To bolster their argument that gender separation sex-typed behaviors and “exaggerates attitudes,” the authors cite a study (co-written by two of the article authors) of 28 boys Science 4 1/2 to 6 years old in a university coed day care facility; 84 percent of the children were white and the majority were from middle- to upper-middle class families. The researchers found that those who spent more time playing with other boys engaged in more active, and “forceful, rough style of play.” From these narrow findings, the authors draw the sweeping conclusion that Science boys spend more time with other boys” become aggressive.” The authors “who “increasingly state what was merely an observation, over a 6.5 month period in a coed early childhood setting with specific demographics, as a truth about boys in general and extrapolate from there to classes in particular. They ignore the researchers’ suggestion that different ethnic groups or other settings might reveal different patterns of behavior. The researchers, in fact, hesitate to ascribe causation from what may have been mere correlation. They further explain that their observations were limited to unstructured play and that children might have set up their play patterns based on what they perceived to be shared interests within their own sex. They also note that boys tended to play further from adult supervision than girls and so their play was less adult structured. What escapes the authors is that perhaps more carefully structured learning Science environments with consciously defined behavioral expectations, with or without girls, might produce different behavior patterns among boys. The lead author herself has drawn that Science connection between environment and behavior in her own scholarship. Adult male role models who convey those expectations, as in thoughtfully planned boys’ schools, could make that possibility even more probable. While children are attuned to peer messages about “particularly
To bolster their argument that gender separation “exaggerates sex-typed behaviors and attitudes,” the authors cite a study (co-written by two of the Science article authors) of 28 boys 4 1/2 to 6 years old in a university coed day care facility; 84 percent of the children were white and the majority were from middle- to upper-middle class families. The researchers found that those who spent more time playing with other boys engaged in more “forceful, active, and rough style of play.” From these narrow findings, the Science authors draw the sweeping conclusion that boys “who spend more time with other boys” become “increasingly aggressive.” The authors state what was merely an observation, over a 6.5 month period in a coed early childhood setting with specific demographics, as a truth about boys in general and extrapolate from there to classes in particular. They ignore the researchers’ suggestion that different ethnic groups or other settings might reveal different patterns of behavior. The researchers, in fact, hesitate to ascribe causation from what may have been mere correlation. They further explain that their observations were limited to unstructured play and that children might have set up their play patterns based on what they perceived to be shared interests within their own sex. They also note that boys tended to play further from adult supervision than girls and so their play was less adult structured. What escapes the Science authors is that perhaps more carefully structured learning environments with consciously defined behavioral expectations, with or without girls, might produce different behavior patterns among boys. The lead Science author herself has drawn that connection between environment and behavior in her own scholarship. Adult male role models who convey those expectations, as in thoughtfully planned boys’ schools, could make that possibility even more probable. While children are “particularly attuned to peer messages about