In the article “Do Single-Sex Schools Improve the Education of Low-Income and Minority Students?” Lea Hubbard and Amanda Datnow manage to inform anthropologists and people who study education the result of a two-year ethnographic study about the effect of single-sex education on students from low-income or minority group in Californian public schools. Instead of conventional quantitative method of collecting test scores, their article uses the voices from students and educators. Through the usage of appeal to pathos and ethos, Hubbard and Datnow successfully illustrate that the benefits of single-sex education are clear as to the opportunity of avoiding distractions from the other gender, more state financial support, and special care from teaching staffs.
Hubbard and Datnow provoke readers’ emotion with a rhetorical question in the opening paragraph. It asks, “Is the separation of students by gender a vehicle for improving the educational experiences of low-income and minority students?” This rhetorical device arouses readers’ interest and directly introduce the topic of this article: impact of single-sex education on students from less well-off and minority background. The authors recognize
their audience as a group of people with good educational backgrounds who have a special interest in anthropology and education. The target audience are expected to be able to easily catch the theme of the article through this question. Their compassion and empathy gained through years’ of training can be naturally ignited as these students are the weak in the
community who deserve more attention from both society and academia. Without giving answers to the question immediately, the authors make an appeal to pathos and give readers an opportunity to ponder on this the controversial issue before reading the following paragraphs. Compared with a declarative statement, the rhetorical question strengthens the tone and add a sense of communication to the article.
Another feature that distinguishes Hubbard and Datnow as good writers is the good choice of words with negative and sad connotation, depicting the worrisome results of financial restrain from the state government. To specify, in the last paragraph, the authors “sadly” mention that the state funding for single-sex public schools were canceled in the second year. This resulted in the “deterioration” of students in Evergreen and the school “closed its door” by year three. In Pine, the administrators were “scrambling” to get more financial support to keep the school open. Both teachers and students are “struggling” under the situation of budget cut. A reader who sees these words can hardly stop feeling sympathetic towards these students who barely have the chance to receive high-quality emotional and academic guidance and support. The effect of word choice is more implicit than direct, guiding audience with compassion to feel the pain and hopelessness of students from less privileged families.
Hubbard and Datnow appeal to ethos by extensively citing the history and other research of single-sex public schooling. Through reviewing historical records, they first summarize many efforts in raising academic performance of low-income and minority students including “Head Start preschools”, “Success for All” and “Accelerated Schools”. Among various attempts, Governor Wilson initially offered a plan that give students opportunities to choose among single-sex and co-sex programs. In the literature review section, six articles on single-sex education being solutions for students from less-privileged
are cited. Although the results may vary by genders and other factors, readers with sound educational background can be instantly informed what the authors attempt to discuss about. In addition, twenty-one studies focusing on single-gender schooling are included on which researchers’ opinions differ. Discussion on the topic’s controversies is important since the scholarly readers generally pay more attention to the objectiveness and validity of what they read who can only be convinced with a comprehensive appreciation on existing research. Combined with other evidence, this section of historical records also lays a solid theoretical base for the whole article and show the picture of a serious scholar to the audience.
Another prominent feature of ethos in the article is a detailed quotation of interviews from teachers and students at three research sites: Evergreen Elementary, Pine Middle School and Palm High School to make the research more effective and convincing. Interviews from subjects have proven to be one of the most effective ways of collecting data. For example, one teacher in Evergreen Elementary says that “What they see is what's in town, that’s either the ones who dropped out or, you know, weren’t able to make it, or maybe even went into the military but then came back .... When we ask them about career. [they say], 'Oh, we can't do this, or we can't do that.” By quoting the teacher’s comment, the authors show lack of role model and poor motivation at one of the research campus. Students’ financial embarrassment is illustrated by a schoolgirl’s words which reads, “Yeah, I saw my first escalator last year”. Situation in other schools are no better. One male student at Pine explained that “I got transferred here because I got a lot of problems at [other] schools”. According to Pam’s Principal, these students are unsuccessful in “traditional school settings” and they need some changes. The citation of interviews is effective since it is a distinctive methodology that it incorporates the voices of students and teachers whose responses can reflect the real situation and be interpreted accordingly through nuanced recount. Reading these comments, the readers can figure out what unfavorable condition these students are trapped in and some possible causes to it. These verbal descriptions are as effective as data in reflecting the experience of teachers and students—the most direct indicator of teaching quality. The audience can have a direct and accurate account what really happened on the campus.
The rhetorical strategies Hubbard and Datnow use throughout “Do Single-Sex Schools Improve the Education of Low-Income and Minority Students?” help convince their audience of the advantages of single-sex education for these students. This ethnographic analysis combines the effective usage of pathos and ethos. The extensive reference to the words from teachers and students from research sites proves the authors to be qualified scholars hence enhances the credibility. The author’ ability to appeal to the emotion of audience is also prominent by employing rhetorical question and good choice of words. More readers would be aligned with author’s stance that the state should consider restarting the program of single-sex schooling in low-income and minority community because students would be free from distraction of the other gender, they would better focus on their study with more financial support and receive better academic support from schools and teachers.
Works Cited:
Hubbard, Lea, and Amanda Datnow. "Do Single-Sex Schools Improve the Education of Low-Income and Minority Students?" Anthropology & Education Quarterly 36.2 (2005): 115-131.