Male/Female Only Classrooms

[Hosnon]

I do not doubt that this topic has been discussed before on DU but I either did not see it or do not remember it. I had a conversation with a friend today about the issue and wanted to utilize the laser-like analytical power of DU to see what it's all about.

My first reaction was support. Most of what I have seen indicates that the segregated classrooms increase academic performance for both sexes (although, another friend disputed this regarding male performance).

However, my friend pointed out that she had mostly male friends growing up and that such a system, while academically beneficial, may stunt child development in other areas, e.g., socially.

As a pre-emptive matter, there does not seem to be the same constitutional problem there was with "separate but equal". The same school and teachers would be used by both sexes, just at different time periods. I do, however, acknowledge a potential problem in that this line of thinking could justify same race classrooms. But, it would need to be shown that different races learn differently, as research seems to indicate regarding the two sexes. Personally, I do not think that such a difference exists between the races. If it did, my "position" would require an overhaul.

So...let me know what you think!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I think it's a terrible idea.

I'd want no part of it, personally.

[Hosnon]

9. What do you think makes it a terrible idea?

I'm trying to get all the angles.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. A number of things.

One, I think the idea of segregating classroom based on anything other than learning level is wrong, period. With a few exceptions in extreme conditions, for example, that Harvey Milk school for gay, bi, and transgender kids that were victims of homophobe seemed like a good idea.

Two, teaching kids that you can solve problems via segregation also strikes me as a bad idea.

Three, for every study and piece of anecdotal evidence supporting the idea, there are other studies and anecdotal evidence going the other way.

Four, if I were still a kid and was told I couldn't be in the same class with the girls, I'd be pissed right the fuck off.

[Hosnon]

91. Thanks much!

I'm beginning to get a good grasp on this idea.

[SharonAnn]

2. In my grade and high school, it was girls on one side of the room and boys on the other.

Of course, it was a private school

But, that gave us coed class without some of the "interaction" that's a problem.

[Hosnon]

11. Interesting modification. Was there some kind of partition between

the two sexes?

I wonder how much of a barrier between the two sexes is needed to supposedly increase academic performance...

[SharonAnn]

63. No, there was no barrier. And it wasn't the same as all one gender.

But, it probably did help keep us a little more focused.

[Hosnon]

92. Thanks. NT.

[China_cat]

3. It's just another way to engrain the idea that girls aren't as smart as boys.

[Hosnon]

12. Wouldn't that cut both ways?

A friend of mine (former teacher) said she saw where females benefit more from this than males.

[Sadie4629]

61. Don't think that's it at all

Personally, I believe that boys and girls do learn differently, and that's based both on my experience as a teacher and as the parent of two (gifted) boys.

1. Girls learn best in a cooperative environment, and boys learn best in a competitive environment. Schools need to use those differences to the advantage of both boys and girls.

2. Boys tend to be a HUGE distraction to the girls, no matter what age. Little boys can be gross and nasty, and teen-age boys--well, you know. I remember, as a child--and it was a very loooooooong time ago--I didn't want to speak up in class because of comments from boys.

JMO

[China_cat]

65. You're probably right. But I can guarantee you that isn't the

way it'll be used.

Growing up we had classes that were strictly for boys and classes that were strictly for girls and the lines were not allowed to blur. (And yes, this was a public school) Girls were not permitted to take shop, physics, calculus or Latin. Boys were not permitted to take home ec, typing or any business courses.

I don't want to see those days come back. I've got granddaughters I want better for.

[Sadie4629]

67. OMG! How old are you?!?

I'm 51, and there was no discrimination in academics in my high school! One of my best friends was known as the school math genius (ended up in engineering,) and my sister's boyfriend took home ec!

There was a HUGE gap in opportunities for boys and girls in sports, though. Our school had NOTHING available to girls--not even gymnastics or swimming.

Edited to add: I meant no offense by the question in my subject line. Guess I figure that once I turned 50, I CAN ask other women their ages!

[China_cat]

69. Not that much older...10 years.

But in an area that had very strict standards for education. Approved by the state.

Hell, although we were allowed married female teachers they had to quit if they got pregnant and having a drink was grounds for dismissal even in the summer.

[riderinthestorm]

78. 45 here, public school and we weren't allowed to cross over into shop

and the boys weren't allowed to cross over into home ec. There were other classes too I just can't remember which ones.

I think sex segregated classrooms are a real mistake - just like there are boys who love to sew, cook, and create the perfect home, and girls who love to build furniture, tinker with re-wiring gadgets, and change their own oil - there are too many exceptions to the rule about girls/cooperative environment and boys/competitive environment. Trying to boil different learning styles down to such simplistic terms is a real disservice to both genders.

(from an extremely competitive learner who LOVED to put the boys in their place academically).

[lukasahero]

126. 43 and same here

Actually, a friend of mine broke the barrier in our senior year in high school. She wanted to be an engineer but, as a girl, was not allowed to take Mechanical Drawing (never mind "shop"). She had to fight to get permission to do so. Graduated 4 years later from a very prestigious school - 4.0 Civil Engineering. It's a good thing she and her father had the guts to fight for that right - in 1980!

[Katherine Brengle]

70. I always learned best in a competitive environment...

and last I checked, no evidence of a penis...

I hate generalizations like this. Every girl I knew in school thrived on competition, as did many of the boys.

[PassingFair]

Holy Cow, I agree with you, Katherine Brengle!

:)

[PassingFair]

83. Then we should separate them in the workplace too?

Just makes sense, no?

Buzzer

[TahitiNut]

121. "Separate but equal"??

Workplace. Bedrooms. Schools.

Yup ... turn the whole world into toilets. :rofl:

[Evoman]

124. That is not true as far as I can see.

All the girls I know are WAYYYY more competetive than the guys (I've taught university lab courses, and this is my experience). The girls will do anything--go get help after class, get tutors, even scrounge for marks--in order to get a high grade. Most of the guys I have taught (and the ones I have met in university) are content just to get a good mark, and don't care what their peers get. The girls consistently kick the boys asses in every lab that I ever taught.

