Single-Sex Education in Public Schools - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-02-2008, 10:49 PM   #1
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

I cut this down because the original is even longer; full article here (March 2 New York Times).
Quote:
On an unseasonably cold day last November in Foley, AL, Colby Royster and Michael Peterson, two students in William Bender’s fourth-grade public-school class, informed me that the class corn snake could eat a rat faster than the class boa constrictor. Bender teaches 26 fourth graders, all boys. Down the hall and around the corner, Michelle Gay teaches 26 fourth-grade girls. The boys like being on their own, they say, because girls don’t appreciate their jokes and think boys are too messy, and are also scared of snakes. The walls of the boys’ classroom are painted blue, the light bulbs emit a cool white light, and the thermostat is set to 69 degrees. In the girls’ room, by contrast, the walls are yellow, the light bulbs emit a warm yellow light and the temperature is kept six degrees warmer, as per the instructions of Leonard Sax, a family physician turned author and advocate who this May will quit his medical practice to devote himself full time to promoting single-sex public education.

Foley Intermediate School began offering separate classes for boys and girls a few years ago, after the school’s principal, Lee Mansell, read a book by Michael Gurian called Boys and Girls Learn Differently! After that, she read a magazine article by Sax and thought that his insights would help improve the test scores of Foley’s lowest-achieving cohort, minority boys. Sax went on to publish those ideas in Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. Both books feature conversion stories of children, particularly boys, failing and on Ritalin in coeducational settings and then pulling themselves together in single-sex schools. Sax’s book and lectures also include neurological diagrams and scores of citations of obscure scientific studies, like one by a Swedish researcher who found, in a study of 96 adults, that males and females have different emotional and cognitive responses to different kinds of light. Sax refers to a few other studies that he says show that girls and boys draw differently, including one from a group of Japanese researchers who found girls’ drawings typically depict still lifes of people, pets or flowers, using 10 or more crayons, favoring warm colors like red, green, beige and brown; boys, on the other hand, draw action, using 6 or fewer colors, mostly cool hues like gray, blue, silver and black. This apparent difference, which Sax argues is hard-wired, causes teachers to praise girls’ artwork and make boys feel that they’re drawing incorrectly. Under Sax’s leadership, teachers learn to say things like, “Damien, take your green crayon and draw some sparks and take your black crayon and draw some black lines coming out from the back of the vehicle, to make it look like it’s going faster.” “Now Damien feels encouraged,” Sax explained to me when I first met him last spring in San Francisco. “To say: ‘Why don’t you use more colors? Why don’t you put someone in the vehicle?’ is as discouraging as if you say to Emily, ‘Well, this is nice, but why don’t you have one of them kick the other one—give us some action.’ ”

During the fall of 2003, Principal Mansell asked her entire faculty to read Boys and Girls Learn Differently! and, in the spring of 2004, to attend a one-day seminar led by Sax at the school, explaining boys’ and girls’ innate differences and how to teach to them. She also invited all Foley Intermediate School parents to a meeting extolling the virtues of single-sex public education. Enough parents were impressed that when Foley Intermediate, a school of 322 fourth and fifth graders, reopened after summer recess, the school had four single-sex classrooms: a girls’ and a boys’ class in both the fourth and fifth grades. Four classrooms in each grade remained coed.

Separating schoolboys from schoolgirls has long been a staple of private and parochial education. But the idea is now gaining traction in American public schools, in response to both the desire of parents to have more choice in their children’s public education and the separate education crises girls and boys have been widely reported to experience. The girls’ crisis was cited in the 1990s, when the American Association of University Women published Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America, which described how girls’ self-esteem plummets during puberty and how girls are subtly discouraged from careers in math and science. More recently, in what Sara Mead, an education expert at the New America Foundation, calls a “man bites dog” sensation, public and parental concerns have shifted to boys. Boys are currently behind their sisters in high-school and college graduation rates. School, the boy-crisis argument goes, is shaped by females to match the abilities of girls (or, as Sax puts it, is taught “by soft-spoken women who bore” boys). In 2006, Doug Anglin, a 17-year-old in Milton, MA, filed a civil rights complaint with the United States Department of Education, claiming that his high school—where there are twice as many girls on the honor roll as there are boys—discriminated against males. His case did not prevail in the courts, but his sentiment found support in the Legislature and the press. That same year, as part of No Child Left Behind, the federal law that authorizes programs aimed at improving accountability and test scores in public schools, the Department of Education passed new regulations making it easier for districts to create single-sex classrooms and schools.

