Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In one third-grade classroom, the walls are bordered by cheetah and zebra prints, bright pink caddies hold pencils and glue sticks, and a poster at the front lists rules, including “Act pretty at all times!”
Next door, cutouts of racecars and pictures of football players line the walls, and a banner behind the teacher’s desk reads “Coaches Corner.”
The students in the first class: girls. Next door: boys.
Because research, much to the dismay of some, has shown that single gender education produces better results - both academically and behaviorally. This has been found particularly true with lower SES students.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Scepticism about that research aside, does single gender education produce better results socially, emotionally, psychologically, and physically?
Just to play devil's advocate, if a boy or girl spends 4.5-5 hours per day in a classroom with only other children of the same gender, but is given ample opportunities throughout the rest of the day (extracurriculars, recess, lunch, study hall, maybe even specials classes) would that possibly be a solution to the argument that single-sex education could stunt emotional and psychological development?
I don't see the harm in trying things that might improve education. There is nothing wrong with separate genders or mixed genders, whatever works best.
Just to play devil's advocate, if a boy or girl spends 4.5-5 hours per day in a classroom with only other children of the same gender, but is given ample opportunities throughout the rest of the day (extracurriculars, recess, lunch, study hall, maybe even specials classes) would that possibly be a solution to the argument that single-sex education could stunt emotional and psychological development?
In my opinion that would still be a recipe for poor social and psychological health. I don't think I'm necessarily 100% correct, and I can't "prove" this -- but I'd like people to consider the strong possibility.
I don't see the harm in trying things that might improve education. There is nothing wrong with separate genders or mixed genders, whatever works best.
Saying "whatever works best" is the easy part.
Determine what exactly that is, is the hard part.
It may just be that "separate genders" is not "best" for education. Of course, you'd have to define "education," which people have been trying to do since the dawn of humanity.
In my view, academic benefit is trivial if poor health is the result. I would like to know if students come out of single gender education as healthy people. If not, it may not be such a great idea, even if it were beneficially academically (which should require consistently replicable, well-designed studies to convince us -- since a rational view says that it is quite unnatural to isolate genders like this.)
For years many private Catholic high schools were single sex.
You still find a good number of them in NYC.
I went to a co-ed K-8 Catholic school and then 9-12 girls only Catholic High School.
None of us seemed to be traumatized and we all had our fair share of HS boyfriends.
It's just that all the socializing was done outside of school.
I can see pros and cons to the single gender education issue. I think it would be better understood, and perhaps supported by more people if advocates did a better job of explaining the research behind why it works better.
It's my understanding that it's more than simply saying "boys and girls are different". I think a lot of it stems form the relatively recent phenomenon to truly embrace the differences between males and females. It's more than our genitals. It's fundamental differences in our brains, our bodies, our chemistry and all of that affects differences in how we learn and what teaching environments are the best. For years, there was a push to say "we are all the same, there are no differences" and that is just not the truth.
I think if single gender teaching can capitalize on those differences and create environments that are better for either boys or girls (and at different ages), then they are more likely to engage kids who might be ambivalent about school.
Scepticism about that research aside, does single gender education produce better results socially, emotionally, psychologically, and physically?
I would think getting in trouble less at school for whatever reason would be socially, emotionally, and psychologically beneficial. Part of me thinks that matters more than the academics - especially for black males.
Quote:
Throughout Broward County, an external evaluation by Metis Associates, a research firm, found that after two years of offering single-gender classes in five schools, nearly half of the students experienced a decline in disciplinary referrals, detentions and suspensions compared with a year earlier.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