Yes, I am generalizing, but I have not experienced what you have at all.

[lukasahero]

131. Assuming you know you're talking in generalities,

what happens to those kids who don't "fit the mold"? The girls who don't learn best in cooperative environments and the boys who don't learn best in competitive ones? Do we just leave them to their "fate"? (Asks she who definitely broke the mold.)

[fishwax]

132. welcome to DU

:toast:

[Deep13]

4. Well, yeah, I don't want cooties.

We should do it.

[karash]

5. .

Actually, there "is" research that different races learn differently. Check out "The Bell Curve."

Segregating learning is a foolish idea, and even the most noble motivations behind it are merely attempting to deal with symptoms, not causes, of the problems they worry about.

[benddem]

10. the bell curve?

surely that was snark wasn't it? That was written by two of the biggest racists in the country and was widely discredited.

[Hosnon]

15. Credible research...nt.

[Dora]

32. "The Bell Curve" is racist drivel, and widely discredited. n/t

[Hosnon]

33. Thank you. Implicit in my definition of "research" is that it is largely accurate. NT.

[Sadie4629]

62. I haven't read it

but I know someone who has. Said the book's theory is something about the evolution of social classes based on intellect. Smart people tend to breed with other smart people and produce smart offspring, who will end up making more money than the less smart people, who will breed with other less smart people and produce more unsmart people. He told me there is ONE section of the book that deals with race, and is offensive. The rest of it kind of makes sense.

[JHB]

118. The rest "kind of makes sense" only by, shall we say, unrigorous examination

One of the things that made "The Bell Curve" so reprehensible is the lawyerly way it handled the science: it sidestepped or ignored whole bodies of research that show that intelligence (and what makes one "intelligent" or not) is very complex (far more than TBC treats it) and doesn't lend itself to such "breeding". (Far greater and more obvious factors are social status and background.)

Read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. It pretty much refuted all the "science" in TBC, even though it was published some ten years earlier.

The real agenda of TBC and those who promote it can be seen from the conclusions they draw: If I recall correctly, the book attributed intelligence to about 60% nature and 40% nurture, with a pretty wide margin of error (10%? 20%? Enough to make the factors equal or even reverse them, which would turn the premise of the book on its head). So what do the proponents argue? For cutting scholastic aid for "less intelligent" groups because they can never truly put it to full use. Insufficient rate of return. (as if people should be measured with financial terms).

They never use TBC to argue for more aid, on the grounds that if that 40% is the part we can affect from the outside, we have an obligation to try to MAXIMIZE that 40%.

[JHB]

107. There's nothing in "The Bell Curve" that wasn't refuted 10 years previously...

...in "The Mismeasure of Man".

[fishwax]

136. Gould released another edition after TBC, in order to counter

that new book. I believe that he said, as he went back through his original text, he was surprised that he didn't have to change much at all--it already read like a deliberate response to the bell curve :rofl:

Mismeasure is a really good read, though :)

[fishwax]

135. the bell curve? Why not just cite phrenology? I suggest the book Mismeasure of Man

by Stephen Jay Gould.

The Bell Curve is racist bullshit, and it builds on a long tradition of racist bullshit attempting to exploit science to "prove" that blacks are inferior intellectually.

[redqueen]

6. I think there might be better ways

to deal with different learning styles.

[Hosnon]

22. Perhaps the parents could have the option to segregate?

Maybe after an learning aptitude test?

[redqueen]

34. Perhaps...

though that might open up the way to increased (and, to some people, unnecessary?) costs.

[Hosnon]

36. Right. Growing up, our schools had "pods". Each pod was a group

of teachers that circulated the same students. I think we had 3 or 4 of them each year.

Perhaps one of them could be segregated?

[KamaAina]

29. Ding ding ding!

We have a winner! How much of the alleged "gender-based" difference is really coming from learning styles that are associated with a particular gender? Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the visual learning style is associated with boys. Under separate-sex, what becomes of a girl who happens to be a visual learner? She's screwn!

[Hosnon]

31. That came up today. Either system, if taken as all or nothing, is going to

disadvantage someone.

A boy that would learn better without girls present is screwn (love that word) in the current system. And a girl that would learn better with boys present is screwn if there is a change.

[KamaAina]

Screwn

is a mock FReeper word, like "moran" or "HUGH!!!111!!!111". Someone over on The Dark Side actually used it thinking it was a real word. Another instant DU classic!

[Hosnon]

45. Oh I'm quite familiar with the word:)

Never actually had the chance to use it myself.

[redqueen]

35. Screwn indeed... IMO it would benefit everyone

to observe and experience a variety of learning styles, so that they might better relate to each other and understand each other's differences.

[Truthseeker013]

7. Male/Female Only Classrooms

Lousy idea, IMO. Sure, there might be benefits to teaching the sexes separately. What do you do when both sexes have to step into the real world, where there's no separation?

[Hosnon]

16. That was one of the primary concerns of the woman I was talking about it with.

She pointed out that we acquire more than just academic knowledge in school.

[Amelie]

140. I went to a same-sex school

And I actually think I was better prepared to be around young men when I graduated. So many young women compromise who they are because they don't appreciate their own value, and don't develop close friendships with other girls because they don't recognize how important and strong we are for each other. All they want to do is be the most popular girl in school; approval is the goal, not self-confidence. My school emphasized how important women are in the world, especially for each other. When I went out into the "real world" I was confident enough in myself not to feel the need to change who I am for the approval of someone else. I also developed life-long friendships and a vast support system, which many women lack.

I'm not saying every girl needs this environment, but I think most of the girls in co-ed schools focus too much energy on trying to get other people to like them, instead of learning to love who they are. Same-sex environments provide this opportunity.

[theoldman]

27. In the real world they are much older and as I said in my other

post, the hormones have slowed down.

[Pithlet]

8. As long as it stays out of the public schools, I'm fine with it.

If people want to pay money to send their kids to same sex schools, that's their business. I think it's a waste of money, if that is the primary reason they chose the school, but that's just my opinion.

