Blog Archive » Students

For quite some time there's been murmuring about girls getting too many advantages.  Echoing mostly from the caves of misogyny, though sometimes threaded with claims of learned research (ah, "data!"), the party line says that out-of-control feminism duped schools into believing that girls suffered unequal opportunity.  "Look!" say the sociological revisionists, "We've got Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Meg Whitman; 3 women Supremes and Oprah calls the shots.  The Revolution is OVER!"

Not so fast.  For some girls and women in the United States today, the women's revolution has been, indeed, a great success story.  But for millions more, real equality of opportunity remains a distant concept belied by the grim facts of their daily lives.   The most obvious fault line of the women's revolution falls along lines of race and social class.

As is my usual August habit, I've spent a good deal of time in recent weeks reading the application essays of the students who have recently enrolled in Trinity's women's college, the College of Arts and Sciences.   These students are mostly teenage girls, 17 or 18 or 19 years old, on the cusp of adulthood but living adult lives already in so many ways.   Most live in the city or nearby suburbs, attended the DC or PG public schools, and have experienced the plagues of poverty and violence in those tragic parts of our region that languish outside of the view of motorcades and tour buses.  For most of these students, single parents — usually mothers — are normal, and grandparents also play a large role in their lives.   Many are mothers, themselves.  The majority are African American and Latina, with many immigrant stories from African and Central American nations.

Words and phrases from the applications of teenage girls dreaming of college in America 2010:

I am homeless…

I was born addicted to drugs…

My father was incarcerated…

At my school, I witness violence every day…

My mother was shot in front of my face…

I was shot…

I have friends who were murdered by their peers…

My baby has hydrocephalus…

My mom was a teen parent…

No one expected much from me…

These are not "coeds" from some "Gidget Goes to College" fantasy.  These are real American girls, the young women who might not have figured prominently in anyone's success story about the women's revolution — but for their ability to enroll at Trinity and colleges like Trinity that have sustained one of the most challenging missions in all of higher education, the mission to educate women who have been excluded from equal opportunity — particularly, the educational opportunity that results in economic advantage.  These young women are now on the road to success, but what a journey it's been!

Denial of equal educational opportunity comes in many guises in this age when coeducation is normal and single-gender education is unusual.   Take this example:  "Back in the day" the advocates for gender equity in education targeted actual gender-based barriers to the participation of women and girls, and won an important legal victory.

Title IX, the law that forced equal opportunities for females in education, is only 38 years old.   But Title IX enforcement languishes in many urban school systems where ensuring that girls have as much opportunity to play soccer as boys have to play football falls by the wayside for superintendents more concerned with budget cuts and union disputes and compliance with other federal mandates.   But unequal opportunity to play field sports — just one of many examples of the failure of Title IX in public schools — has a devastating impact on diminished opportunities for girls in too many public school systems to earn athletic scholarships for college.

The unequal enforcement of Title IX allows economic as well as gender discrimination to continue to repress opportunities for girls from low income families.  I have many powerful women friends who boast to me of their daughters going to prestigious Ivy League universities on soccer or lacrosse scholarships — these are families who could well afford the tuition.   Meanwhile, the girls in the DC Public Schools, for example, have few if any opportunities to play soccer or lacrosse, hence, no opportunities to earn those same scholarships.

But denial of equal educational opportunity — and equal economic opportunity — for young women goes well beyond Title IX examples.   Too many girls in our urban neighborhoods wind up stopping out of high school for pregnancy; too many have family responsibilities that might include caring for siblings because of absent parents.  Too many work full-time in low-wage jobs to support themselves at ages 16 and 17 and 18, with the result that they do poorly in school and are discouraged from high school completion, let alone college access.  Too many suffer protracted neglect of serious mental and physical health issues.

But all is not tragedy.  For these young women who are so old already, their presence here at Trinity is already a triumph of hope over despair, of motivation over discouragement.