In part because of these regulations and in part because of a mix of cultural and technological forces—ranging from the growth of brain-scan research to the increased academic pressures on kindergarteners and a chronic achievement gap between richer and poorer students and between white and minority students—new single-sex public schools and classrooms are opening at an accelerating pace. In 1995, there were two single-sex public schools operating in this country. Currently, there are 49, and 65% of those have opened in the last three years. Nobody is keeping exact count of the number of schools offering single-sex classrooms, but Sax estimates that in the fall of 2002, only about a dozen public schools in the United States offered any kind of single-sex educational options (excluding schools which offered single-sex classrooms only in health or physical education). By this past fall, Sax says, that number had soared to more than 360, with boys- and girls-only classrooms now established in Cleveland; Detroit; Albany; Gary, IN; Philadelphia; Dallas; and Nashville, among other places. A disproportionate number of the schools are in the South (where attitudes toward gender roles tend to be more conservative) or serve disadvantaged kids. Sax claims that “many more are in the pipeline for 2008-2009.”

Among advocates of single-sex public education, there are two camps: those who favor separating boys from girls because they are essentially different and those who favor separating boys from girls because they have different social experiences and social needs. Leonard Sax represents the essential-difference view, arguing that boys and girls should be educated separately for reasons of biology: for example, Sax asserts that boys don’t hear as well as girls, which means that an instructor needs to speak louder in order for the boys in the room to hear her; and that boys’ visual systems are better at seeing action, while girls are better at seeing the nuance of color and texture. The social view is represented by teachers like Emily Wylie, who works at the Young Women’s Leadership School of East Harlem (TYWLS), an all-girls school for Grades 7-12. Wylie described her job to me by saying, “It’s my subversive mission to create all these strong girls who will then go out into the world and be astonished when people try to oppress them.” Sax calls schools like TYWLS “anachronisms”—because, he says, they’re stuck in 1970s-era feminist ideology and they don’t base their pedagogy on the latest research. Few on the other side want to disparage Sax publicly, though TYWLS’ founder, Ann Tisch, did tell me pointedly, “Nobody is planning the days of our girls around a photograph of a brain.”
................................................................................
Foley, population 11,300, is 10 miles from the Gulf Coast. 57% of Foley Intermediate’s students are white, 24% are black and 17% are Latino; 70% receive free or reduced-price lunches each day. In the first year of Foley’s single-sex program, a third of the kids enrolled. The next year, two-thirds signed up, and in its third year 87% of parents requested the program. Principal Mansell reports that her single-sex classes produce fewer discipline problems, more parental support and better scores in writing, reading and math. She does, however, acknowledge that her data are compromised, as her highest-performing teachers and her most-motivated students have chosen single-sex.

In his books and frequent media appearances, Sax holds up Foley Intermediate as an example of his theories put to good use. In his second book, Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men, Sax credits Bender for helping focus a boy who was given a wrong diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder by telling him that his father, who had left the family, would be even less likely to return if all his mother had to report was the boy misbehaving in school. Sax also goes out of his way to note that Bender had this conversation with the boy “shoulder to shoulder,” not “face to face.” “Just remember this rule of thumb,” Sax tells readers: “A good place to talk with your son is in your car, with you driving and your son in the passenger seat.”