[Hosnon]

17. Do you think it would be beneficial or not?

Or is your problem with it that it may be unconstitutional (and thus should be kept out of public schools)?

[Pithlet]

24. I think the benefits being touted are questionable.

I won't say flat out that I don't believe there are no benefits. There may be children who, due to unique circumstances, may be helped by such classrooms. But I don't think there are clear, defined, measurable benefits in evidence that this would help the general population in improving education, and I'm not sure those that may exist aren't outweighed by the possible negative consequences. I would not choose this for my boys, that is for certain. I would not risk that they perceive the opposite sex as some mysterious other, over there in that separate building. And I wouldn't support this as a general movement in education because of the very real risks this could set back progress that has been made for sexual equality. Those are very real concerns. Whether or not it is constitutional, I believe in public education as being accessible to all, and not exclusionary. I know there are charter public schools that exclude based on merit. I do not feel a public school funded by taxpayers should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race or sex, and I don't believe in going around that with a separate but equal solution.

[Hosnon]

28. Fair enough. I'm about in the same place.

Given good research on the subject, I'd be willing to give it a shot.

The main reason why I posted is to begin to get an idea of what the possible negative and positive effects would be.

And as I said in my OP, I don't think the same constitutional issues are present here that were present in the era of "separate but equal". However, I do concede there may be other constitutional problems.

[theoldman]

13. Heres my two cents worth.

When children are young there are not too aware of the other sex. Girls tend to stick with girls and boys with boys. When they go to high school it's a different story. Their hormones are revving up and the opposite sex tends to become a distraction. I have never known a person having a problem in later life from going to a school that separated girls from boys. By the time they get to college the hormones have settled down and there is less problem. Children can always get together after school.

[Hosnon]

18. I was thinking perhaps they should not be segregated until high school or

there abouts.

That is the time that my attention began to be fought for between females and school.

[Book Lover]

56. I, on the other hand, know many

I went to an all-girls school for 12 years; my husband went to an all-boys school for high school. Not a one friend of his said that they benefited from being segregated from females; on the contrary, if they had gone to school with them during high school, they would have realized that females are not some foreign creature but instead the other half of the human race. And frankly, as an outside observer to their dating lives, they are right. As for myself, I feel very much the same way. I relate better to men than I do to women - I would have been much better served by mixed-sex classes.

on edit: I forgot to mention something else: I never, ever, ever felt the "sisterhood" was in operation, either. I have no friends from any of my 12 years in single-sex schools. The social network was very narrow, and for those of us who did not fit in, well, we were simply screwed.

[Hosnon]

93. So far I think the consensus is that it is neutral, if not beneficial, to

women and neutral, at best, to men.

I only learned via this thread how intimidated the girls were by our "taunts".

[Book Lover]

120. I am surprised I am the only woman who had a bad time of it

Or maybe I am the only "non-popular in high school girl" posting in this thread. Someone down below said that there was much less social pressure because there were no boys around. I found that gap was filled by money, social class, and perceived heterosexuality. Plenty of ways to keep their peers down...

[no_hypocrisy]

14. I'm the product of an an independent all women's college in VA.

I went co-ed to public school K-12, my grad school, and law school.

The difference may be in the age group for reasons of socialization. The world is co-ed and you need to be exposed to the obvious double standard inherent in the way the two genders are treated and how they interact.

However, in defense of single sex education, it was a relief to be in college without men for several reasons. One, I participated in class discussions on a regular basis and my contributions were taken seriously. Contrasted with the catcalls I got in law school when I tried to replicate my ability to answer a question that no one else would touch. Two, I was given opportunities of leadership without fear of being portrayed as unfeminine or Hillary-like if you know what I mean. Three, the professors took me and other students seriously because, like it or not, we were their bread and butter.

[Hosnon]

19. Thanks for the reply.

I'm thinking that it may not be such a great idea when the children are young. School, at that age, is about more than just grades. However, as they age and academics becomes a greater emphasis, perhaps segregation wouldn't be that bad of an idea...perhaps at least an option.

I think your experience definitely points out the plus side(s) of the system. Do you think that your education in college was "stunted" because the male view was not sufficiently offered?

[no_hypocrisy]

38. Do you think that your education in college was "stunted"

because the male view was not sufficiently offered?

Yes and no.

No, because ca. 50% of our professors were men who were articulate and generous with their opinions. They gave as well as they got and we gave it to them big time. And to be honest, I didn't miss the "male point of view" from peers my age. I simply didn't know their absence. In high school, not many compatriots (male or female) did class participation, so I really didn't have much to compare college against. And if I had to put up with the catcalls from the male peanut gallery like I did in law school, I'm not sure whether I would have participated more as a defensive mechanism or just sat like a stone.

Yes, because there were times I got tired of just hearing from the woman's point. It was the mid to late 70's and feminism was brought into discussion of literature, history, art, etc. There were times I wanted a wider perspective such as the impact of business, finance, and the world to which we were to be released. I estimate that I might have had a broader spectrum in class discussions had men participated.

BTW, I didn't exactly chose to go to my college. My dad "let" me choose between two all womens colleges that accepted me to which I was directed to apply. Interesting and ironic, isn't it?

[Hosnon]

40. Well you seem like the perfect specimen to pick at...

:)

One worry of mine is that many discussions would become self-feeding. One of the criticisms advanced by feminism is that a male dominated dialog doesn't even recognize itself as such. However, steps could be taken to correct this problem. The professors could be directed to be sure to interject if s/he thought one viewpoint was getting too much play.

Did you find that many/most of the women spoke up more often or was it just you?

[no_hypocrisy]

48. I'd say ca. 85 to 90 percent. But then again, the classes were smaller

such as a music theory class that was only four students. Nowhere to hide and you had to be prepared to the max every class. The downside was you often heard opinions you wish you didn't have to be exposed to. Such an example was a women's history class wherein one classmate ingenuously opined that she never asked her boyfriend for anything; rather, she would manage it so "he thinks it was his idea". This calibre of student was there for her MRS degree.

