Research Project Proposal

Sample Demographic Analysis for Support of Co-Ed

Scouting Programs

Hannah Madel

SOCI-210-A

Dr. Teresa Smith

October 23, 2019

 Madel 1

I. Introduction

Scouting organizations have played a fundamental role in the lives of countless youth

around the world. Notably, the programs run by The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have offered

American youth character development and outdoor skills training for decades. Aptly named, the

BSA’s programs were traditionally open only to male youth. Through the introduction of the

Venturing program, founded in 1998, female youth were now able to participate in a program

run by BSA. However, Venturing is not comparable to Scouts BSA (formerly known as the Boy

Scouting program). Venturing is a co-ed, high adventure based program for high school and

college aged youth; Scouts BSA, on the other hand, was traditionally a male only program,

focused on character development, service to others, outdoor skills, and trade skills such as

welding and automotive maintenance for middle and high school aged youth. The most

important distinction, however, is that the coveted title of Eagle Scout can not be attained

through Venturing, but only through the primary program of Scouts BSA.

While secondary Scouting programs such as Venturing and Sea Scouts have their own

merits, they do not have the benefits of a tested program and tenured volunteers that the

organization’s focal program has. Additionally, rank achievements such as the Summit Award

and Quartermaster Award - the highest achievements in Venturing and Sea Scouts, respectively -

do not hold the cultural significance the title of Eagle Scout has. The list of notable Eagle Scouts

is extensive, with the benefits being numerous.

As of February 2019, female youth now have the opportunity to obtain the rank of Eagle,

as Scouts BSA has opened its applications to youth of both sexes, granting young girls the same

opportunities within the organization previously withheld from them. This change in policy

additionally opens supplemental BSA organizations to female youth, such as the Order of the
 Madel 2

Arrow (OA), a Scouting honor society which was previously open only to adult volunteers and

male youth participants.

Much backlash was received from the general public and long-time Scouting families

alike when the decision to allow young girls to join the organization was announced. This uproar

mirrors what occurred several years ago within the greater Scouting community when BSA

opened its doors to LGBT+ youth and adult volunteers. Both of these instances led to many

families, whether new to the organization or having a generations-old membership, renouncing

the organization and pledging to seek alternative Scouting avenues for their children, or pulling

them out of Scouting altogether.

Having an open, inclusive Scouting program is important - every youth should be given

the opportunity to grow as an individual in a non-academic setting, and every child is not well-

suited for artistic or academic pursuits. Scouting offers a unique opportunity for America’s

youth, and the BSA in particular has a wealth of knowledge and resources pertaining to a wide

variety of topics, which can be utilized for most any youth. It is vital that we arm all of our youth

with the tools we have available to help them succeed, and excluding approximately 50% of the

population - on the basis of their sex, alone - from a program shown to enrich the lives of the

youth who participate in it is socially unacceptable.

II. Review of Literature

While the topic of single-sex versus co-ed extracurricular activities has not been explored

very frequently in academia, the issue of schooling itself has been a hot topic for decades.
 Madel 3

Articles arguing for and against the co-education of children in a public or private school setting

have been written for many years, and research done on this topic can be used as an umbrella for

the issue of co-ed educational activities for children in general. The goal of this literature review

is to outline previous research on the issue of single-sex versus co-ed learning environments for

children.

The earliest generations of women educated in an academic institution were primarily

taught in single-sex secondary and undergraduate schools, with scarcely any exceptions

(Kaminer 22). Therefore, single-sex education was not thought of as just one of many

educational options in the beginning; it was a cultural norm at a time when segregation based on

sex was thought of as only natural. With co-education now being the typical environment for

children in American elementary and secondary schools, a new unfavorable perspective has been

surfacing that portrays co-educational schools as environments that socialize young boys and

girls into a society segregated by sex (Lee 95).