Sax used to say that he was “uniquely unqualified to lead the single-sex public education movement,” since, among other reasons, he had never been a teacher. Now, he no longer says that, and he maintains that a school’s teachers and staff need only 14 hours of training—two 7-hour days with him—to prepare to switch from coeducation to single-sex. Sax is 48, square-jawed and sturdily built, with a thick shag of side-parted brown hair and a relentless intellect and tireless charisma that leave even his critics exhausted and impressed. In the 1980s he earned an MD and PhD (in Psychology) from the University of Pennsylvania. Last year, he gave about 50 seminars and lectures on sex differences in children. The first time I met him, he was swinging through San Francisco to give a series of such talks at the Katherine Delmar Burke School, a private all-girls school. Speaking to a group of sixth graders, Sax explained his theory that girls’ hearing ability is much better than boys’, as is girls’ sense of smell. The girls, just on the edge of puberty, sat utterly rapt, seeming to want to understand why their brothers, boy cousins, cute skater-dude neighbors and fathers were so weird. A few weeks after the lecture, Sax sent me a packet of color photocopies of thank-you notes he had received from the girls. One, from a girl with two fathers, read: “Dr. Sax, Thank you so much for coming to Burkes...I had a smell in my room and my Dads couldn’t smell it but I could. I thought I was going crazy. It ends up there was a dead rat in the wall. Hope you come back soon.”
...................................................................................
Sax’s official foray into single-sex public-school advocacy started in early 2002, when, he says, he applied for “a 501(c)(3) with the pretentious and improbable name of the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education.” In its first few years, NASSPE didn’t see much action. Then, in 2004, he was invited to give a seminar in Foley. His appearance there led to a workshop in Wilcox County, AL, and over the next few years, Sax says, “things started to mushroom.” Sax estimates that, at present, 300 of the 360 single-sex public school programs in the country “are coming at this from a neuroscience basis.” Either he or one of NASSPE’s board members has been in touch with about half the programs.

David Chadwell, one of Sax’s disciples and the coordinator of Single-Gender Initiatives at the South Carolina Department of Education, explained to me the ways that teachers should teach to gender differences. For boys, he said: “You need to get them up and moving. That’s based on the nervous system, that’s based on eyes, that’s based upon volume and the use of volume with the boys.” Chadwell, like Sax, says that differences in eyesight, hearing and the nervous system all should influence how you instruct boys. “You need to engage boys’ energy, use it, rather than trying to say, No, no, no. So instead of having boys raise their hands, you’re going to have boys literally stand up. You’re going to do physical representation of number lines. Relay races. Ball tosses during discussion.” For the girls, Chadwell prescribes a focus on “the connections girls have (a)with the content, (b)with each other and (c)with the teacher. If you try to stop girls from talking to one another, that’s not successful. So you do a lot of meeting in circles, where every girl can share something from her own life that relates to the content in class.”
...................................................................................
A deluge of data has emerged in recent years detailing how boys and girls have different developmental trajectories and different brains. Sax has made a role for himself popularizing this work, though it’s not yet clear what the research means or whether there are implications for single-sex education. For instance, among neuroscientists, motor skills are often used as proxies for assessing cognitive skills and social and emotional control in younger children. As Martha Denckla, director of the Developmental Cognitive Neurology Clinic at Kennedy Krieger Institute in Maryland, explained to me: “Looking at normal motor development in boys and girls—the ability to balance, to hop, to use your feet, to use your fingers and your hands—as a group, 5-year-old girls look almost completely the same as 6-year-old boys. The same is also true for anything having to do with speed of output: for example, how quickly you answer a question. Maybe you know the answer, but you just can’t prepare your mouth to form the words.” The gender gap in motor development shrinks through grammar and middle schools, Denckla says, disappearing once everyone has gone through puberty, around age 15. Yet Denckla doesn’t see any need for single-sex public education; she thinks mixed-grade K-1, 1-2 and 2-3 classrooms are a better way to deal with the developmental differences among school-age kids.

Scans of boys’ and girls’ brains over time also show they develop differently. Analyzing data from the largest pediatric neuro-imaging study to date—829 scans from 387 subjects ages 3 to 27—researchers from the National Institute of Mental Health found that total cerebral volume peaks at 10.5 years in girls, four years earlier than in boys. Cortical and subcortical gray-matter trajectories peak one to two years earlier in girls as well. This may sound very significant, but researchers claim it means nothing for educators, or at least nothing yet. “Differences in brain size between males and females should not be interpreted as implying any sort of functional advantage or disadvantage,” the NIMH paper concludes. Not one to be deterred, Sax invited Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging at the Child Psychiatry Branch at NIMH, to give the keynote address at his NASSPE conference in 2007. Giedd spoke for 90 minutes, but made no comments on schooling at all.

