Subscribe
Best Of
Links
Categories
Archives
Search
Amelia’s school spelling bee is this next week. Each teacher is supposed to send the top two male and female spellers from the class for a total of four. By contrast, last year each teacher simply sent the top four spellers from the class. So this year, if the top four spellers in the class are girls, then two of the four best spellers will not get to go to the bee. This change seems like a mistake.*
Two questions need to be answered—What does the school hope to accomplish by: 1) Sponsoring a schoolwide spelling bee? 2) Sending some students to the bee and not others?
I would suggest that the purpose of a spelling bee is to encourage students to devote more time and attention to their spelling. Spelling bees do this by encouraging appreciation of excellent spelling as a skill–a skill at which some are able to excel (spelling truly difficult and impressive words) through both talent and study.
The school must limit how many students participate in the bee or it would become too lengthy. Given that some some sort of selection of students must be made, three options are possible: a) a random selection–any four spellers. b) a class or type-based merit system–this could be the best male and the best female spellers, or it could be the best caucasian, best hispanic, and best asian, and best african-american speller, or the best spellers by socioeconomic group or what have you. c) a selection based purely on merit–the best four spellers. Given the purpose of a spelling bee, randomly selecting students to participate does not make sense. Randomly selected students will not evidence spelling skills worthy of admiration and imitation. If the goal were to increase the general level of basketball prowess at the school by showcasing basketball talent, it would not make sense to enlist the services of random students to play a game in front of the studentbody. No, instead one would want to showcase the best basketball talent in the school.
The reason for considering a type-based merit system is inclusion. If the studentbody watches a chess competition in which all the participants are male, the students might reasonably conclude that chess is “for boys” or something that boys are just better at then girls. If the goal is to motivate all students, regardless of gender, to improve their spelling, then it is important for students to see both boys and girls participate. Of course, last year, when participation was purely merit based, both boys and girls participated (although not in equal numbers).
Can a type-based merit system be effective in a contest based purely on skill (merit), such as a spelling bee? To be effective the system would have to convince the students that spelling is not the domain of any one particular type (in this case, gender). If there is a significant gap in spelling ability between males and females (and if there isn’t, there is no reason to consider a gender-based merit system), the gender based merit system will be undercut by the selection process in the classroom and at the school bee. Both in the classroom bees and in the school bee, selection of the actual winner(s) (as opposed to classroom representatives) will not be by gender, but by merit. The classrooms are not holding gendered bees (one bee for girls and a separate one for boys), so the results—the rankings of spelling merit—are clear for everyone to see.
If girls top the results in a class, but then are replaced in part by boys at the school bee, the message about the relative spelling ability of boys remains the same. If this is not obvious at the classroom level because of the small sample, the message about spelling ability relative to gender will inevitably be louder at the school bee. Although the school bee will begin with gender balance, we can predict that the better spelling gender will soon be increasingly overrepresented in the ranks of the remaining contestants. Then, whatever message of inclusion was hoped for through a type (gender) based system will be eliminated.
The other question is what the school hopes to accomplish by sending some students and not others. Another possible reason for using a type based merit system is the experience it offers, experience which might be important to share across different types (race, gender, socioeconomic status or whatever). This form of argument particularly makes sense when there is something about the experience that helps to even the playing field between types. For example, if a special summer program has proven to greatly enhance academic performance, one might choose to select the neediest students rather than the most meritorious because they would need the experience of the summer camp more. Alternatively, given limited resources and an attempt at fairness, one might select students of different ethnicities based on the ethnic composition of the community. I would argue, however, that the spelling bee is not this type of experience. Participation in the bee itself will do little to increase the spelling ability of the participants. There is insufficient time between the class bees and the school bee for the motivational power the bee might exert over studying to make much of a difference. The salutary effects of participating in a bee do not justify a type-based merit system.
Another reason for selecting some students but not others to go to the bee is the one most salient among the elementary school set: the honor. Naming students to represent their class at the schoolwide bee is a way of honoring them for their accomplishments. This is a worthy result—students who excel at music and athletics frequently receive attention for their skill. It is appropriate that the school find a way to honor academic prowess publicly. If boys and girls were seen to have completely different levels of ability at spelling (the way 2nd graders vs. 6th graders do), it might be appropriate to award the honor to the best of each gender and/or to hold separate bees. However, holding separate bees by gender seems silly precisely because most of us imagine that the ability difference is not that substantial.
