Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, January 26, 2007

Is Gender Segregation In Public Schools A Good Thing?

I think it may be…

HARTLAND, Wis. - Lauren Panos was surprised when she walked into her ninth-grade English class in the fall and saw there were no boys.

Her parents had not told her they had enrolled her in a new all-girls class at Arrowhead High School in Hartland, about 25 miles west of Milwaukee. A semester into classes, Panos still isn’t sold on the idea.

“All the girls there, they can talk out of turn,” the 14-year-old said. “We get really off task and it’s really annoying.”

More public school systems are looking at separating boys and girls, whether for certain classes or by entire schools, after the federal government opened the door last fall. Supporters say splitting students by sex minimizes distractions, helps them learn better and allows boys and girls to explore subjects they may not otherwise take. . . .

Nationwide, at least 253 public schools offer single-sex classes and 51 schools are entirely single sex, according to the National Association for Single Sex Public Education. In 1995, just three public schools offered single-sex classes.

The ACLU and some others, however, are against this equating gender segregation with racial segregation:

Critics of same-sex classrooms argue that proven methods of improving education should be pursued instead of one that divides boys and girls. Separating boys and girls is tantamount to “separate but equal” segregation-era classrooms, they say.

“Too many schools feel they can carry out a social experiment with students’ education with really the flimsiest of theories,” said Emily Martin, deputy director of the
American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project.

Single-sex schools are an “illusionary silver bullet,” said Lisa Maatz, director of public policy and government relations for the American Association of University Women. They distract from real problems and do not offer proven solutions such as lower class sizes and sufficient funding, she said.

Personally, I don’t think this is such a bad idea.  This is painted by some as being a good thing for girls who traditionally have lagged behind boys in certain subjects like math and science, but experts have been pointing out for some time now that boys have actually been falling behind girls in overall education.  Why is this happening?  I think it has to do with some fundamental differences in the way the sexes think and learn and the fact that, for a couple of decades, educators have been trying to find ways to help the girls do better in school to the detriment of the boys.

For example, boys, especially young boys, tend to be a lot more rambunctious than their female peers.  They need physical activity, like recess breaks and gym class, to burn off some of that excess energy so that they can concentrate in class.  Yet one of the changes to our school in recent years is the elimination of a lot of recess breaks and gym classes.  This hasn’t really had an impact on girls, but it has left boys with all that extra energy in the class.  Energy that usually manifests itself as classroom disturbance and an inability to concentrate.  Things that, in a lot of cases, usually end up causing the boy’s teacher to recommend counseling and a Ritalin prescription.  Things that, to this observer, seem to exacerbate the problem more than help.

As long as segregated boys and girls classes would be equal in terms of funding and access to resources (and I see no reason why that couldn’t be so) I don’t really have a problem with splitting up the sexes.  It would allow educators to better tailor instruction and the school day to the needs and learning quirks of each sex, which is something that would benefit all students.

Comments

I’ve got a novel idea.  How about we let the parents decide what’s best for their kids rather than the teacher unions?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 26, 2007 at 08:27 am

Actually, there is a point where the opposite becomes true.  Boys will actually behave better in the presence of girls.  This typically happens in high school (which is why most of these experiments are middle school and below.) As they get older, the boys begin to understand that girls are attracted to them when they DON’T act like morons.  This has a mitigating effect on stupid behavior.


"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

Steve L. on January 26, 2007 at 09:30 am

As they get older, the boys begin to understand that girls are attracted to them when they DON’T act like morons.

Where were you with this information when I was in high school?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 26, 2007 at 09:32 am

Yeah, I’m only 6 years out of high school but I can distinctly remember most of my male classmates acting like assholes whether or not the girls were present.

Mr. Mxyzptlk on January 26, 2007 at 10:54 am
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

As they get older, the boys begin to understand that girls are attracted to them when they DON’T act like morons.

Makes me wonder how I managed to get myself married.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 26, 2007 at 11:10 am

It’s not your looks either.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 26, 2007 at 11:23 am
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

It could be.  I’ve been told that I am irresistibly attractive.  I’m not so vain as to believe that, however, so I mostly just think of myself as attractive but somewhat resistible.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 26, 2007 at 11:34 am

This thread is officially off-topic.


Fileitunder.com

Hoodlumman on January 26, 2007 at 11:43 am

Maybe it’s that you look so good in a dress.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 26, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

Well, there’s no arguing with that.  I do know how to rock a miniskirt.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 26, 2007 at 12:17 pm

I’ll just take your word for it.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 26, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

Are you sure?  I’ve got pictures?


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 26, 2007 at 12:48 pm

I’ve got another picture of you that I’d be willing to post.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 26, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Pictures?  If they’re anything like your avatar, FORGET IT!!  You probably have hairy legs and armpits too.  Ugh..
Definitely not my type....


The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

docdave on January 26, 2007 at 01:00 pm

Isn’t it quaint that the same people who are against gender segregation in schools (ACLU etc) are all in favor of gender segregation in Marriage, and will readily tell you that “two moms” are just as good as—even “equal to”—a mother and a father?.

I’m not sure how anyone with half a brain can hold both positions at the same time…


[Feet make good soup!]

Marty on January 26, 2007 at 04:20 pm

Gender separation?  How is that going to separate the boys from the boys and the girls from the girls or is homosexuality in the school not a concern?


The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

docdave on January 26, 2007 at 05:01 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.