[XemaSab]

82. That's a cynical response

That's like saying if a girl in high school gets her ass grabbed by a teacher she should just forget about it 'cause that's how the world works. :shrug:

[Justitia]

20. I loved my time in women-only classes, my grades were much better & I developed strong friendships

I loved it. The pressure of looking stupid in front of boys was completely removed. We all seemed more emboldened to speak up during discussions. The competition factor was significantly ratcheted down. Great feelings of camaraderie and empathy. My grades were very, very good during this time, which I attribute to greater concentration and not being afraid to raise my hand and ask questions.

I made great friendships during those times which have lasted a lifetime. It was really a fun, nurturing experience.

As far as socialization goes, well, ALL our boyfriends were hanging outside by 3 pm, so that was never a problem!
Girls schools are a powerful magnet for boys. hee, hee

[Hosnon]

23. I'm beginning to see that it at least benefits some females to do it this way.

Might I ask what level of schooling you were in during the female only classes?

[Justitia]

26. High school. I did half in girls-only, half in co-ed, so I experienced both. -eom

[Hosnon]

30. Thanks.

So would you say you generally support the idea? Can you help us pinpoint the possible negative consequences?

[Justitia]

37. Yes, I definitely support it as a choice. I can't really pinpoint any

negatives from my own experience. I did half and half, so even comparing them side by side, I can't see any negatives on the girls-only side.

I distinctly remember feeling more engaged in my studies and feeling a greater sense of camaraderie.
I remember feeling like the other young women in my school were more invested in ALL of us doing well, I guess I would chalk that up to a more "community" like feeling.
I distinctly remember feeling less competition.

I remember that more girls were involved in sports in my girls-only high school. I don't know why, if that means they were less embarrassed about trying out, or less self-conscious about playing while boys were around, not sure, but it was a marked difference.

I did well in both settings (girls only & co-ed), but I definitely did better in the girls-only atmosphere and I probably felt more comfortable and at ease with girls-only during the school day.
It definitely made things like having pimples and periods easier to deal with - ha!

I think you will find more positive responses than negative from those of us that have done both.

[Hosnon]

44. Great input. Thanks a lot!

So far no similar stories from the male viewpoint...

[Justitia]

49. I see some posters concerned w/socializing. Where I was, there were always young men around.

This was high school, so most of my friends had other siblings living in the house with them. In other words, when I went to my friends homes, they usually had brothers and their friends there.

We had young men of the same age living all over our neighborhood (Philly), we had gone to grade school together, so of course I still saw them almost every day.

My school sponsored dances very often, so they encouraged social mixing.

And yes, boys waited in virtual packs outside the doors of our school, every day. And they were in the malls, the pizza places, movies, etc. There was no shortage of boys! Much to my parents chagrin - ha!

I think some people have the idea that girls who attend girls-only schools are somehow isolated from boys and that is wrong - unless you are talking a girls-only boarding school.

[Hosnon]

94. I'll put you in the "Possibly Good Idea" column, yes? NT.

[Warpy]

21. It needs to be done in middle school

where the kids are social savages, unsure of their own sexuality, and most prone to bullying and being bullied. There seems to be real benefit in having single sex classes in both math and language. Boys don't feel stupider than girls in language and lash out. Girls don't feel stupider than boys in math and get depressed.

It's worth trying, anyway.

[Hosnon]

25. I tentatively support trying the idea if there is enough research to support it.

And I think the time when boys and girls begin to "notice" each other would be a proper time to try it out.

[Warpy]

76. Some research has been done

and the results were positive for both sexes.

We just have to make sure that the separate classes are not in separate schools with separate teaching staff. That, as we know too well, is the route to a "separate but equal" that is anything BUT. The boys will always be better funded than the girls if that is allowed to happen.

Time heals much of the social savagery of the middle school kid. By the time they get to high school, they're a little more able to cope with each other.

[Hosnon]

95. I agree.

Complete separation, boarding school style, would be less beneficial, in my opinion. Plus there are the constitutional issues...

[valerief]

39. I think segregation by gender is as retarded an idea as segregation by ethnicity. nt

[rexcat]

41. How about Male only / Female only workplaces while were are at it...

There are social issues to consider. All male catholic high schools are a good point of reference. A friend of mine has a daughter who goes to a coed private high school (academic scholarship) and she went out on a date with a boy from one of the the local all male catholic high schools. He and his friends did not know how to act with the girls. I have heard this time and again from friends with similar experiences.

Our country is not single-sex oriented. Our workplaces are not single-sex oriented. Our society is not single-sex oriented unless you are part of several religious groups and then, IMO, the religious groups are dysfunctional when it comes to interacting with the opposite sex.

All in all a bad idea. What needs to happen in our schools is more of a teamwork approach so kids can work together in groups just like in the workplace!

[Hosnon]

46. That came up as well in my discussion today. My friend knew a woman that

went to an all girl school and my friend said she had the emotional maturity of a sixth grader when it came to men.

However, one other poster here noted that the guys were waiting right outside of her school door when the bell rang. The best way to deal with this, if the idea is going to be implemented, is to keep the sexes together except during class (lunch, campus, activities, etc.)

[XemaSab]

84. Teamwork sucks

The lesson there, as in life, is that it's easier to do the whole thing your own damn self. :P

[theboss]

138. Wellesley grads seem to do ok

I find the socialization arguments to be generally filled with anecdotes and little more. If you want your kid to know how to "socialize" with members of the opposite sex, put them in a church youth group or a co-ed soccer team or something. There's a million ways to teach socialization.

And frankly, all I learned about socialization at my high school was never to piss off the football players lest they kick the shit out of me.