There are other words and phrases in their essays, the kind of thoughts that make the faculty and staff here so energized and determined to see these students through to graduation:

I have a dream to succeed…

I will be the first in my family to go to college…

I have to give my son the life I didn't have…

I will not be another negative statistic…

I hope to change the ideas people have about young Latinas…

I want to show my siblings that there is more to life than the streets…

I want to be that person who inspires young ones…

I have a dream to succeed…

I am my daughter's role model…

It is up to me to be the leader of my own life…

I will be the first in my family to go to college…

Our entire purpose at Trinity is to make sure that our students have the knowledge and skills, competencies and values they must have to make these dreams a reality.   At Trinity, we know that the women's revolution is far from over, but we celebrate the courage and vision of our students who have taken up the cause of success not only for themselves but for their children and families.

See my Convocation Remarks with new student essay excerpts

See Orientation news

Across the years I've had the privilege of knowing some pretty phenomenal women, and in just the last week I've had the real pleasure of introducing several of them to our newest Trinity Women during the orientation program for the College of Arts & Sciences.

Dr. Johnnetta Cole — what a phenomenal day we had with her at the National Museum of African Art!  I first met Dr. Cole (above) when she was president of Spelman College, and then president of Bennett College — she came to Trinity for the annual meetings of the Women's College Coalition that we hosted for a number of years.   Dr. Cole was the first African American woman president of Spelman, the nation's most renowned Historically Black College for Women.  She enjoyed a tremendous decade at Spelman, then retired, then rose to the challenge to lead another Historically Black College for Women, Bennett — and her success there is legendary as well.  When she was a women's college president, Dr. Cole fired-up every room she entered — she called the nation's women's colleges out of their period of lethargy in the early 1990's and into a remarkable period of renaissance and growth.  In so many ways, we at Trinity can thank my "Sister President Johnnetta" for calling all women's colleges to stand up and be proud of this great mission.

Today, as I watched Dr. Cole speak to our Trinity freshwomen, I was moved and inspired all over again.  Despite getting ready for a trip later this week to South Africa, she generously spent a great deal of time with our students both before and after our museum tours, and the students were clearly attentive to her message.   I especially appreciated her strong words about how educated women must stand up for the rights of all people, must work to defeat the "isms" that plague our society, must never believe that we cannot do what must be done.

I also liked her advice to our freshwomen:  you have to get out of bed in the morning to start on the road to achievement.  Every morning, no excuses!

The Museum of African Art is a magnificent spot where I hope more Trinity students will find the time to contemplate, meditate and simply enjoy the beauty of the works of art and the gardens.  As well, thanks to Dr. Cole's office and wonderful colleagues (Laura, Frank, Connie, Ruth, Donnie — you are all wonderful!) our students had the opportunity to tour the Freer Gallery and to learn about the great Asian collection there in addition to their tour of the African Art museum.

Thank you, Dr. Johnnetta Cole and team, you made a huge contribution to our orientation program!

Last week, the new freshwomen also had the rare opportunity to hear from two outstanding Trinity alumnae.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius '70 (above) took time from her impossibly busy schedule to greet our new first years and talk about staying healthy while in college.   You can see and hear her talk on our website by clicking on this link. Thank you, Secretary Sebelius, your remarks were great and your presence really added a tremendous learning moment to our program!

Here's another fabulous Trinity Woman with Secretary Sebelius — our own Student Government President Morgan Kellman '11!!

Being on the same agenda as a cabinet officer might seem a bit daunting, but not for Dr. Nicole Lang '89 who is a truly phenomenal woman herself.  Dr. Lang spoke to the freshwomen about health careers as well as healthy choices while in college.

A graduate of George Washington Medical School where she also served on the faculty, Dr. Lang is the founder and chief physician at Washington Pediatric Associates, and she is also a member of Trinity's Board of Trustees.

Thank you, Dr. Lang, for sharing so much with our students!

Here are a few more photos from our day at the Museum of African Art and the Freer Gallery:

What an amazing orientation for our new students!  The "Old Girls' Network" is humming!  Let's keep it going!