So far, studies on the effects of school in the aspect of gender differences have been done

in three distinct ways: studies of school effectiveness, sociological studies, and psychological

studies (Wong 828). In this literature review, the focus is on sociological studies and studies of

school effectiveness. Studies of school effectiveness look at gender differences from the stance

of school improvement. They use multi-level analysis to measure and identify the factors that

influence the value of a school. Within the context of gender differences, these school

effectiveness studies look to examine whether or not boys and girls are educated equally in a

school (Wong 828). Sociological studies, adversely, emphasize the qualitative method of

examining gender differences. They utilize the social production theory, a theory that suggests

schools are environments that socialize students to recognize and respond to the imbalance
 Madel 4

between men and women in American society. These studies also focus on the behaviors and

practices exhibited by school administrators and teachers within schools that maintain the

inequality between education of boys and girls (Wong 829). These two primary approaches to

observing the consequences different forms of schooling has on gender differences have

investigated this issue from contrasting perspectives. The school effectiveness approach to

research focuses on variations in educational accomplishments between boys and girls, whereas

the sociological approach to research focuses on the variances in educational practices within a

school, that would then give rise to inequality between the sexes (Wong 829-30). Educational

sociologists, taking a blended approach between the two methods, examine facets of school

organization, such as curriculum, students’ “course-taking patterns, gender-grouping practices,

and access to educational resources,” and use these factors to explain male/female variation in

academic accomplishments, choices in career, educational desires, and social views (Lee 95).

The research-validated advantages of a single-sex public educational environment are

varied. A predominant problem in this debate is whether girls would learn more efficiently if

they were educated apart from boys, and vice versa. As stated in popular feminist theory, co-

educational learning environments are harmful to the self-esteem of young girls. Co-ed learning

environments are thought of as places in which girls’ achievements are discouraged rather than

inspired, particularly in the subjects of math and science, with plenty of parents of girls seeming

to also hold these views (Kaminer 24). In addition to presumptions about female educational

styles, advocates for single-sex education for girls rely on sociological studies to support the

claim that segregation by sex fosters achievement in girls. In a 2002 study by Kam-Cheung

Wong, Y. Raymond Lam, and Lai-Ming Ho titled “The Effects of Schooling on Gender

Differences,” it was found through several analyses of the effects of schooling that girls benefit
 Madel 5

from studying in single-sex schools whereas boys benefit from co-educational schools (827).

Additionally, in a 1982 student questionnaire study by Edison J. Trickett, Penelope K. Trickett,

Julie J. Castro, and Paul Schaffner titled “The Independent School Experience: Aspects of the

Normative Environments of Single-Sex and Coed Secondary Schools” it was found that students

in single-sex schools believe there is a greater interest in and support for the women’s movement

at their schools than female students in co-educational schools (380).

Since the 1980s, establishing or preserving single-sex education has been widely

considered an effective way to bring more girls into the natural sciences, a male-dominated field

of study. However, it has remained an unanswered question whether girls from single-sex

learning environments are in fact more likely than girls in co-educational schooling to aspire to a

career in science (Kessels 274). In a 2008 study by Ursula Kessels and Bettina Hannover titled

“When Being a Girl Matters Less: Accessibility of Gender-Related Self-Knowledge in Single-

Sex and Coeducational Classes and Its Impact on Students’ Physics-Related Self-Concept of

Ability,” an experiment study comparing self-concept of ability in single and mixed-sex learning

environments was presented, with the goal of advancing a theoretical explanation for the

underlying mechanisms that bring about differences between the two study groups (Kessels 275).

This study found that, if all group members in a learning environment are of the same sex they

do not use gender as a self-comparison tool. Rather, youth judge themselves on other factors that

would differentiate them from their peers (Kessels 276).

Although gender equity has long been discussed in terms of remedies designed to raise

the educational achievements of girls, more recently some scholars have begun to look at the

effects of schooling on boys. Some scholars argue that this shift in focus towards boys is the

result of social backlash against feminism. It could also be a result of the perspective that
 Madel 6

reforms “cannot improve the outcomes of schooling for girls without negatively affecting the

outcomes for boys” (Datnow 3).

