Sara at Diotima defends the Bush administration’s new rules encouraging single-sex education by pointing out how many folks, including feminists, have praised single-sex colleges.
Sara is right that single-sex colleges don’t seem to have hurt anyone. However, there’s a big difference between a single-sex school and a single-sex classroom. The country as a whole is so large that the existence of a handful of single-sex academies doesn’t noticeably affect the sex ratio in co-ed colleges. In a setting like a single school, however, a strong program of single-sex classrooms for girls could leave the school’s “co-ed” classrooms with a high ratio of boys to girls. This could be detrimental to both girl and boy students who might not learn as well in a boy-dominated environment as they would in a balanced co-ed environment. Plus, if this program draws the best students away from co-ed classrooms, that also could harm the prospects of the students in the regular classes.
Normally I’d say “too bad” – students who’d benefit from a single-sex program shouldn’t sacrifice their interests to improve prospects for others. However, virtually every well-designed study of single-sex education finds that single-sex ed offers no benefit to students once other factors (such as income and class size) are accounted for. So it seems that single-sex classrooms might well make things worse for some students without actually providing any academic benefit.
Hopefully any research on single-sex classrooms will study not only the results for the students in the program, but for the students in the rest of the school.
* * *
Another problem with the new legislation is that it has virtually no rules to prevent “separate but unequal” education. Under the Bush administration’s newly proposed rules, it’s possible we’ll see boys-only trips to mock congress in Washington, D.C. justified as “equal in the aggregate” because girls have the opportunity to take a co-ed civics class back at home. Or perhaps some particularly great programs – computer animation in the boys’ school, parenting courses in the girls’ school, whatever – will end up being offered only to one sex. In a California experiment with separate-but-equal schools, a class on “settling the Western frontier” was broken down like this: “the boys’ lessons were enriched by an activity on survival skills. Girls, on the other hand, learned to quilt and sew.” (Education Week, 05/30/2001)
To be fair, the Bush program doesn’t mandate such abuses; it just opens the door to them. Whether or not such abuses actually happen depends on how the new rules play out in school systems and in the courts.
But when there’s so little evidence that students benefit from single-sex education, why even open that door?.
Sewing is a survival skill.
Then boys should learn to sew too.
In my middle school we had a few weeks of single sex gym classes followed by a field trip. The boys went to Sports World, one of those places where you play mini-basketball for tokens and win prizes. The girls went to Nordstrom’s for makeup tips and shopping. The moms were invited for the ride. And this was in the early nineties.
…I guess the point is that when placed in the hands of people who don’t think about things too hard, single sex events / education tends to revolve around the teacher’s preceptions of that sex.
To their credit, there were a few girls who wanted to go to Sports World, and were allowed to go. No boys volunteered for a day at the mall, however.
I consider it a damnable injustice that I know the rules of football but I can’t sew this damn button back on!
my highschool combined single-sex and coed classes, in a graded fashion: freshmen had English, Anthro./history, and math in a single-sex context (while science and languages and art were coed), and then by sophomore year maybe just history was single-sex, etc. I think this was a great idea, as it gave each sex a chance to have relatively frank discussions of books, say, that might have caused awkwardness in a coed situation, and you can imagine effects also along the lines of girls getting the sense that they can do “highschool math” before the “competing with the boys” factor shuts them down too much. but this was mandatory and universal, which is different from the partial segregation that you have posited above. I can certainly imagine the possibilities for abuse in the wrong hands; this was a private school, and parents expected all the students to be having the same rigorous training by the upper levels, so they couldn’t leave one or the other halves behind…
There was a high school in Quebec that, just a few months ago, took boys to see some military show, while the girls got to learn about how to apply makeup and use bobby pins. So, flynngrrl – it’s STILL happening.
On the topic of single-sex classrooms, a school in my province recently introduced them. It’s not something I have strong feelings about in theory, but then I read the proposed “separate but equal” curricula for the boys’ and girls’ separate math classes. The boys did hands-on math, whereas the girls just READ about math instead, because they’re more comfortable that way. I am a grad student in mathematics, with plenty of experience teaching math at all levels, and my jaw dropped when I read that. Preferring to read about a something to doing it is a horrible way to learn how to do it, and this is especially true in math. The principal of this school was all but saying explicitly that the girls’ math class was designed with the goal of propping up mathphobic girls rather than at having them actually grapple with the subject material and overcome that fear.
I have a lot of problems with the new administration proposal. Suppose I had twins, a boy and a girl, and they went to the same public school. Suddenly the school offers a single-sex program in something exciting, and probably assigns the best teachers to it. Now one of my twins has two choices, one of my twins has no choices at all.
I’m also concerned about how it might affect children if the years when they decide on such things as whether the sexes are equal are spent in isolation from the other sex at school. Madrasas come to mind here, though of course single-sex education is not the only thing that created them or that differentiates them from schools here. Still.
And for Quadratic:
1. Buy some thread and needles. Most pharmacies sell them in a sorted packet.
2. Thread the needle. The two ends of the thread will now hang off the needle. Leave one end a little shorter. Tie a big knot in the longer end.
3. Find a button and position it where it should go on the piece of clothing. Check that the clothing is not doubled under that point (e.g. in sleeves).
4. Take the threaded needle and stick it through the material at the button’s homeplate FROM THE WRONG SIDE of the fabric, so that the needle emerges at the front.
5. Lift the button long enough to aim the same needleful through one of the holes in it, also from the wrong side of the button. Slide the button down the thread. It should now sit where you want it.