One reason for this, Giedd says, is that when it comes to education, gender is a pretty crude tool for sorting minds. Giedd puts the research on brain differences in perspective by using the analogy of height. “On both the brain imaging and the psychological testing, the biggest differences we see between boys and girls are about one standard deviation. Height differences between boys and girls are two standard deviations.” Giedd suggests a thought experiment: Imagine trying to assign a population of students to the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms based solely on height. As boys tend to be taller than girls, one would assign the tallest 50% of the students to the boys’ locker room and the shortest 50% of the students to the girls’ locker room. What would happen? While you’d end up with a better-than-random sort, the results would be abysmal, with unacceptably large percentages of students in the wrong place. Giedd suggests the same is true when educators use gender alone to assign educational experiences for kids. Yes, you’ll get more students who favor cooperative learning in the girls’ room, and more students who enjoy competitive learning in the boys’, but you won’t do very well. Says Giedd, “There are just too many exceptions to the rule.”

Despite a lack of empirical evidence, a cottage industry has emerged working the “boys and girls are essentially different, so we should educate them differently” angle. Several advocates like Sax have been quite successful commercially, including Michael Gurian, a family therapist, who published the best-selling The Wonder of Boys in 1996, a work he has since followed up with 15 more, including Boys and Girls Learn Differently! Through the Gurian Institute, he provides trainings to teachers, “showing the PET scans, showing the Spect scans” (a Spect scan is a nuclear imaging test that shows how blood flows through tissue), “teaching how the male and female brain are different,” Gurian told me. Like Sax, Gurian speaks authoritatively, yet both have been criticized for cherry-picking studies to serve their views. For instance, Sax initially built his argument that girls hear better than boys on two papers published in 1959 and 1963 by a psychologist named John Corso. Mark Liberman, a linguistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has spent a fair amount of energy examining the original research behind Sax’s claims. In Corso’s 1959 study, for example, Corso didn’t look at children; he looked at adults. And he found only between one-quarter and one-half of a standard deviation in male and female hearing thresholds. What this means, Liberman says, is that if you choose a man and a woman at random, the chances are about 6 in 10 that the woman’s hearing will be more sensitive and about 4 in 10 that the man’s hearing will be more sensitive. Sax uses several other hearing studies to make his case that a teacher who is audible to boys will sound too loud to girls. But Liberman says that if you really look at this research, it shows that girls’ and boys’ hearing is much more similar than different. What’s more, the sample sizes in those studies are far too small to make meaningful conclusions about gender differences in the classroom. The “disproportion between the reported facts and Sax’s interpretation is spectacular,” Liberman wrote on his blog, Language Log. “Dr. Sax isn’t summarizing scientific research; he’s making a political argument,” he wrote in an e-mail message. “The political conclusion comes first, and the scientific evidence—often unrepresentative or misrepresented—is selected to support it.”

One of Sax’s core arguments is that trying to teach a 5-year-old boy to read is as developmentally fraught as trying to teach a 3 1/2-year-old girl and that such an exercise often leads to a kid hating school. This argument resonates with many teachers and parents, who long for the days when kindergarten meant learning how to stand in line for recess, not needing to complete phonics homework. Yet public schools are beholden to state standards, and those standards require kindergartners to learn to read. As a result, even leaders of single-sex public schools, like Jabali Sawicki, the principal of the all-boys Excellence Charter School in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn, are using some of what Sax has to offer while quietly refuting other claims.

Sawicki is 30, lanky and mocha-skinned, with an infectious energy. He grew up in a tough part of San Francisco with a single mother who managed to get her son a scholarship for middle school at a private all-boys school. From there he went to a private high school and then on to Oberlin College. The Excellence School is part of Uncommon Schools, a small network of charter schools. Housed in a gracious building on a modest street, Excellence currently teaches children in kindergarten through Grade 4, and will add a grade each year for the next four years, up to Grade 8. Sawicki’s office occupies an empty classroom slated to be overtaken by students as the school grows. There, he told me that educating lower-class black boys is “the new civil rights movement.” He then walked me down the hall to one of his kindergarten classrooms, where a sign on the door read “Fordham, Class of 2024.”
.............................................................................
While there’s some dispute over whether there’s an ongoing education crisis for white, middle-class boys, there’s no doubt that public schools are failing poor minority students in general and poor minority boys in particular. Despite six years of No Child Left Behind, the achievement gaps between rich and poor students and white and black students have not significantly narrowed. “People are getting desperate” is how Benjamin Wright, chief administrative officer for the Nashville public schools, described the current interest in single-sex education to me. “Coed’s not working. Time to try something else.”

