In Kim Tolleys historical perspective, The Science Education of American Girls, readers

see the evolution of education provided for American girls from the 17th century to the 20th
century. The struggle for girls to achieve an equal education to boys oscillated between
progressive and regressive stages. Early on, girls studies focused on sciences because at the
time, it was a mostly new field that was suitable for amateurs while boys dominated the classics
that included Latin and Greek, which were considered highly prestigious and only suitable for
the sharp mind (pg. 150). Towards the end of the nineteenth century, girls began achieving more
equality in their education as boys thanks to the rise of natural history and the addition of classics
studies to their curriculum (pg. 152). Unfortunately, this occurred around the time of the
industrial revolution, which caused boys and the idea of what subjects were prestigious to flock
towards studies of math, science, and engineering. Boys and girls education did a flip-flop, now
boys studied science while girls were left to study Latin and Greek (pg. 156). While this
transition could have been considered progressive for girls education, because of poor timing,
they were back to square one in trying to achieve educational equality.
Though it is challenging to see how girls education was progressive on an individualistic
level, by taking a step back and looking from a perspective of social efficiency one can see some
progressive aspects. The Cardinal Principles 1918 states that, The purpose of democracy is so to
organize society that each member may develop his personality primarily through activities
designed for the well-being of his fellow members and of society has a whole Consequently,
education in a democracy, both within and without the school, should develop in each individual
the knowledge, interests, ideals, habits, and powers whereby he will find his place and use that
place to shape both himself and society toward eve nobler ends, (p. 6). This is essentially what
was achieved in the division of education between boys and girls. As the popularity of natural

history grew, especially in the curriculum for girls, the stereotype came about that girls were
protectors of nature and wildlife while boys were destroyers (pg. 110). This gave females a place
in society because they were able to be important contributors to the expansion of knowledge
within botany, entomology, and physiology. This socially accepted role as protectors of nature
eventually led to opportunities for women as assistants in labs, nursing, teaching, and eventually
administrative positions such as becoming superintendents in the early 1900s (p. 118-119, 144145).
This rise to power for females did not last long. When a surplus of jobs opened up during
World War II because men went enlist in the army, women quickly filled these spots in order to
keep America running. When the war ended in 1945, soldiers came back only to see a woman
doing their work. In order to maintain social efficiency during the Great Depression and WWII,
women sacrificed their jobs outside of teaching to men. Surprisingly, women gladly gave up
their jobs for veterans, feeling it was the least they could do for the men who put their lives on
the line for their country and those who wouldnt give up their job were eventually fired by their
employers (pg. 196). This shows that most women understood their place in society and that the
skills they had to offer would be most useful as a teacher, housewife, or as a nurse.
This led to women quickly sliding down the hierarchical ladder within education. The
number of women principles declined quickly, and they went back to mostly being teachers
within the field of education (pg. 197). At the same time, the vocational movement began
moving forward at full speed. This concentrated female education towards teaching useful skills
that they would use later in life as housewives and teachers. Some progressive thinkers like
Ellwood Cubberley, writers of the Cardinal Principles, and John Dewey would have seen this
transformation in education for girls as progressive because it was reinforcing suitable skills for

girls that would make them useful in American society at the time. On the other hand, while
female progressive thinkers, like Theresa McMahon and Jane Addams, may have agreed that the
skills taught through the vocational movement were useful to know, they probably would have
viewed this altogether as regressive. They would have argued that girls could learn the domestic
skills by helping their mothers around the house which would enable them to learn other
academia like botany, economics, and inequality issues. The struggle for women to gain higher,
well respected jobs continues to this day, though not for the reason that women are not educated
enough.
The vocational movement played a huge role in the development of education for girls.
Throughout history, women were almost always inferior to men. They were denied most of the
rights white men were entitled to; suffrage, the ability to own land, holding positions of influence
and power such as professorship or government positions, and being independent. As woman
slowly began gaining these rights, such as property rights being granted towards the end of the
19th century and the passing of the 19th amendment in 1920, those opposed to viewing women as
equals of men began doing everything in their power to slow the progressive train down. One
result was the vocational movement.
At the time, most people would have viewed this as a progressive move in both boys and
girls education. Ellwood Cubberley once said, Our schools are, in a sense, factories in which
the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various
demands of life. The specifications for manufacturing come from the demands of twentiethcentury civilization, and it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the
specifications laid down. (Cubberley, 338) The vocational movement molded boys and girls
into useful citizens by providing curriculum tailored to their societal needs. For instance, boys

took courses that included math, sciences like chemistry and physics, and other courses that
would allow them to become scientists, lawyers, politicians, business owners, and doctors. On
the other hand, girls took typewriting, industrial, and domestic science courses that helped
prepare them to become white collar workers, teachers, and home makers (pg. 166). Once again,
this is another example of how education for girls evolved in a progressive motion within social
efficiency, but it is regressive in the sense of women not pursuing jobs they want to do and not
allowing them to live life to their fullest potential. This carefully tailored curriculum restricted
girls to sticking with jobs that were considered acceptable for a woman. Girls often outperformed
boys in coeducational high schools which proved that girls had the ability and potential to be
successful in jobs considered for men (p. 182).
The evolution of education for girls in America has both progressive and regressive
components depending on what aspect youre looking from. While it was progressive from a
social efficiency perspective, it was the opposite from the perspective of women who were
forced to pursue their education in a manner that would be accepted by society. Women endlessly
attempted to make the curriculum offered to girls equal to that of boys, but due to the major
changes of society such as the industrial revolution, girls still remained below boys in the
educational pyramid. Later on when coeducational high schools came about, girls proved they
were just as qualified as boys by outperforming them. However, when girls entered the working
field, they were still denied employment opportunities as employers favored men, regardless that
fact that women were much more highly qualified than the men being hired in their place (pg.
191). This phenomena still exists to this day, though not as extreme as fifty years ago.