Single-sex education hits the bigtime
Read this ginormous Times magazine piece about single-sex education and how it’s gaining popularity in American public education. There are a lot of enemies to single sex education, the principle of which is the ACLU, and just about anyone else who sees gender seperation as some kind of discrimination, some kind of admission that the public schools don’t work, some kind of something. The beastly article, which has a lot of good anecdotal information, ends with this common, tired argument against single-sex education.
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.”
Well, at least public school champions are finally admitting in public that schools teach philosophy and worldview, not only in their curricula, but also in their design and mission. Nevertheless, let’s make sure to keep the kids mixed and keep ignoring solutions to the failing system. Our kids might be stupid, but at least they’ll be tolerant of their own ignorance.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top25 Comments to “Single-sex education hits the bigtime”
I have no problem with, not only single sex education, but I also think school uniforms are a good idea.
Kids hormones are in overdrive. When a pretty girl is sitting in front of a young man, he may not be able to see anything else. Nothing wrong with removing the opposite sex and the colored feathers (fancy clothes) from the classrooms.
However, the classes must be equal. And it’s ok to have activities that teach proper interaction between young men and young ladies.
Total segregation is just too Taliban, and unnatural. It leads to too much weirdness.
Report comment to moderator
mmm…where do the intersexed children go?
Report comment to moderator
I am profoundly suspicious of single sex education in any public setting.
There are a half dozen regular, well-educated posters on this board to whom I would never entrust my daughter’s education. And, like it or not, people who believe in an inferior role for women will certainly gravitate toward enforcing that world view by seeking to educate young girls.
And they will also seek to enforce “separate and unequal” funding for female same sex institutions.
Report comment to moderator
Luke mmm…where do the intersexed children go?
Straight to he**, my friend.
Report comment to moderator
What is an “intersexed” child?
#3: I am profoundly suspicious of single sex education in any public setting.
This is where parental involvement comes in.
Report comment to moderator
” also to teach them commonality, tolerance and what it means to be American.”
. . . And exactly how is it that this can’t be taught in segregated classes?
There is nothing here requiring gender blending for these principles to be taught or learned. If there were, these principles couldn’t be effectively taught outside of the presence of every possible cultural nuance society provides either.
Report comment to moderator
This is a very good idea I’ve been watching for a long time. Boys and girls learn differently, and they distract each other. Boys in particular benefit from being separated from girls. (They are more likely to be distracted by girls than vice versa, and they don’t learn as well in standard classroom mode, sitting still.)
And I know a lot of girls are relieved when the boys’ showing off and teasing is removed and they can learn. I think this is a win-win situation. And really, nearly all children can interact with other children outside the school day.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D – I have seen studies indicating that both boys and girls benefit from seperate classroom settings. Girls’ education is not considered a crisis at the moment because the mainstream mixed classroom model now in place is largely structured in such a way that it better suits girls’ learning styles – and thus girls are performing much better.
A school could also have some of its day arrainged so that there is some mixed learning to help with socialization issues.
Report comment to moderator
How come a liberal-media rag like Time is writing about something the ACLU opposes?
I thought liberals controlled the media and used it to push their socialist agenda on everyone. What happened?
Report comment to moderator
Plus, girls have been know to underachieve to avoid looking too smart to the boys and boys have been known to do the same if they perceive that making good grades is a “girl thing”. They seem to be more competitive with in their own gender.
Report comment to moderator
Psst Harrison … the ACLU is the principal opponent, not “principle.”
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – Harrison may have been punning.
I still think that the ACLU has some priciples (mostly misguided and almost always wrongly/harmfully applied, but still … ).
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t it discriminatory to allow kids to wallow along in mediocre educational systems simply to keep boys and girls in the same classroom? I have a son starting Kindergarten in the fall and a 2-year-old daughter. They are VERY different in learning style – I can see this already. And my daughter has a very different spirit from her brother. He is following in his daddy’s footsteps and is going to be well-suited to “hands on” learning – learning by doing. His sister already loves drawing, “writing”, reading, singing. I think she will tend to be a little more “bookish” than her brother. Time will tell. But boys and girls do learn differently, as a rule, and if separating them increases their learning potential, why would anyone squawk about that?!