Wright was one of the first principals in the country to address the racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps by separating boys from girls. In 1999, he was sent to the failing Thurgood Marshall Elementary School, in Seattle, to try to turn the place around. One of the first things he noticed was that three boys were getting suspended for every girl, “and for the most ridiculous things in the world—a boy would burp, or he’d pass gas, or a girl would say, ‘He hit me.’ ” Nationwide, boys are nearly twice as likely as girls to be suspended, and more likely to drop out of high school than girls (65% of boys complete high school in four years; 72% of girls do). Boys make up two-thirds of special-education students. They are 1.5 times more likely to be held back a grade and 2.5 times more likely to be given diagnoses of ADHD. So Wright met with his fourth-grade teachers and recalls telling them, “O.K., here’s what we’re going to do: how about you take all the boys and you take all the girls?” Wright says that in 2001, after Marshall’s first year in a single-sex format, the percentage of boys meeting the state’s academic standards rose from 10% to 35% in math and 10% to 53% in reading and writing.

Wright attributes this both to the insights of “brain researchers” like Sax and to what he calls “the character piece”—giving children a positive sense of themselves as students—which he says is easier to address in a single-sex setting. “Nobody cares about me, nobody really wants me—an African American or a Latino boy will tell you that in a hurry,” Wright told me when we spoke in January. “Or a Vietnamese or a Cambodian boy, if you’re in the right neighborhood. Don’t nobody care. Teachers need to understand when it’s time to stop teaching the content and start teaching the context.”

Not all schools see great results from switching to a single-sex format. After transforming the Thurgood Marshall School in Seattle, Wright moved to Philadelphia to work on the district’s single-sex programs, and the results were rather modest, a fact Wright attributes to working both with middle- and high-school students and with less-engaged teachers. Other districts have started single-gender programs only to shut them down, as major logistical headaches outweighed the small academic gains.
Lori Clark, principal at Jefferson Leadership Academies in Long Beach, Calif., which in 1999 became the first public middle school in the country to convert to a single-gender format, is in the process of reverting her school to coed. “We just didn’t get the bang for the buck we’d been hoping for with our test scores,” Clark told me. “Our master schedule is like one of those old Rubik’s cubes. It’s hard enough to make sure each kid gets this level English class and that level math class—and then we need to account for if that student is a boy or a girl? We just couldn’t have our hands tied like that.”

When Sawicki first took the job at Excellence, he attended conferences given by Sax and others on single-sex education, and at all of them he’d stand up and say: “Tell me what is it that I should do? What’s the magic dust that I should sprinkle?” Now, four years into the job, he’s following Wright’s lead, trying to take the best of all models. At Excellence, in a third-grade room, the teacher Roberto de Leon roused his students into calling out the two-dimensional sides of three-dimensional shapes while throwing around a big purple eyeball. But the Excellence school couples their games with serious discipline. By 7:30 each morning, 220 boys walk through the school’s heavy double doors, each dressed, in the terminology of the school, as a professional scholar: in black sneakers, dress pants, a white shirt, a green cardigan, a belt and a tie. If a child arrives at 7:31 a.m., his parents will receive a call at 5:45 the next morning to make sure that boy will be at school on time. Excellence is a charter school—meaning the school is publicly financed but has been freed from some of the rules that apply to other public schools, in exchange for promising to produce certain results. Its halls are silent from 7:50 to 10:30 a.m. each day. “The school’s sacred time,” Sawicki explains. “Right now we have 220 boys who are reading. Just a few blocks that way”—he pointed toward Crown Heights, a nearby section of Brooklyn—“you’ve got 220 boys who are doing something that’s not going to get them to college.”
..............................................................................
The Young Women’s Leadership School in Harlem is widely considered the birthplace of the current single-sex public school movement. This position of eminence stems from both its early beginnings and its success: since opening in 1996, every girl in every senior class at TYWLS has graduated and been accepted at a four-year college.

