Necessity was transforming the once pioneering Bryn Mawr School from a leader to a follower in the realm of girls’ education. (p. 106) The beginning missionary notions of Bryn Mawr were not evident in the changing attitudes of its new generations of students. Hamilton (2004) asserts that, “Despite the school’s founding mission to challenge traditional assumptions about womanhood, however, Bryn Mawr’s students frequently embraced society’s expectations for girls and women” (p.42). Furthermore, “the school that had once challenged Baltimore’s attitudes toward female education was now one of the choice schools for the daughters of its elite” (Hamilton, 2004, p.141). Perhaps this attitude of the new students reflects the physical move of the Bryn Mawr School. Hamilton speaks of the degradation of Baltimore center city as whites begin to flee to the suburbs. This move challenged Bryn Mawr and the normal clientele. The popularity of suburbs caused Bryn Mawr to rethink location. Eventually the leadership of the school acquiescence was modeled in the framework’s change, “The Bryn Mawr School’s country campus contrasted sharply with its old city building. For decades, [the original founders] model school building had stood as a monument to the Bryn Mawr School founders’ educational ideals” (p109). The change in the location of Bryn Mawr signified the shift of transforming society, reflecting society, and eventually to overcoming society. Overcoming Society Hamilton’s account of Bryn Mawr does an excellent job in demonstrating the necessities of having single-sex education while leaving room for various types of educational plans. She strongly concludes in noting the success of Bryn Mawr and other schools like it and includes substantive research to validate her point. Although Bryn Mawr was a privileged place, it could not escape the ills of society. Hamilton (2004) takes notice of the privileged world that Bryn Mawr School was apart of, which in turn isolated it students from some of the “harshest realities of society” and further comments on various urban trends that would affect the institution drastically. For this reason Bryn Mawr had a similar task as other schools in overcoming the ills of society. Hamilton (2004) demonstrates the trailblazing spirit of Bryn Mawr in their break from the norm and challenge of testing and accountability. Other female single sex schools at the time allowed certificates “The Bryn Mawr School’s historic requirement that each of its graduates pass [its own] examination would be no more. As a result, the Bryn Mawr School could adjust and update its own curriculum to prepare students for the single standardized test of the College Board” (Hamilton, 2004, p. 101). This focus on school-wide autonomy with curricular changes would set Bryn Mawr apart from other schools’ dogma for testing and accountability and help it to overcome societal ills-especially those who oppose single-sex education. Opponents of single-sex education, declare that there is not enough valid research to declare that single-sex education increase the academic success of all students. As an informed researcher, Hamilton (2004) includes these varied ideals and agrees that more research should be done in the area of educational effects of single-sex education. Hamilton’s (2004) mention of these opposing views helps to validate her findings: Some skeptics wondered…do girls at private girls’ schools achieve at higher rates than girls in coeducational schools because their schools are single-sex or because they come from families with high academic expectations and attend private schools with selective admissions policies and high academic standards?” (p.192). She then incorporates numerous research findings to validate her claim. No matter what the opponents think, the Bryn Mawr school has done an excellent job in educating and empowering young women while “defining what, exactly it means to be a school for girls…and the process will continue” (Hamilton, 2004, p. 196). A Vision for Girls: Gender, Education, and the Bryn Mawr School by Andrea Hamilton (2004) is a scholarly, historical account of one school’s determination to battle the ills of society through education. She offers a balanced account of the school’s history from inception to the present day and challenges researchers to plunge into the single-sex education debate to find educational solutions that benefit all students. References Mickelson, R. (1989). Why does Jane read and write so well? The Anomaly of women’s achievement. Sociology of Education, 62(1), 47-63. Sadker, Myra and David. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. About the Reviewer LaTasha D. Jones is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction (urban education emphasis) at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte. Her experiences as a student at Spelman College and educator with Teach For America in inner-city Atlanta have impacted her research interests: gender, class, race, and critical pedagogy as it relates to educational equity.