An article in today's Washington Post magazine looks at the "new experiment" in single-sex classes at the Imagine Southeast Public Charter School in DC.  The headline is unfortunate:  "Separate but Equal:  More Schools are Dividing Classes by Gender."   Critics of single-gender education quickly jump all over the "separate but equal" spectre of invidious discrimination, rooted as that terrible phrase is in one of the worst Supreme Court cases every decided, Plessy v. Ferguson, that reinforced legal racial discrimination by allowing separate facilities for blacks and whites.  That awful case was overturned by the landmark Brown v. Board of Education that started the long wave of school and social integration.

The issue for single-gender classes and schools is completely different, but the critics use inflammatory rhetoric comparing single-gender pedagogy to race discrimination.  This is simply wrong.   The long track record of effective single-sex education belies the critics whose knee-jerk reaction against this effective pedagogy robs children of the opportunity to learn well in environments that focus on their success.

A few points about this "new experiment" —

First, single-sex education is hardly new.  In fact, up until the middle of the 20th century, single-sex education was normative in most private schools and some public schools, too.   There's nothing experimental about the genre.

Second, for girls and women, single-sex education has a long and distinguished track record of producing strong, powerful women able to "compete with men" very well, thank you. The roster of prominent women leaders who are graduates of girls schools and women's colleges is quite long — Trinity, of course, proudly claims Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi '62, former Governor and current Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius '70, former Presidential Assistant Maggie Williams '77, Ambassador Susan Burk '70, Hearst CEO Cathie Black '66 and many other notables in public, corporate and professional life.

Third, single-gender pedagogy done well is NOT a means to reinforce negative gender stereotypes or to promote less advantage for either gender.  Rather, in the right educational hands, this pedagogy brings out the best in each student and promotes greater advantages, not disadvantages.

So, why do so many smart people who want to promote women's rights and civil rights criticize the movement toward single-gender education?  The negativity seems rooted in old ideological stereotypes that need some fresh air.  Nobody wants to return to the pre-Title IX days when women could not go to major universities, or, if they did, they got second best.   Nobody wants girls to be left in the back of the classroom while boys get all the attention.  Neither do we want remediation for discrimination against girls and women to disadvantage boys and men, which is what the current claim seems to be.

Instead, we want the most effective pedagogies possible to make our children successful.

Educators who have worked in single-sex environments know how effective this pedagogy can be for some students.   We'd be the first to say it's not for every student.   But for those who can benefit from some classroom experiences with other members of the same gender, why not?  Why would we deny any student the opportunity to learn in the most effective environment possible?

Does single-sex education work?   Absolutely.   If you don't believe it, come to Trinity!

Congratulations are in order for the District of Columbia in securing a place among the finalists for the "Race to the Top" grant competition sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education.   The fact that D.C. made it into the final group along with 18 states is significant.  With a long history of struggles over school reform, coupled with the more recent highly aggressive plans and steps taken by Chancellor Michelle Rhee, the news of D.C.'s inclusion among the finalists may well signal a turning point for a school system that has long held a secure spot at the bottom of any educational list.

At the same time, more vocal critics are emerging with warnings that the Obama Administration's plans for school reform, including the Race to the Top competition, may well have the effect of causing further harm to the children who need school reform the most:  low income urban students in under-performing schools.

In her blog on the Washington Post website, education reporter Valerie Strauss today provided a good summary of the issues.   A distinguished group of civil rights organizations issued a paper on Monday that spells out the major problems with the Race to the Top and the Obama Administration's approach to school reform.    The gist of the report is that by providing massive funding to states on a competitive basis according to the rules established by the U.S. Department of Education, the administration is creating an unequal system of funding that will have a disproportionately harmful effect on African American and Hispanic children in low income neighborhoods.  Other critics have pointed out that the program emphasizes high stakes standardized testing at the expense of genuinely innovative and effective teaching.