Another issue brought up with regards to co-education of children are the topics of

bullying and sexism. A prominent study on this topic is a 1994 piece by Valerie E. Lee, Helen

M. Marks, and Tina Byrd titled “Sexism in Single-Sex and Coeducational Independent

Secondary School Classrooms.” This study investigated how gendered socialization works in

three different categories of secondary schools, looking at boys-only schools, girls-only schools,

and co-educational schools (Lee 92). The focus was on if, and how, the single-sex or co-

educational categorization of learning environments affected the frequency, type, and level of

severity of sexism in the group, as learning environments organized by gender “offer unique

opportunities for comparative research on sexism in the educational environments that are

primary sites of socialization for adolescents” (Lee 93). The study found that American single-

sex schooling produced benefits for young girls in a variety of topics, including educational

achievement, educational viewpoints and desires, fewer stereotypical perspectives on the topic of

sex roles in familial and professional life, and political activism (Lee 95). However, the

occurance of sexism was approximately equal across the three types of learning environments, so

neither co-education or single-sex education could be absolved of guilt (Lee 113). This topic of

bullying and sexism was touched on again in 2014 by Dominique Johnson and Billie Gastic in

their work titled “Patterns of Bullying in Single-Sex Schools.” This study explored the connetion

between a students’ likelihood of being bullied and their compliance with stereotypical gender

norms, and whether this varies depending on if the child attended a single-sex or co-educational

school (Johnson 126). In this study, it was found that there was no statistically relevant
 Madel 7

difference in the levels of bullying of gender non-conforming children, regardless of the

educational setting (Johnson 134).

Not very much research has been carried out regarding at parents’ perspectives on mixed

and single-sex learning environments. The attitudes of parents towards single-sex and mixed

secondary schools were examined in the 1993 article “Parents’ Views on Mixed and Single-Sex

Secondary Schools” by Anne West and Jan Hunter. This article highlighted two studies, in which

“statements about mixed and girls-only schooling were read out to parents, who were asked

whether or not they agreed with them. Parents were also asked if they knew why some parents

preferred mixed schools for their sons” (West 369). Not many similarities were found amongst

the parents of boys and girls at the elementary school age; at the middle and high school age it

was discovered that the majority of parents who sent their daughters to girls-only middle or high

schools believed that learning environments like those gave their girls an opportunity to develop

greater levels of personal and academic self-confidence (West 369). When questioned why

parents would rather a mixed-gender than boys-only learning environment for their sons,

comments indicated that the great majority of parents of both girls and boys felt that there were

social advantages for boys being educated with girls.

Another study of parental opinions on single-sex versus co-educational schooling was

outlined in the 2012 article “Hearing the Voices of Parents in Single-Gender Classes” by

Mercedes S. Tichenor, John M. Tichenor, Kathy Piechura-Couture, and Bette Heins. This study

examined the perspectives of ninety-five (95) elementary school parents, and explored what

parents believe to be the strengths and weaknesses of single-gender education. Overall, these

parents reported being very pleased with single-gender schooling and believe that the single-
 Madel 8

gender format positively impacted their children in several important dimensions such as self-

confidence, motivation, independence, self-efficacy, attitude, and grades (Tichenor 7).

Throughout these studies of parental opinions, five common justifications for co-

education arose. Co-education is thought to prepare children better for the world of adult life, in

which they will have to work alongside people of the opposite sex. Nearly every child is

educated in a co-educational setting before age eleven (11), and many adults do not see a need to

separate the children at that point. Mixed-gender education was deemed superior for girls due to

the fact that girls-only institutions are frequently thought of as being less well-equipped and

more under-resourced when contrasted with mixed-gender schools. Co-education was thought of

as better for boys because the presence of girls seemed to exert a civilizing influence on the

young boys. Lastly, a common parental opinion was that single-sex learning environments have

a tendency to believe the topic of equal opportunities on the basis of gender is not an issue they

should concern themselves with, whereas mixed-gender learning environments take the issue

more seriously (West 370). Five common justifications for single-sex learning environments, for

young girls in particular, arose as well through these surveys. A common belief was that, while

mixed-gender learning environments do mirror adult society, this is a society dominated by men,

and girls are considered a lower priority in mixed-gender learning environments just as much as

they are in society in general. Girls-only learning environments permit young girls the

opportunity to form greater levels of personal and academic self-confidence, where they are not

compared to boys. Girls-only educational environments are also thought of as “more likely to

provide role models of women in senior positions and of women in non-traditional subject areas

than mixed schools.” Girls-only schools tend to “reduce sex-stereotyped subject choices.”