TYWLS occupies the top five floors of a commercial building in Harlem, on 106th Street near Lexington Avenue. Most of the girls come from the neighborhood, where they walk home so quickly that they often breeze by their own mothers before registering whom they’ve passed. One afternoon in January, Dalibell Ferreira, a senior, sat drinking a soda in the college counselor’s office, where she sometimes stays until 8 PM because she finds her own home distracting. Ferreira is tall, poised, with wide-set eyes and her hair neatly pulled back around her fine Dominican face. When she graduates, she wants “to go to Wesleyan and study abroad, then travel, and then work for Unicef.” When she entered TYWLS in the seventh grade, she mostly liked that the linoleum floor was so clean she could see her own face reflected on it. Then she started appreciating that people wouldn’t snicker, “Oh, she thinks she’s so smart” when she raised her hand in class. Then one day last spring, on the way home from a friend’s house, Ferreira ran into a classmate from elementary school who was pushing a stroller and also pregnant. “I know that girl is smart, very smart, but now she just hangs around the block,” Ferreira told me. “I want to be bigger in life. Maybe that girl had dreams, too, but you can just see: the lights have gone out in her face.”

TYWLS was founded by Ann Rubenstein Tisch, wife of Andrew Tisch, the co-chairman of the Loews Corporation. Ferreira’s is exactly the story Tisch, a former correspondent for NBC Network News, hoped her students would someday tell. Tisch first got the idea for a public all-girls school while on assignment in Milwaukee in the late ’80s. She was interviewing a 15-year-old at a public high school that had just opened a nursery so teenage moms could come back and finish their degrees. “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?” Tisch asked the young mother. The mother started to cry. “I said to myself: ‘She’s stuck, she knows she’s stuck. And she’s impacting three generations: her mother, her child and herself.’ We need to get these kids on a completely different path, a path that wealthy girls and parochial-school girls and yeshiva girls are offered. Don’t you think that might make a difference?”
.............................................................................
Nearly everyone at TYWLS acknowledges that often parents’ most pressing concern when enrolling their 11-year-old daughters is sheltering those girls from sexualized classrooms and sexualized streets. “Harlem’s a very intense environment,” says Drew Higginbotham, TYWLS’ assistant principal, who lives in the neighborhood. “You’re constantly needing to prove yourself physically, to prove yourself sexually. Parents, when they come to our school, they sort of exhale deeply. You can hear them thinking to themselves, I can see my daughter here and she’s going to be OK for six hours a day.” Sax is not above or beyond this kind of thinking, either. In fact, after a nearly-two-hour conversation filled with scientific jargon and brains, he told me, perhaps wishfully, that really the most important reason to send a child to a single-sex high school was that those kids still go on dates. “Boys at boys’ schools like Old Farms in Connecticut, or Saint Albans in Washington, DC, will call up girls at Miss Porter’s in Connecticut, at Stone Ridge in Maryland, and they will ask the girl out, and the boy will drive to the girl’s house to pick her up and meet her parents. You tell kids at a coed school to do this, and they’ll fall on the floor laughing. But the culture of dating is much healthier than the culture of the hookup, in which the primary form of sexual intimacy is a girl on her knees servicing a boy.”
..................................................................................
Education scholarship has contributed surprisingly little to the debate over single-sex public education. In 2005, the United States Department of Education, along with the American Institute for Research, tried to weigh in, publishing a meta-analysis comparing single-sex and coed schooling. The authors started out with 2221 citations on the subject that they then whittled down to 40 usable studies. Yet even those 40 studies did not yield strong results: 41% favored single-sex schools, 45% found no positive or negative effects for either single-sex or coed schools, 6% were mixed (meaning they found positive results for one gender but not the other) and 8% favored coed schools. This meta-analysis is part of a larger project by the Department of Education being led by Cornelius Riordan, a Providence College professor. He explained to me that such muddled findings are the norm for education research on school effects. School-effects studies try to answer questions like whether large schools are better than small schools or whether charter schools are better than public schools. The effects are always small. So many variables are at play in a school: quality of teachers, quality of the principal, quality of the infrastructure, involvement of families, financing, curriculum—the list is nearly endless. Riordan says, “You’re never going to be able to compare two types of schools and say, ‘The data very strongly suggests that schools that look like A are better than schools that look like B.’ ”