Some political forecasts say that Obama's Blueprint for Reform, including the revision of No Child Left Behind, the education law originally passed in the Bush administration, is also stalled in Congress, and that the Obama plan for changes to this law will stagnate.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan clearly disagrees with the critics and has forcefully promoted the Administration's plans to improve public schools.   In speeches and interviews this week, Secretary Duncan has pointed out that significant changes have already occured in the finalist jurisdictions since they had to take certain actions in order to apply for the Race to the Top grants.  President Obama will speak to the Urban League convention this week about the status of his plans for educational reform.

So much has been said and written on the topic of school reform that we might wonder why we're not there yet, after all these years.  Theories abound, fingers are pointed, roundtables and town halls occur, and Johnny still ain't readin' and writin' too good.

Here's all I know as a consumer of the results of K-12 education:  too many students enter college with large gaps in their educational backgrounds.   From basic reading skills to competent writing to simple arithmetic — let alone a robust framework in history and geography and literature and science and social studies — too many students do not have the sound foundation of knowledge and skills necessary to move to the next level.  These gaps cause the students to fail in college, absent a great deal of remediation, and then the colleges are called to task for having poor graduation rates when, in fact, the students may not have been ready to leave high shool.

To fix this problem, colleges are devoting massive amounts of resources to the educational lessons that students should have learned previously.   At a time when higher education is under the gun to control costs, the idea that we have to pay again for what the taxpayers already thought they paid for in K-12 education is maddening.

I must point out that the preparatory gaps are not just a D.C. problem, or an urban school problem, or a low income student problem, or a problem among students with certain demographics.   The preparatory gaps cut across race, social class, urban/suburban and even some public/private lines.

To begin to address some of this preparatory gap, this year a number of school districts — D.C. included — have adopted the Common Core Standards developed by governors and educators.  The leading higher education associations endorsed and welcomed these standards.    The goals of this effort are worthy; whether adoption of the standards will result in more students entering college with better preparation remains to be seen.

Some people ask me why Trinity or any college accepts students who may not be quite ready for the collegiate curriculum.   My answer is very clear:  if we don't educate the students who come to us, who will?  We have a profound obligation to educate every student who comes to us to ensure that she can develop into the intellectual person lurking within her very being.   We should not turn her away, rather, we must find a way to unlock her potential.

As a university founded with a special commitment to women, we know that unlocking the intellectual potential of women has a profound impact on the long-term success of their children and families.  Women continue to be the primary teachers of the young, and the more educated the mother, the higher the child's ultimate level of educational attainment.

Trinity was also founded by a group of Catholic religious women, the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, who still have this radical idea about the transformation of individuals through education as a spiritual matter, not simply the secular intellectual side.   More than 200 years ago, the commitment of St. Julie Billiart, the founder of the SNDs, to the Gospel imperative of social justice led her to establish schools for poor girls orphaned by the French Revolution.   That justice imperative galvanized Trinity's founders a century ago to create a college for women who, at that time, had no access to higher education in the nation's capital.   Trinity continues that original idea to be a place of access for women (and now including men in our professional and graduate programs) who might not otherwise have been able to go to college.

There's no "race to the top" money for universities like Trinity who spend considerable time and resources on closing the gap that should never have occurred in the first place.   We serve our students well as a matter of mission while also insisting that our partners at the K-12 level really must do their part to improve collegiate preparation.

So, who wins the Race To The Top, and should we care?  To the extent that this or any federal program makes it possible for more students to learn at higher levels, and, hence to enroll in college with a greater chance of more immediate success, then the students win.   This competition should not be about Delaware or California or Arizona or Pennsylvania or the District of Columbia.   This competition should be about leveling the playing fields so that every student in the race has an equal chance to make it to the top.

Secretary Duncan has said, frequently and rightly, that improving educational opportunities for all children is THE civil rights issue of our time.  I agree wholeheartedly.   If he truly believes that statement, however, then he needs to make sure that in the race to the top, millions of children are not left behind because the process of incentivization only rewards those who know how to run the race.

More scenes from rehearsal and senior luncheon: