The opponents of this educational approach argue that if boys and girls do not study together, they cannot develop skills and communication habits necessary to interact with the opposite sex.
Find out what's happening in the world as it unfolds.
|Ozone Park, NYC USA||Something is awry in the way our culture handles the education needs of boys and girls.|
Story highlights Michael Kimmel: Are single-sex classes an effective way to educate our children? No, single-sex classes in public schools might do more harm than good He says single-sex classes reinforce gender stereotypes about boys and girls Kimmel: Some would also argue that sex segregation is a form of sex discrimination Is your daughter a tomboy?
Your son not especially into football? Does your daughter excel at math? Your son a skilled artist? Or does your daughter switch roles, relatively easily, from skinning her knees on a soccer field to worrying about what to wear to a party?
Or does your son, like mine, come home sweaty and bruised from lacrosse practice only to sing gorgeously in the shower as a member of his high school a cappella group? If your answers are yes -- and probably most parents recognize some elements of these traits in their children -- you can breathe a bit easier today.
That is, at least, if you happen to live in Wood County, West Virginia. That's because recently, under a legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union and its local affiliates, the Wood County Board of Education agreed to abandon for two school years its program of separating boys and girls into single-sex classes.
The ACLU had filed a lawsuit on behalf of a mother and her daughters who claimed the sex segregation was a form of sex discrimination against girls. This little-noted legal settlement gives all of us -- parents, teachers, administrators, and kids themselves -- something to think about: Are single-sex classes really an effective way to educate our children?
Historically, of course, single-sex schools -- especially private schools and colleges -- were the norm. But since the dawn of the 20th century, both educators and parents have seen them as historic anachronisms, especially for boys.
Single-sex schools for girls may have challenged stereotypes, but single-sex schools for boys reproduced them, fostering what David Riesman and Christopher Jencks, in their monumental midcentury study, "The Academic Revolution," called "male arrogance.
That is, single sex private schools tend to also be schools for the elite.
But single-sex classes, in otherwise coeducational public schools, are entirely misguided. In recent years, single-sex classes in public schools have become increasingly popular as a low-cost remedy for two issues that plague our country's public school system: Michael Kimmel It's a popular theory.
After Title IX regulations changed inmore than 1, public schools segregated at least some of their classes by sex, a Feminist Majority report said. Regardless, the theory is wrong. In fact, single-sex classes might do more harm than good. To be sure, there is some anecdotal evidence that some students prefer single-sex classes though they tend not to "prefer" to take calculus and we still insist they do.
And especially in inner-city communities, single-sex "academies" have gained popularity because of their brilliant combination of rigid discipline, uniforms and powerful sense of community and school spirit.
But, according to Pedro Noguera, an education expert, there is no research that shows the "single-sex" part of the equation has any independent effect on student performance. Instead, evidence points decidedly in the other direction. Single-sex classes reinforce harmful stereotypes about boys and girls.
A article in the journal Science concluded that "sex-segregated education is deeply misguided, and often justified by weak, cherry-picked, or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence. There is no well-designed research showing that single-sex education improves students' academic performance, but there is evidence that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism.
These efforts are often based on the flawed notions of a few educational consultants, such as Dr. He's the founder of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, which is now more innocuously titled the National Association for Choice in Education as if to obscure its actual mission.
Under these theories, school districts have experimented with different curricula, seating arrangements, pedagogical styles and even room temperature, 72 degrees for girls and 68 degrees for boys.Yes, boys and girls should study together at school, because all children deserve the same educational opportunities.
Home > Opinions > Education > Should boys and girls at school study together (yes) or separately (no)?
Add a New Topic. Should boys and girls at school study together (yes) or separately (no)?
Asked by: zainulabidin Boys and girls may learn differently, but American parents should think twice before moving their children to sex-segregated schools.
A new Tel Aviv University study has found that girls improve. Boys will be boys, and girls will be girls. Such is the mantra of a growing group of educators and policy makers who argue that boys and girls are so different from one another that they should be taught in separate classrooms—single sex classrooms.
All parents dream of an elite education for their children, but very few realize that this does not necessarily depend on how much money you pay. The slope of the school desk or a fountain pen can. In the book, Rivers, a College of Communication professor of journalism, and coauthor Rosalind C.
Barnett, a Brandeis University women’s studies researcher, offer a vigorous indictment of what they call a “new biological determinism”—the increasingly widespread belief that girls and boys learn differently and should be taught separately.
Should boys and girls be taught separately in our schools? that few boys study English or to stereotypical expectations and leads to both boys and girls missing out on potentially.