To sum up, changing the selection process for the bee to a gender-based merit system not only feels unfair, it is also pointless. Because spelling bee results are based on skill, the message of inclusion will be lost amid the results. A purely merit-based system allows each classroom to honor its very best spellers.
***
* I don’t think I have skin in the game–other than that I am a girl who spells well. It is unlikely that the selection issue will affect Amelia because she will likely not have trouble winning a spot—barring the tragedy of the tongueslip. : ) There is always an element of luck.
Comments
11 Responses to “2 Boys and 2 Girls– fairness and gender”
Leave a Reply
What a strange (read: dumb) policy change. Did you ruffle any feathers over at the school?
I agree that is just silly. In no way should it be based on gender. This is similar to a problem I had with the kids old school. When students were chose for the gifted and talented program each teacher chose there two best student (there was no test is was all just the teachers idea of who was doing well). But when the top five students happen to be in the same class three of them don’t get to be in gifted and talented when student from other classes who aren’t doing as well as them do get to be in. It just seems silly.
I agree that this was a poor judgment though I don’t feel like it is worth addressing.
I do think this is a matter of judgment vs principal. Though I don’t care to do it, I think one can come up w a reasonable defense of the new process. I think where someone comes down on this issue primarily depends on two things. A one’s view of how different boys do vs girls at spelling (as you point out). B what one’s position is in general of using gender as a way of dividing kids up in grade school.
The more natural one thinks it is to divide kids up based on gender the more natural it will seem to “pick the two best kids of each gender per class”.
I don’t mind gender segregation in, say, collegiate sports, so whether or not I’d support the idea of dividing up the genders would depend on whether it holds true that one gender nearly always outperforms the other. I haven’t followed the national spelling bees closely, but from what I *have* seen I think there’s a pretty equal showing amongst boys and girls, no? In which case the (There’s a disproportionately high showing of Indian Americans and homeschoolers, though, I hear.)
Lis, that’s a terrible way to choose for a G&T program. In our district all the kids who want to apply have to take the same test (they administer a standardized test for a grade level above what the students are at,) which does discriminate against kids who are bright but are not good at taking tests, but aside from that, at least everyone gets the same chance.
oops something got dropped there. I think it said “In which case the new rule at your school seems unfair.”
I think the winner should be the child who correctly identifies “tongue slip” as two words rather than one. Or maybe it should be the first boy and the first girl to make the identification.
Zina, I don’t know have any hard statistics in front of me about spelling performance by gender, but I suspect that one can’t use the National Spelling Bee as a good yardstick. I think I read somewhere that regarding mathematical ability in school children, they’ve shown that girls’ mathematical performance clusters more around the middle whereas boys account for both a higher percentage of the low performers and a higher percentage of the high performers. There have been many, many male national champion spellers–which certainly establishes that it is possible for boys to spell very well. However, on the local elementary school level, I do think it’s true that there are noticeably more girls that excel at spelling. That’s just my anecdote though.
Christian, tongueslip is my coinage. : )
pmom, nice save
Interesting coinage. For a moment, though a very short one, I first read it as “tongues lip” and I couldn’t figure out what that mixture of plural and singular could mean. But it was only a millisecond or so before I saw my mistake.
This is basically the same conundrum that underlies a lot of racial/gender discrimination issues. Assuming that one gender/race has historically been disadvantaged in receiving equal opportunities, whether in achieving scholastic honors (college admissions, for example) or obtaining high-paying jobs, people think that by forcing others to include a mandatory quota of said gender/race they are helping the disadvantaged party to have a greater chance of achieving success. Others argue that the very fact that they are categorized as a different, separate group actually reinforces the prejudice, and in the end will only send the message to the disadvantaged party that they don’t need to work as hard to improve themselves as the opposite gender/race because they will receive preferential treatment no matter who the more skilled person is.
Of course, on a grade school level, I’m sure nobody thought it out quite that far. I bet they just wanted to make sure that, as you said, spelling is not just for girls or for boys, but for everyone. Kind of a dumb idea, not just on the level of gender equality, because I’m sure those poor teachers are going to have to suffer through a few tantrums of girls that beat out other boys but don’t get to go to the school bee because of that rule. Some people just don’t think ahead very far. I doubt the rule will last longer than one year!