[JacksonWest]

42. Separating the sexes is usually done to limit distractions, not to accommodate

different learning styles. Men and women do think/behave differently, but both sexes are equally capable of absorbing knowledge and academic performance. If anyone grew up in Boston or Chicago-it shouldn't come as a surprise to hear talk about boys and girls classes. Most of my friends and relatives went to Catholic schools(in that area)-and only about half of them were catholic. Looking at it from an educators viewpoint, having one sex in the classroom would minimize a lot of the distractions that are present. It would most likely be beneficial to girls-who are often intimidated from speaking are participating in certain subjects(based on my own experience teaching).

After Brown vs Board of Education, it would be difficult for a public school to segregate sexes. Gender is a protected class in this here country of ours, don't ya know? So, what you can't do with race, you can't do with gender. Maybe there is some wiggle room there-but I don't recall any constitutional case law that supports public schools segregating students by gender for anything other then gym class. Hell, in my high school we had a few girls on the "mens" wrestling team. Currently we have a boy playing "womens" field hockey. If a parent objected, they would probably prevail in a lawsuit.

A way around it would be to offer a school of choice/magnet school. The segregation wouldn't be forced, but you would probably still get the lawsuits.

The best system of education would reward achievement, and put children on similar academic tracks in the same schools. Not everyone is going to go to college. It would be nice to teach more trades to students, as opposed to making them sit through chemistry. Almost every European country has a similar system. The academic kids test/perform into the college bound curriculum. If we did that here, there would be issues with culture and gender bias, and I doubt such a program would fly.

Oh well. Public schools are pretty fucked where we need them. Uninvolved parents and state/federal mandates, inconsistent funding, and a general mishmash of students of varying levels of ability create a huge cluster fuck. I don't oppose separating the sexes, but it doesn't seem like the first step in creating better public schools.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Personally, I Find It To Be A Ridiculous Concept.

Whatever slight differences in learning there are between sexes, you can rest assured that there are far greater differences within genders but between different personality types, intellectual capacities, family situations, etc. To isolate it by gender only would be way shortsighted if that was their goal. Aside from that, I think there are definite negative social messages brought on by it as well as a perception that there is some distinct difference between genders (aside from the obvious) when we should be striving as much as possible for a perception of equality and indifference whenever possible.

Life is full of mixed gender. Learning throughout life will be done amongst mixed genders. Experiences, challenges, careers, developments and socializing will all be done amongst mixed genders. So too then should schooling.

That's my take on it. I see no true logical reasoning for this to occur whatsoever.

[Hosnon]

47. I agree that it has the real potential of reinforcing and perhaps increasing

gender stereotypes/differences.

That is a huge obstacle. I'm leaning towards only segregating while the hormones actually physically take over, i.e., 11ish-16ish. That may lessen the effects.

No logical reasoning? Would you change your mind if there was solid evidence that it increased the academic performance of the sexes? That, to me, would be a valid reason - although it would have to be weighed against other, possibly more important, considerations.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Like I Said In My Initial Reply:

There are a ton of other segregations that could increase academic performance as well. There are probably far wider gaps in learning ability between different personality types, energy levels, family situations, eating patterns, sleeping patterns, discipline levels, tv watching frequencies etc. then there is gender. How bout we start separating classrooms that way.

Good teachers in good schools, with the help of good parents, will find ways to get the children to learn. I don't see any true logical benefit whatsoever to separating by gender and think it does more harm than good.

[Hosnon]

96. Perhaps.

I tend to think that a more real difference exists in learning ability between the sexes than anything else. Of course, I have very little to back that up (nothing more than intuition).

I'd definitely like to see more research done on the subject.

[Katherine Brengle]

72. Agreed - the only good reason I can think of is to make women

feel more comfortable in an academic setting (historically) but the only reason they wouldn't feel comfortable in the first place is that they are products of our larger environment, so maybe the environment needs changing, not the schools.

[VelmaD]

133. when you and I agree so completely on something...

people ought to take notice. :)

[HockeyMom]

51. I went to an all girls HS by my own choice

I was very shy and also very studious. I spent most of my free time as a young teenager either in a library or with my head buried in a book reading, not necessarily for school. I did not want to have to "bother" with the teenage "social" climate of a cooed HS. I went to a cooed elementary school (parochial) up to 8th grade.

I found an all girls school to be fiercely competitive, especially academically. Girls can be very brutal to other girls, perhaps even more so than when boys are involved. I had to learn to stand up for myself which can be even more difficult. Gender steroytpes are throw out the window. "Girls cannot compete in Science and Math"? Try saying that to a female Nun Math or Science Teacher. Call on the boys to answere questions in those fields? Not an option.

When I graduated at 17, I got my own apartment, a corporate job, and went to college at night. I actually think I was more prepared for this because of my HS experiences.

As with everything, CHOICE is the key.

[Hosnon]

97. Thanks for your input. NT.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

53. Well, if I recall my 1980s movies . . .

. . . this will lead to a rash of boys dressing up like girls so they can sit in the girls' class and visit the girls' locker room.

Either that or "Private School" and "Loose Screws" have betrayed me yet again.

[The2ndWheel]

54. I guess it depends on what you want out of life

A completely sterile and artificial environment, where A, B, C, and on down the line is controlled, perfect, predictable, efficient, as productive as possible at all times, machine like.

or

Life.

I like it a little messy. Some time that is completely unproductive. Hell, even a little unpredictable.

[Hosnon]

98. Is there no option in between? NT.

[The2ndWheel]

117. I'm sure there is

Any way you go though, as long as we're building around the same central ideas(relentless progress, endless growth, specialization, etc), why even have options?

If it were up to me, large scale economies that require distance and time spent away from the most important people in your life would be gone. Standardized education would be thrown out of the window, since it only serves to perpetuate the large scale way of being. Not only large scale, but increasingly similar way of being. But then I'm sort of odd that way.

