Engaging Girls in Science

Sally Ride, Former NASA Astronaut, President and CEO, Sally Ride Science
Jane Swift, Former Governor of Massachusetts, Managing Partner, WNP Consulting, LLC
Ronald Packard, Chairman and Founder , K12 Inc.
Stephanie Rafanelli, Science Teacher, Education Consultant, Menlo School

How do we get girls interested in science? Sally Ride started this panel by pointing out that "science and technology are the engines that drive our economy."

The currents statistics are that women make up:
11% of engineers
20% of scientist
22% of physics degrees
20% of engineering degrees
27% of computer science degrees (down from 36% in the 1980s)

Why do girls lose interest in science? According to a study done in 1996, both boys and girls have the same interest in science in fourth grade (2/3s of students say they like science) but in middle school the girls lose their interest in science. Societal pressures are seen as part of this, girls are not expected to be good at science. Science, frankly, isn't percieved as feminine or cool.
Jane Swift argues that public sector leadership is needed, with 80% of the fastest growing occupations requiring science it is vital to our future. She wonders if we are not engaging boys and girls at a critical time in their lives/ She references a 1992 study indicated that boys were eight times more likely to be called on than girls in class. Also there is a fundamental difference in how the students are treated. Boys were encouraged to solve problems on their own while girls were helped more quickly. She brings up the question of single sex education. She believes that  single sex education for math and science is a good idea for girls.

Ron Packard points out that there is a bigger difference in the life sciences versus the physical sciences (physics, engineering etc.). More women are involved in the life sciences. Is this because they are perceived as involving less math? How do we fix the bias that boys are "better at math?" He points out that U.S. scores in math and science overall are low (it's not just girls). The science education from kindergarden to grade five needs to ground children in science and make it interesting. He mentions that when his children were at this age he noticed that every year the science classes covered the rainforest and that was about it. He says that because most teachers don't have a degree in math and science they are often uncomfortable teaching it. Is part of the solution making teachers more comfortable using math? He also speaks to the problem of finding role models for science using diverse people (real-life role models who have jobs in science not just historical figures) to increase the number of minorities in science as well as women.


As a science teacher, Stephanie Rafanelli has the hands-on perspective. She has taught science to girls both in single sex classrooms and in a traditional setting. For each of the 14 years she has been teaching she has told students to draw a picture of a scientist giving them no other instructions. She says that over the years she has only seen about 22% of the students draw scientists as women (including when she taught at an all girls school). She wonders if there a difference between perceived abilities and actual abilities because she has seen students complain when they are doing just fine. She worries that girls are given the societal message that math is hard for girls

Sally Ride addresses the question of women in chemistry and biology versus physical science. She notes that in 1970, 1 in 27 girls played sports, 8% of students in medical school were female, 5% in law school were female. Now  40% of high school girls play sports and law school and medical school numbers are at about fifty/fifty. The numbers in physical sciences are growing but more slowly.



How do we make science more appealing for girls?
Stephanie says that she has used the discussion of the Oscars to bring up the technical awards (where all of the nominees were male) to discuss that career and make it seem "sexier" to girls. A woman from Hasbro speaks about that company's efforts to make toys that are appealing to girls and Jane addresses the issue of science toys and how to make them more accessible to young girls whether it is putting girls on the box or making the toys in girl-friendly colors (pink microscopes perhaps).  Stephanie also makes the point that it is also important that kits be collaborative because girls tend to prefer to work in groups.


What about video games? Ron points out that the male love of video games does lead to an increased interest in technology. Jane admits that her girls love the Disney games which has helped her oldest daughter become more proficient on the computer. Stephanie see the issue of the communicative process applying here too. She says that boys meet up to play video games and don't interact. Girls are all about the chatting so that making games that are about shared experiences would work better for girls.


The question of mandatory testing is raised. Do mandatory tests narrow instruction? Stephanie says that her mother, who has taught in the public school system for years, can attest to the fact that if you don't test it, teachers won't teach it. Ron says that science needs to be tested and valued the same way that math and literacy scores are.

Are parents part of the problem? There is a lingering societal bias that girls aren't good in math. Sally Ride's organization has a booklet on educating parents. There is also the problem of the media. Media depictions of girls are changing (girls are shown playing basketball on TV now) but it is slow going. Sally Ride is working on a documentary that will track competing teams that are working on the creation of a toy.