Report comment to moderator
“Well, at least public school champions are finally admitting in public that schools teach philosophy and worldview, not only in their curricula, but also in their design and mission.”
Yes, and that is what educators mean by socialization. It doesn’t means providing them opportunities to socialize, as many non-educators think. It means instilling the right “values” in them to make them good members of “society.” We should be vey wary.
Anything beyond teaching kids the basic skills and knowledge that they need to function and to pursue higher learning runs a great risk of contradicting the values of the parents. That is why private schools and homeschooling are important alternatives to the statist schools.
The question of intersexed children seems like more of a medical question than an educational one. I suppose the answer is that such a child should choose to learn with whichever group he or she has decided to identify with.
Report comment to moderator
#14: “Well, at least public school champions are finally admitting in public that schools teach philosophy and worldview, not only in their curricula, but also in their design and mission.”
Funny, I always thought school was a place to learn readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic. And science. Don’t foget that. At least we can all agree that there is no “supernatural” in science. Well, can’t we????
Report comment to moderator
Being in a mixed setting does not necessarily mean tolerant students. Tolerance or lack thereof is taught at home as well, and if the parents are bigoted, so will the children be, no matter what the teacher says. (I know, I teach at a rural, all-white public school and deal with some prejudices daily.)
Report comment to moderator
It’s a myth that “the public schools” in this country do a terrible job. Most inner city schools do a terrible job, but suburban and rural public schools are, by and large, doing a good job of educating their charges.
Single sex education is being tried in a GA district that’s near the 9th circle of Hell in test scores, grad rates, etc. Sexual segregation may help a little, but it’s not going to help much.
Report comment to moderator
I attended the all male Groton School and am glad for it. We never needed to worry about impressing the other sex, nor, with all those hormones sloshing around, were we disturbed, at least during the day in the classroom. Knowing my lusty self, I am glad for this. Weekend evenings at socials with girls schools is another matter, though this was mitigated by daily Chapel that all too often unfortunately reminded of the sin of lust.
On the down-side there is a certain cruelty among competitive boys that is perhaps mitigated by the presence of girls, though on balance single-sex education is best.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train – I agree that inner urban public schools are a dismal failure.
However, suburban public schools are not doing as good a job as they used to do.
The entire system is slipping, it is not as bad a situation in the suburbs because the parents counteract some of the deficiencies there.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, Harrison…check out the typo below:
“who sees gender seperation …” I know that can’t be a spelling error!
Report comment to moderator
Single-sex education may be convenient for teachers and administrators and comforting for parents, but children can experience it only as weirdly sex-obsessed, like a fig leaf on a statue or a bikini top on a little girl.
Report comment to moderator
I think single gender ed would be great from jr high onwards. But we would still need occasions to allow interaction. There used to be Jack and Jill clubs to encourage teen black kids way back in the 40s and 50s.
I’d like to believe that perhaps churches could host formal tux/tie and gown dances. It might go a good way to promote gentlemanly conduct among otherwise untutored young men.
If same sex ed is bad someone needs to tell Vassar, Radcliff and Texas Women’s University.
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner – Some of its greastest benefits is at the earliest age groups (given the difference in boys’ and girls’ best learning styles).
Report comment to moderator
Single sex education is an option in our school board but very few take advantage of it.
Most children who are in these classes speak positively of the experience.
Personally I view it the same was as any other type of segregation — wrong. Interaction between genders, race, ethnicity, linguistic groups, religious groups etc is part of the integration function of public education.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Segregation makes sense when – and only when – the basis of dividing people up is relevant to the activity going on. People are not different in how they learn based on the color of their skin, ethnic background, or religion. Language does not in itself affect how one learns, although there’s a lot of disagreement on how to teach new immigrants who haven’t learned the dominant language yet.
Gender-based differences in learning, on the other hand, are relevant to the classroom situation. I don’t know whether single sex education is the answer for most children, but I think it’s good where it is offered as an option. I wouldn’t recommend it for either of my sons, based on my knowledge of their personalities and abilities, but for some boys it could be very beneficial.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!