I'm sure that we'll come up with something. We'll create children who are as efficient and as productive as possible, from as early in life as possible. That just seems to be the general trend of whatever progress is. You have to know where you're going to at least apply to college earlier and earlier, with a simple 4 year college experience meaning less and less. You need to map out your life from 18 to retirement(the age of which will only increase as we increase our life spans) as soon as you can, because you can't let yourself fall out of the race. All of those things and more will pretty much require that we further control childhood. Seriously, left to their own will, children are inefficient children. As we create an ever larger society, a more complex society(although, in a funny way, a less diverse one), we need them pumping in as much of their energy as is possible into the machine. Although the future needs them less and less as we automate the functions of the world. The brightest children will be needed, sure, but obviously everyone can't be the smartest child. So they will just go on consuming more and more than their parents ever did, because there won't be much for them to do. That's basically the world today anyway.

That's if we have the energy required to keep globalization going. If we don't, there are more potential expendable slaves today for the modern concentrated centers of power than at any time in human history.

[kiahzero]

55. They'll inevitably lead to de facto enforcement of gender roles.

Enforcing separation between boys and girls will cause enforcement of gender roles, as teachers no longer teach generally to everyone in the class, but rather to their stereotypes of who boys and girls are. You'd also be doing significant harm to intersex children.

Then, of course, there are the constitutional problems: it's unclear that such a program could or should pass muster against the intermediate scrutiny of the Equal Protection Clause.

It's a bad idea, all around.

[Hosnon]

100. This is one of the things we discussed and were concerned about.

Perhaps measures could be taken to decrease this like segregation after a certain age (when the teenagers could better understand why they were being separated).

And I agree there may be constitutional problems...but then again, there may not be.

[blues90]

57. Bad idea .

This sounds almost like the first step in concentration camps just before being lead to the gas chambers .

If boys and girls are separate in school how do they learn the social aspects later on . Male or female , everyone is different and needs to be able to learn how to work things out and learn how to relate .

I grew up in public schools and we ahd no division and I would have lost out much if there were . Just my Opinion .

[Hosnon]

101. My friend was quite concerned about the lack of social education this

could lead to.

However, it would be possible to keep the kids together at all other times (lunch, breaks, after school activities, etc.) to foster social interaction between the sexes.

[Turbineguy]

58. Females and Males

are different and it ain't just the plumbing.

Interrupting the interaction especially during the puberty years might reduce disruption or distraction.

But if you are going to segregate based on sex, I can see a problem because where do the homosexuals fit in?

[Hosnon]

103. Extremely good point. I'm going to address that downthread.

Students confused about their gender may be the Achilles' Heel of such an idea.

[frogcycle]

59. if all the classrooms are Male/Female only

where does everyone else go?

[conscious evolution]

60. Metarie La used to segregate boys and girls in HS

My family lived there during my Sophmore year.It definitely kept me more focused on class instead of the cute girl.But it was hell on my dating life because,being new to town,I didn't have the oppurtunities to meet girls through the usual means.

[Hosnon]

104. Gracias. NT.

[left is right]

64. I remember reading that girls benefited greatly from single

gender classes, especially in math and science classes. They were less afraid of venturing a guess and more likely to try something new, gave less attention to the fear of being labeled brainy by the boys who sometimes equated brainy with ugly. Math and Science teachers were forced to teach to the girls' learning strengths rather than to the boys' who usually dominate the class. Schools that segregate Math and Science classes by gender graduate a higher percentage of girls that go on to become scientist and engineers. Both teachers and female students usually think it is win-win,

[Katherine Brengle]

73. This is a larger social problem, not a schooling problem.

Those girls wouldn't feel ashamed if society didn't tell them they aren't supposed to be good at math and science.

The culture needs changing, not the schools.

[BluePatriot]

74. Good idea

I think I would have liked it in math and science classes. The rest could always be both genders together. I was great at math until middle school, and because of the teasing from boys, once I fell behind on all those concepts that build on themselves, like algebra, I never really caught up. Science classes had better teachers I think and I wound up doing OK but did not take much higher science. It was never reinforced to me that opting out of higher math and science classes was unacceptable and that being perfect at the subjects did not matter. If it was, maybe I'd have a job I like today.

[Hosnon]

105. Another poster suggested separating these type of core classes, leaving

the electives integrated.

This may be a good approach.

[Solo_in_MD]

66. Mixed Results IMO

Women seem to benefit/emjoy single gender education more, as shown by some of the posts here. Some anecdotal evidence that it may help black males the most, who are doing the worst in the current system. I also have personally seen that all boy K-12s can be real testosterone factories which can stomp on the smaller/weaker boys. Its a real mixed bag

Part of me is horrified at the concept, but another part recognizes that it may have serious benefits for some students. Not sure there is universal optimum solution, but do think it should at least be considered as an option for those who choose it, and would like to see some data on it from a neutral position in a public school environment, or perhaps a magnet school.

If it really produces better results for a substantive amount of students it should find a place in part of public school education, a system which by any measure is no longer performing at the levels we as a nation need it to.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Yea, a serious problem with all boys schools is that they tend to fight more...

When there are no girls around. One college I visited said that the reason they had co-ed dorms was to keep the guys from fighting.

[Hosnon]

106. We seem to be in the same place about this.

I need more research.

[gravity]

68. If there are proven benefits from it

than I say it could be a good idea.

There should still be classes where both sexes are taught together though.

[Dastard Stepchild]

71. I was planning on going to an all-girls HS...

The location wasn't very workable, which saddened me, but I was very much looking forward to it. But if you were to ask me why, I don't think I could give an exact reason. I think I felt it would be more supportive.

[Madspirit]

75. Bad Idea

...BECAUSE I think there are some problems with sexually integrated classrooms, is exactly why I think they should stay integrated. Deal with the problems. Segregation is never an answer, imo.

Teach boys to be more cooperative and girls to be more competitive. Separate but equal is a contradiction in terms. It doesn't work and someone always suffers.
Lee

[Katherine Brengle]

77. Exactly - I've said it 3 times in this thread already - our culture is the problem - fix the culture

not the schools.

[Hosnon]

108. Regarding the separate but equal problem:

I don't think it would be much more of a constitutional problem than the system is now.

Each teacher teaches about five different groups of kids (male and female) per day. Those groups are getting a similar level of "separate but equal" treatment. Would it be that much worse if the groups were single sex?