That certainly appears to be the case for single-sex schools. The data do not suggest that they’re clearly better for all kids. Nor do they suggest that they’re worse. The most concrete findings from the research on single-sex schools come from studies of Catholic schools, which have a long history of single-sex education, and suggest that while single-sex schools may not have much of an impact on the educational achievement of white, middle-class boys, they do measurably benefit poor and minority students.
According to Riordan, disadvantaged students at single-sex schools have higher scores on standardized math, reading, science and civics tests than their counterparts in coed schools. There are two prevailing theories to explain this: one is that single-sex schools are indeed better at providing kids with a positive sense of themselves as students, to compete with the antiacademic influences of youth culture; the other is that in order to end up in a single-sex classroom, you need to have a parent who has made what educators call “a pro-academic choice.” You need a parent who at least cares enough to read the notices sent home and go through the process of making a choice—any choice.
..............................................................................
But schools, inevitably, present many curriculums, some overt and some subtle; and critics argue that with Sax’s model comes a lesson that our gender differences are primary, and this message is at odds with one of the most foundational principles of America’s public schools. Given the myriad ways in which our schools are failing, it may be hard to remember that public schools were intended not only to instruct children in reading and math but also to teach them commonality, tolerance and what it means to be American. “When you segregate, by any means, you lose some of that,” says Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation. “Even if one could prove that sending a kid off to his or her own school based on religion or race or ethnicity or gender did a little bit better job of raising the academic skills for workers in the economy, there’s also the issue of trying to create tolerant citizens in a democracy.”
I think it's good that more public schools are offering this as an option, particularly if it helps kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. I was in a multi-grade-level classroom for part of elementary school (which the developmental neurologist quoted above cited as her personal preference for dealing with developmental differences in school) and I thought it was a shame that so many schools dropped those programs after a brief flurry of interest in them in the '70s. I don't think, though, that being in class with only kids (and, I guess, only teachers?) of your own sex is for every kid, so I'd hope it stays just that--an option.

And, as always when I read about the Latest Big Idea(?) in addressing some troubling trend in education, I wonder how much of the "problem" is not so much due to some hardwired innate reality that we've heretofore failed to grasp, as it is to an inability or failure on parents' part to prepare their children to negotiate the school environment...parents who take no interest in their kids' schooling; parents who are too quick to seek medication "fixes" for temporary problems; boys who have no male mentors; single mothers who are too overwhelmed with their own problems to effectively address their kids' issues; fathers who coddle their daughters in childhood then pull away from them when they become adolescents...etc., etc.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 11:24 PM   #2
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:54 AM
Re: Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

My initial, non-thought-through reaction is multilayered. First, why am I not surprised that another non-educator is telling educators how to do their jobs. Second, it seems as if the minute girls get any kind of upper hand, the boys whine and demand action. Third, I too worry about segregation of any kind. Fourth, the fact that these kids' parents are involved enough to make this kind of a choice and then follow through with it matters more than nearly anything any teacher can do.

Fifth, you are right on the money here:
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
as it is to an inability or failure on parents' part to prepare their children to negotiate the school environment...parents who take no interest in their kids' schooling; parents who are too quick to seek medication "fixes" for temporary problems; boys who have no male mentors; single mothers who are too overwhelmed with their own problems to effectively address their kids' issues; fathers who coddle their daughters in childhood then pull away from them when they become adolescents...etc., etc.
And sixth, it all just might work.
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
Old 03-03-2008, 01:07 AM   #3
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:54 PM
There are so many issues here...

How will social interaction change? Who's going to bitch first when college attendance and careers start making a shift?

How do you make equality guarantees when you are practicing segregation?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 08:05 AM   #4
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
How will social interaction change?
This is what I was thinking about later in the evening. US society isn't segregated. Both boys and girls need to learn how to deal with each other on a variety of levels. Missing out on that opportunity when young may not be a good thing.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 03-03-2008, 08:31 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Re: Re: Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

Quote:
Originally posted by martha
First, why am I not surprised that another non-educator is telling educators how to do their jobs.
As long as the "non-educators" are paying the bills (school taxes), they will feel the need to make an input.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 09:12 AM   #6
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:54 AM
Re: Re: Re: Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


As long as the "non-educators" are paying the bills (school taxes), they will feel the need to make an input.
I understand, but this guy isn't yer average taxpayer. He's another PhD who's never set foot inside a K-12 classroom as a teacher. Even the superintendent of my rather large district was a classroom teacher for years. It makes a difference.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 03-03-2008, 03:44 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Re: Re: Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Second, it seems as if the minute girls get any kind of upper hand, the boys whine and demand action.
An extraordinary statement, not just in the prejudice it seems to reveal, but also in the lack of reaction to it, thus far.