Single-sex schools for girls is required by some groups of people for cultural and/or religious
 Madel 9

purposes, which greatly heightens their popularity. Lastly, between the ages of eleven (11) and

sixteen (16), girls and boys develop unevenly physically, mentally, and emotionally. Therefore,

parents surveyed commonly believe “there is some logic to segregated education during this

period which does not apply to the pre- or post-sixteen” (16) age brackets (West 370-71). The

research discovered that more than two-fifths of parents would rather have their children in a co-

educational setting, but 26% believed that the subject was “unimportant” (West 371). The

primary benefit of single-sex education cited by those favoring it was determined to be that it

“encourages harder work” (referred to by 77% of respondents), while the main benefit of co-

education was that it “helps growing up” and “it is natural to mix” (West 371).

Another demographic that has been studied in relation to single-sex versus co-educational

academic institutions would be the teachers themselves. During the course of the study outlined

in Janice Streitmatter’s 1999 work titled For Girls Only: Making a Case for Single-Sex

Schooling, a number of teachers were interviewed and observed working in girls-only

classrooms as well as in mixed-gender classes, where they taught the same subject. These

teachers represented a broad spectrum of teaching experience, knowledge of and commitment to

gender issues, and teaching expertise (Streitmatter 67). During the course of the interviews with

these teachers, it became abundantly clear that, although the range of preparation for teaching in

a girls-only context and the degree of commitment to gender issues varied, a theme of the

importance and the uniqueness of a girls-only educational setting arose amongst all of the

teachers interviewed. Additionally, despite the variation in teaching experience and expertise in

the varied classes, the teachers generally “tended to believe that the girls did better academically

than they would have” in a co-educational setting, that it generated a more positive climate. In
 Madel 10

most of the interviews, they tended to believe that “the girls felt freer to be themselves” in a

single-sex environment (Streitmatter 80).

There is a great deal of controversy, and a few empirical studies, on the social importance

of co-educational and single-sex opportunities for children. Numerous studies have reported that

“a commitment to gender equity must be explicit in an organization’s practices for it to be

realized” (Datnow 7). While the single-gender format may not be the best learning environment

for every child, studies suggest that parents of students already in single-gender programs

overwhelmingly support this organizational approach to education. It is tempting to simply

conclude that some children succeed well in single-sex environments and some benefit more

from co-education. Careful consideration must also be given to how males and females of varied

races and ethnicities might be favored differentially in society and educational institutions, and

what can be done to create equity in this regard (Datnow 7-8). These discoveries simply propose

the necessity of an expansion in the literature into new research areas, joining the topics of

gender and peer relationships between children involved in both single-sex and co-educational

learning environments.
 Madel 11

III. Methods

Based on the research and evidence detailed above, the following hypotheses have been

formed: younger respondents are more likely to support female youth participating in the

primary BSA program, Scouts BSA; there is not a significant difference in support for the

program between respondents of different races and ethnicities or different religious affiliations;

female respondents are more likely to support the program than male respondents; respondents

who have higher levels of self-involvement in BSA are more likely to support the program; and

respondents who support secondary co-ed Scouting programs and support LGBT+ youth in

Scouting are more likely to support the program.

To test this hypothesis, an anonymous paper questionnaire will be administered, found in

Appendix A. This questionnaire will be given at several locations, including at a Cub Scout

weekend staffed primarily by adult volunteers, at a Venturing weekend aimed at college-aged

youth participants, and at the Old Hickory Council office. At the first event, questionnaire

responses will be obtained from adult volunteers staffing the event and from parents/guardians

participating with their children. During the second event, questionnaire responses will be

obtained from youth participants aged eighteen (18) through twenty (20), and from their adult

leaders. In the case that the desired number of responses has not been reached at this point, the

remaining responses will be obtained from adult shoppers and employees at the Old Hickory

Council office, the local BSA headquarters that also homes the local BSA store. Fifty (50)

responses will be obtained altogether.