[Madspirit]

122. I'm not talking about...

...constitutional problems. I don't think it would be good for the kids, in the long run. I don't like segregation of any kind. People need to learn to live, work, learn and play...together.
Lee

[Hosnon]

125. Oh, I see.

Usually when people use the term "separate but equal" they are referring to the (un)constitutionality of a program.

I agree that separate but equal, strictly speaking, is a contradiction in terms. But I also do not think that we can (or expect to) achieve strict equality. For example, a student in an afternoon class may receive a poorer education because the teacher is tired. As a result, that student's education would not be equal to a student in the teacher's morning class.

As to the quality of the education, I do not think that having different groups of students composed of only one sex taught by the same teachers at the same school but at different times is any worse than the current system. When I was in school there were similar groups, different only in that they were composed of both sexes. I am not convinced - yet - that going the extra step and further dividing the groups based on sex would have any significant diminishing effect on equality.

[Madspirit]

129. It's not just the equality

I'm mostly concerned about the kids. If there is a problem with integrated classrooms, fix the problem. I never think segregation is a good thing. Even if they got exactly equal educations on every level, it's the splitting up the kids I don't like. We all have to live together in this world and we have to learn to do this as kids. It's like saying, well, there are problems between the races so let's separate the races. No, let's deal with the problems. We really have to learn to live together.
Lee

[MrSlayer]

79. It was better for me to be in an all-boys high school.

I went to a co-ed school for the second half of sophomore year and that was the only year I ever failed anything. I was so distracted by and busy with the girls I didn't do a damn thing. I went back to the all-boys school the next year and resumed my spot on the honor roll. For me, it was better to be segregated.

[Hosnon]

109. Wow...interesting. Thanks. NT.

[XemaSab]

80. I go back and forth on it

I've had mostly male friends, even in school, and while part of me thinks you'd miss something in a segregated classroom, part of me remembers how DISTRACTING the lads were in school.

I think maybe a school where core classes were segregated and electives were integrated. :shrug:

[Hosnon]

110. I like this idea.

And I too go back and forth.

[Bronyraurus]

81. My mom supports it

having went to a segregated school. I went to an all-boys high school, and it rocked. We all had female friends from nearby schools, so it didn't feel like we missed out. It also made classroom discussions a bit more raunchy, which was great.

And it was wonderful to have class begin with the teacher saying, "All right, men. Today..."

But I doubt that it's viable on a large scale, or even desirable.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. In discussion oriented classes I think it's a horrible idea

If you're going to have a class discussion, you want the perspectives of people of both genders.

As far as math and science go, perhaps I would've paid a bit more attention in Chemistry and Geometry if there hadn't been any girls in the class. But I did fine in both of those classes and I don't remember anyone claiming that they had trouble because they were distracted by members of the opposite sex. The only real distraction to education is that a student has no interest or motivation to learn.

I'm sure that our President* is glad that we're all asking is our children learning?

[Hosnon]

111. Right. I think it is important in classes such as literature to have the female

and male perspective. However, couldn't that be accomplished with an opposite sex teacher?

[lukasahero]

130. I'm not sure a teacher can represent the same level of thinking

An opposite sex teacher would likely lead the discussion and would certainly bring a more mature/educated perspective to it whereas opposite sex kids would bring age relevant perspectives and be a totally different learning environment than one led by an opposite sex teacher.

[Hosnon]

134. Yes, that may be.

Maybe the teacher for the male class and the teacher for the female class could coordinate an out of class assignment which mixes the two sexes. This way, the students could get both viewpoints.

I think that the major problem, if it exists, with integrated classrooms is the actual classroom environment.

[PassingFair]

87. Segregation for ALL!

An idea whose time has come!

[cgrindley]

88. It's a great idea

A lot of men and women have different learning styles. Men don't do well in today's less rigid, less competitive, less structured and more polite classroom.

[ChoralScholar]

89. It is very common all over the country

for Junior High Choirs to be separated by gender. This is due to the fact that the vocal mechanism is so different between boys and girls at this age, and boys need special attention to get them through their voice break. (There are also psychological issues in boys singing in front of girls, while they go through their voice change)

They sing gender-mixed from 9th grade on.

[Hosnon]

112. I was unaware of that. I guess the idea has gained limited acceptance already. NT.

[shimmergal]

90. Definitely it's good to have it as an option.

I went to an all-girls' school for one year in high school. Can't compare learning methods or results because it was in another country where there was much more rote learning, less of an analytical approach. But the atmosphere was _very_ competitive, and _very_ sports-oriented (too sports-oriented for this non-athletic girl!)

I'd say the BIG advantage is that the single-gender schools seem to lessen the relentless pressure to conform to teenage commercialized culture. Sure, there were cliques and put-downs and popularity worries, but because your place on the school social ladder did NOT depend on attracting the popular boys, these worries didn't affect one's life so completely. In retrospect, it was a great experience, not least because I learned that there's more than one way to be a teenager.

[Hosnon]

113. Thanks. NT.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

99. There are problems with it from a social point of view

The extraverts will do fine in any situation. Introverts who have come up through a single-sex environments may end up terrified of the opposite sex. (I know a couple of real-life examples.)

[Hosnon]

114. That is a very real problem. Some have suggested keeping some

of the classes integrated and the students would still share the same building, hallways, lunchroom, library, etc.

[izzybeans]

102. Why stop there? We can separate them out into living "sectors" and schedule in "interaction time"

so that the great eye of science can sit and observe their "progress". Make them all wear the same clothes, color coded for gender of course, and then schedule more time for observation. I will only support that sort of authoritarian segmentation of our population if we follow it through to its logical conclusion. Support the human quarantine! :sarcasm:

Seriously, kids learn more important things at school beyond the 2+2 and the wheel of science. We'd be intensifying an already troubled gender relation in this country. It would only highlight the differences, but hey at least they all got the 2+2 right. And then finally the educational researchers can be happy. Because that's what matters, right?