Imagine if you will the kind of reaction which would be seen on FYM to the following statements-

'It seems as if the minute heterosexuals get any kind of upper hand, the homosexuals whine and demand action.'

'It seems as if the minute whites get any kind of upper hand, the blacks whine and demands action.'

....etc.





Some forms of prejudice, however, are not only acceptable but ACTIVELY APPROVED of by the modern-day 'liberal.'
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 04:09 PM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:54 PM
I think your male discrimination radar is turned on too high and you missed her point completely.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 04:13 PM   #9
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Re: Re: Re: Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


An extraordinary statement, not just in the prejudice it seems to reveal, but also in the lack of reaction to it, thus far.

Imagine if you will the kind of reaction which would be seen on FYM to the following statements-

'It seems as if the minute heterosexuals get any kind of upper hand, the homosexuals whine and demand action.'

'It seems as if the minute whites get any kind of upper hand, the blacks whine and demands action.'

....etc.





Some forms of prejudice, however, are not only acceptable but ACTIVELY APPROVED of by the modern-day 'liberal.'
Isn't it more the reverse of what you said in those two cases?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 04:13 PM   #10
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:54 PM
martha can respond to that if she likes (constructively please), but I'd like to emphasize at this point that what I was looking for was a discussion of what people think about the general idea of same-sex education in public schools. Is it a good idea or a bad one, have you perhaps seen from experience where IYO it benefits kids (or doesn't), do you think it's likely to address the problems of underperforming/ADD boys or adolescent girls' self-esteem issues, etc.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 05:52 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
onebloodonelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,106
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


This is what I was thinking about later in the evening. US society isn't segregated. Both boys and girls need to learn how to deal with each other on a variety of levels. Missing out on that opportunity when young may not be a good thing.
That would be my biggest issue with segregation. I could see how it would work in some situations, but in the overwhelming majority, I can't see this having a good outcome. Eventually, boys and girls will have to work with each other.

But, on the other hand, it has been proven time and time again that boys and girls progress at different speeds and learn in different ways. This could be a good way to enhance and embrace those differences.

Though, I went to a "regular" school, and I don't think there were really any issues. I got annoyed with both stupid boys and girls. In my experience, my school needed more "gifted" programs, not segregation by gender.
__________________
onebloodonelife is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 05:55 PM   #12
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:54 AM
Re: Re: Re: Single-Sex Education in Public Schools

Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Some forms of prejudice, however, are not only acceptable but ACTIVELY APPROVED of by the modern-day 'liberal.'
When you can quote me approving of any discrimination, actively approving of it, not just you jumping to conclusions based on your interpretations of my posts, we'll talk further about this.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 03-03-2008, 05:56 PM   #13
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I think your male discrimination radar is turned on too high and you missed her point completely.
That would it, yes.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 03-03-2008, 07:32 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 01:54 PM
I guess my two main objections to this are:

1. Limiting the social interaction between boys and girls. As other posters have pointed out, real life is not segregated by gender. Members of both sexes need to learn to interact with each other.

2. I'm afraid the girls will get a "dumbed down" version of what the boys learn - particularly in math and science.
__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 07:58 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
lynnok's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Der Sunshine State
Posts: 3,896
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Remember that these children have brothers and sisters, live in the community, participate in coed extra curriculars and have ample opportunities for interaction.

If single sex instruction affords a more
conducive atmosphere to learn I find it difficult to understand how self-esteem would take a hit. I don't believe self esteem can be taught. It can be built and the best way to build it is through accomplishment.
With that being true, setting up an atmosphere where learning can happen will build self esteem on its own.

My sibling and I are both products of single sex education. Neither of us have noticed an inability to interact with
members of the opposite sex nor does he suffer from lack of self esteem.

Considering the national drop-out rate,
if this is a way to reach children who have difficulties learning in a traditional classroom setting I see it as a win/win situation.
__________________

__________________
lynnok is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com