 Madel 12

Project Schedule

Task: 10/20 10/27 11/3 11/10 11/17 11/24 12/1

Obtain
questionnaire
responses

Analyze
responses

Compare
analyzed
responses to
hypothesis

Write final
report

References

Datnow, Amanda and Lea Hubbard. 2013. Gender in Policy and Practice : Perspectives on
 Madel 13

Single Sex and Coeducational Schooling. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Kaminer, Wendy. 1998. “The Trouble with Single-Sex Schools.” The Atlantic Monthly

281(4):22–36.

Kessels, Ursula and Bettina Hannover. 2008. “When Being a Girl Matters Less: Accessibility of

Gender-Related Self-Knowledge in Single Sex and Coeducational Classes and Its Impact

on Students’ Physics-Related Self-Concept of Ability.” British Journal of Educational

Psychology 78(2):273-89.

Johnson, Dominique and Billie Gastic. 2014. “Patterns of Bullying in Single-Sex Schools.”

Sexuality Research and Social Policy 11(2):126–36.

Lee, Valerie E., Helen M. Marks, and Tina Byrd. 1994. “Sexism in Single-Sex and

Coeducational Independent Secondary School Classrooms.” Sociology of Education

67(2):92–116.

Streitmatter, Janice. 1999. For Girls Only: Making a Case for Single-Sex Schooling. Albany:

State University of New York Press.

Tichenor, Mercedes S., John M. Tichenor, Kathy Piechura-Couture, and Bette Heins. 2012.

“Hearing the Voices of Parents in Single-Gender Classes.” Advances in Gender and

Education 3:7-13.

Trickett, Edison J., Penelope K. Trickett, Julie J. Castro, and Paul Schaffner. 1982. “The

Independent School Experience: Aspects of the Normative Environments of Single-Sex

and Coed Secondary Schools.” Journal of Educational Psychology 74(3):374–81.

West, Anne and Jan Hunter. 1993. “Parents' Views on Mixed and Single-Sex Secondary

Schools.” British Educational Research Journal 19(4):369–80.

Wong, Kam-Cheung, Y. Raymond Lam, and Lai-Ming Ho. 2002. “The Effects of Schooling on
 Madel 14

Gender Differences.” British Educational Research Journal 28(6):827–43.

 Madel 15

Appendix A

Co-Ed Scouting Programs Questionnaire

This is a short survey about approval for co-ed Scouting programs. I am conducting this research
as a requirement for a class at Salem College. Please choose only one answer for each question.
Do not put your name on the questionnaire. Do not fill out this questionnaire if you are under the
age of 18.

Hannah Madel

1. Do you support female youth participating in the primary Boy Scouts of America (BSA)
program, Scouts BSA (formerly known as the Boy Scouts program)?
_____ 1. Yes
_____ 2. No

2. What is your age?

_____ 1. 18 to 25
_____ 2. 26 to 35
_____ 3. 36 to 45
_____ 4. 46 to 55
_____ 5. 56 to 65
_____ 6. 66 to 75
_____ 7. 76 and over

3. What is your race or ethnicity?

_____ 1. African American or Black
_____ 2. White (not Hispanic or Latinx)
_____ 3. Hispanic or Latinx (of any race)
_____ 4. Asian
_____ 5. Native American, Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander
_____ 6. Mixed race
_____ 7. Other (please specify) _________________

4. What is your religious affiliation?

_____ 1. Christian (Catholic or Protestant)
_____ 2. Jewish
_____ 3. Muslim
_____ 4. Hindu or Buddhist
_____ 5. Atheist or agnostic
 Madel 16

_____ 6. Other (please specify) ____________________

5. What is your gender?

_____ 1. Male
_____ 2. Female
_____ 3. Other (please specify) ______________

6. What is the highest level of involvement you have experienced in BSA?

_____ 1. None
_____ 2. Participated as a youth
_____ 3. Adult volunteer
_____ 4. Paid adult employee of BSA

7. Do you support LGBT+ youth participating in the primary BSA program, Scouts BSA?
_____ 1. Yes
_____ 2. No

8. Do you support secondary co-ed Scouting programs (e.g., Venturing, Sea Scouts, etc)?
_____ 1. Yes
_____ 2. No

Thank you for taking the time to help me with my research project. Please leave questionnaire in
provided envelope, labeled “COMPLETE.”