innovations are effective. That may be the case in the world of pure science. But the world of education is far less rigorously controlled or controllable. Though based” “scientifically research and randomized trials, commonly used in medicine, have garnered favor in Washington policy circles, in fact they are rare and somewhat controversial in education. And though the Department of Education committed to policy making,’” as the “is ‘evidence-based authors remind us, that commitment reasonably must suggest something short of the Science standard governing pure science. It is costly and logistically burdensome to design and monitor identical learning environments that isolate the specific approach being studied. Assigning students at random to unproven programs, moreover, is not only unpopular with parents, but it also raises ethical concerns. In the case of single-sex schooling, federal law prohibits the assignment of students to schools on the basis of while the 2006 Title IX regulations explicitly require that such programs remain voluntary. Quasi-experimental designs that use statistical techniques, including multi-level modeling, can control for quantifiable variables like parental education or income. Yet they cannot accommodate the many immeasurable factors that affect educational outcomes. Furthermore, as a recent comprehensive overview of findings indicates, individual studies differ in their methodology, analytical techniques, and outcomes measured. They also differ in the variables they isolate. Some control for student factors like prior ability. Others control for institutional factors like instructional hours. Most of the more scientifically rigorous studies on school effects are limited to one or two years due in large part to the financial costs in conducting such research and the fact that students drop off from the study each year. Economically disadvantaged students have an especially high degree of mobility. And though meta-analyses of existing studies provide some insight into programmatic success, they too are
innovations are effective. That may be the case in the world of pure science. But the world of education is far less rigorously controlled or controllable. Though “scientifically based” research and randomized trials, commonly used in medicine, have garnered favor in Washington policy circles, in fact they are rare and somewhat controversial in education. And though the Department of Education “is committed to ‘evidence-based policy making,’” as the Science authors remind us, that commitment reasonably must suggest something short of the standard governing pure science. It is costly and logistically burdensome to design and monitor identical learning environments that isolate the specific approach being studied. Assigning students at random to unproven programs, moreover, is not only unpopular with parents, but it also raises ethical concerns. In the case of single-sex schooling, federal law prohibits the assignment of students to schools on the basis of while the 2006 Title IX regulations explicitly require that such programs remain voluntary. Quasi-experimental designs that use statistical techniques, including multi-level modeling, can control for quantifiable variables like parental education or income. Yet they cannot accommodate the many immeasurable factors that affect educational outcomes. Furthermore, as a recent comprehensive overview of findings indicates, individual studies differ in their methodology, analytical techniques, and outcomes measured. They also differ in the variables they isolate. Some control for student factors like prior ability. Others control for institutional factors like instructional hours. Most of the more scientifically rigorous studies on school effects are limited to one or two years due in large part to the financial costs in conducting such research and the fact that students drop off from the study each year. Economically disadvantaged students have an especially high degree of mobility. And though meta-analyses of existing studies provide some insight into programmatic success, they too are
salomone-single-sexschooling.docx