[Hosnon]

115. I acknowledged the many other important roles besides academics

that school provides.

No one is suggesting that "that's what matters".

[Hosnon]

116. Update (Additional Problem):

Segregating based on biological sex could have a very detrimental effect on children that are confused about either their gender or their sexuality.

If a segregated system of some sort is adopted, where would those children be placed? This is a tough issue and may be the issue that turns me off to the idea. Children in those situations have it bad enough without additional pressure by the school system.

Thoughts?

[dropkickpa]

119. My problem with the "it's a culture problem" answers is

what do we tell all the kids who get screwed by it in the meantime?

"Sorry, we had some things that we knew would make things better for you, but we felt that society needed to be fixed first, so just suck it up?" Seriously, we all know how long it can take to effect a signifigant change in culture, this is a cop out.

In middle school, I would have done substantially better in math if I'd had an all girls class, the boys were just too disruptive and the teacher had no patience/time to deal with a single extra thing. The two times she actually tried to help me, one or more of the boys would start acting up and she'd go to deal with them, leaving me to fend for myself. I actually got in trouble once for screaming "Shut up! I'm trying to learn this!! Shut up shut up shut up!!", and had to deal with catcalls and jeers as I was sent to the deans office for my outburst (I was yelling at two boys talking behind me). From then until my senior year of high school, I was convinced I was a math idiot and had given up trying. I managed to turn myself around on that due to the help of an amazing teacher my senior year, but most people don't get that chance.

I am the only girl in a family of 6 children (yep, I have 5 brothers), with only a 12 year age difference between the oldest and youngest, I'm in the middle. Believe me, I know how distracting boys can be even without the whole "sex" thing between the ages of 11 and 15, it's just in their nature to be a bit rambunctious in my experience, just as girls tend to be a little bit more on a hair-trigger emotionally (hence my shrieking like a banshee, as I was won't to do in that age range). I was more than capable of holding my own with boys physically and verbally, it was the distraction that was so detrimental to me. In overcrowded classrooms (my math classes in middle school had on average 26-35 students), the teacher is that much more unable to devote time to an individuals questions, and having to repeatedly keep rowdy boys in line eats up more of that time. If you had asked me which I would prefer, a solution now or a change in society, I would have told you "a change in society would be nice, but until then do something that will benefit me now."

As for the socialization side of things, I don't accept arguments against it fully, especially if there were only certain classes (such as math) separated by gender. I had an overwhelming majority of male friends, with only one that I actually went to school with. I think part of the problem is that schools are viewed as a social activity rather school. I socialized after school, away from teachers and the like. I went to public school (a not very good urban one in fact), so it's not like I got that message from the school, as for many of my classmates it was a social occassion.

There's an all girls and all boys catholic high school in my city, and I have not seen one bit of evidence that they suffered socially in any way (about 80% of the kids from my neighborhood went to these two schools, just about everyone I knew there growing up). The two schools do have a close collaboration, so maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know.

[DuaneBidoux]

123. I have very mixed emotions on this.

Perhaps giving parents an option would be a good idea.

I am a teacher and I can tell you without question that going into middle school the presence of the opposite sex is an incredible distraction. I have an honest feeling that many things would become considerably better with single gender classrooms. I wouldn't at all be surprised if teen pregnany fell quite a bit. It is also true that there is indeed a general difference in learning styles between girls and boys and there is some evidence that separate education helps the academic performance of both genders.

Of course this sets off a red flag for most conservatives, and I think that we must be careful. I guess my solution for this is, again, to give parets the choice.

[DemBones DemBones]

127. The American Association of University Women has done studies on

classroom behavior and found that teachers call on boys far more often than they call on girls. It doesn't matter whether the teacher is male or female, the pattern persists. Boys learn to be more and more outspoken while girls learn not to bother raising their hands. It starts whenever kids start school and continues through high school and college.

Women who went to all-girl high schools and/or colleges usually say it was a great experience because they weren't overlooked in favor of boys and were able to participate in class without fear of looking too smart and never getting asked out. Ways can always be found to allow the sexes to socialize apart from the regular school day.

I think it would also cut down on a lot of discipline problems not to have coed schools at the middle school and high school levels in particular. It would cut down on kids constantly posturing to impress the opposite sex, among other problems that occur when hormonally charged adolescents are together.

[VelmaD]

128. this is a bad idea

I get really tired of hearing how boys and girls learn differently. Yes, there are differences in learning style between some girls and some boys...but not all girls learn best in the same way and not all boys learn best in the same way. There is generally more difference among girls as a group and among boys as a group than there is between boys and girls on any factor you chose to measure.

I would be shit out of luck in an environment supposedly tailored to girls because I learn better in a more competitive environment rather than collaborative (I hate having to rely on working with others for a grade). The optimal solution would be for teachers to tailor their teaching style so that it works for every child regardless of how they learn best.

I can only think of my stats prof as an undergrad. He understood that some people learn stats better when you explain the theory behind it while other students need more hands-on examples. He combined both in the class so that everyone learned.

[557188]

137. Gender is a social construct

Gender is a social construct. Segregation of gender supports the false notion that gender is somehow natural and valid. A lot of people in this very discussion try to say crap like "boys and girls are different" without even thinking how that isn't true. Every example leads to an exception that you have to ignore to make such absurd statements.

It's dangerous to group people. Judge people based on their individuality and not their crotch. It's the 21st century...crap like this is just moving us backwards.

[HardRocker05]

139. it's stupid; learning how to get along together is as important as learning the 3 Rs. nt

[Bridget Burke]

141. Just a practical consideration...

I remember scheduling classes--back in the Bronze Age. And we "College Bound" had to plan our curriculum years ahead.

I was in a few AP courses: Biology II, various English Classes. For many of these courses, only one section per year was offered. With gender separation, two sections would be needed. Classes could be canceled for low enrollment. What if only a couple of girls signed up for Advanced Physics?

Beyond AP: What if only a couple of guys wanted to take Home Ec? Or only a few girls wanted Metal Shop?