6. Make a return journey through the sandwich of the button and material, but pick a different hole in the button.
7. Go back to step 4. and repeat until the button seems firmly established. About six or seven times should do it.
8. For the final step, pass the needle back to the wrong side of the fabric. Take a few small stitches through the fabric but not the button behind the button. These tie the thread. Cut off the thread close to the fabric.
Thanx Echidne, that little how-to guide should help me as well in my future button-sewing endeavors.
Hey, that really works!
“However, virtually every well-designed study of single-sex education finds that single-sex ed offers no benefit to students once other factors (such as income and class size) are accounted for.”
I’d always heard it the other way round- that every study showed a marked advantage. What studies are you referring to, and where can I read them?
Ooh, a couple more button-sewing tips from a 4-H graduate:
You may want to double the thread, that is, instead of tying a not in just one end, bring the short end down to the bottom and tie a knot using both ends. This will make the stitches stronger.
Before you bring the needle to the wrong side of the fabric at the end, slide it into one of the button holes and out on the RIGHT side of the fabric, so it’s between the bottom of the button and the top of the garment. Wind it around the stitches that hold the button to the fabric three or four times, then slide the needle to the wrong side of the fabric to finish up with a knot. This will create a little more space between the button and the fabric, so the buttonhole can fit more easily under the button.
Brenda — as another math person, I have to agree, that’s pretty horrific. A sure way to chase them away from the subject, I’d say.
As an aside, three cheers for women mathematics majors/grad students! We need more of you :)
Mmm math and sewing. What peculiar tangents we take.
Anyway, so long as we’re on these peculiar tangents, I’m curious, Brenda, where do you go to school and what your specializing in (if anything yet). I ask because next year I expect to be a math grad student as well.
Anyway, I feel bad about completely ignoring the post in question so, uh, [insert pertinent argument regarding single-sex classrooms here].
The National Organization for Women (NOW) claims to champion “choice.” But when it comes to giving parents choice about where to send their children to school, NOW firmly opposes providing additional options.
Consider that even liberal stalwarts like Senators Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barbara Mikulski (Md.) supported the Bush administration’s decision to loosen restrictions on creating single-sex public schools and classrooms. Not NOW. NOW reacted to this announcement by accusing the administration of trying to segregate schools. “Sex discrimination in the classroom or the workplace is shameful,” said NOW’s president, Kim Gandy. “Segregation was wrong in the past — and it’s wrong now.”
In fact, giving more options to both parents and schools has nothing to do with the evils of forced segregation. No parent would be compelled to send her child to a single-sex institution and no district would be required to create one. The president has simply proposed relaxing regulations that prevent public schools from offering these choices to parents. Equating this with immoral Jim Crow laws is an insult to everyone who suffered under them.
Initial research indicates that children in single-sex education prosper academically. This is, however, beside the point. Higher test scores and graduation rates are wonderful, but the principle at stake is who should decide what kind of education a child receives. Time and again, NOW has opposed policies that would give parents greater control and options for the education their children receive.
Of course, many parents already choose single-sex education for their children. Numerous boys-only and girls-only private schools are available to families willing and able to pay tuition after paying the taxes that support local public schools. Many parents of public-school students also are able to practice some school choice when they decide where to live. Since home prices are closely tied to the quality of the local school district, wealthy parents often pay a significant premium to gain entrance into a desirable school system.
Low-income families rarely have the luxury of shopping for homes based on schools. Instead they are stuck with the local public-school system, which — especially in urban areas — often leaves much to be desired.
Education reformers have long recognized that condemning low-income students to abysmal, often violent public schools was unfair to those students and bad for society. Money has been poured into these failing systems to try to improve education services, but to little avail. Inflation-adjusted education spending has nearly doubled since 1972, but test scores have stagnated. Washington D.C. encapsulates this story: In spite of spending well over ten thousand dollars per student, the second highest in the nation, its test scores are rock bottom.
Over the past decade, parent-centered education reforms have grown in popularity. Giving all parents greater ability to select a school allows them to consider their children’s particular educational needs and forces schools to compete for students. Instead of having a captive audience and little outside pressure to perform, schools facing competition must, like a business, consider how best to deliver a quality product. If they fail to do so, they lose customers.
Empirical analysis of existing school-choice programs — from charter schools and public-school choice to vouchers and tax credits — suggests that market forces work. Dozens of studies have determined that students who switch schools are better off, as are their peers who remain in public schools that face competition.
Unfortunately, NOW remains stubbornly hypocritical in the face of such facts. They work closely with private women’s colleges like Smith and Mount Holyoke that increase the ranks of NOW’s embittered gender warriors. And, to my knowledge, NOW has yet to call for the elimination of similar private options for K-12 students. But NOW fights choice for families with children locked into often-failing government-run K-12 schools.
John Edwards’s presidential bid was fueled by talk of the existence of “two Americas,” one for those with means and one for the rest. Unfortunately, this is an accurate description of our education system: Families with means have options in choosing their children’s schools; too often, low-income families don’t. Ensuring that all families have choice should be a bipartisan principle.
As NOW continues its opposition to expanding choice for public-school families, it should be careful in using the term “segregation.” Those public-school families being denied options may start using that term themselves.
“I’d always heard it the other way round- that every study showed a marked advantage. What studies are you referring to, and where can I read them?”
I think Rotis brings up an interesting question. I have been wondering about this also. I am looking foward to your response.
See, for example, “Should the sexes be separated for secondary education — comparisons of single-sex and co-educational schools?” by Pamela Robinson and Alan Smithers, in Research Papers in Education, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p23-50. Here’s a quote (emphasis added by me):
There are other studies which could be marshalled, either for or against single-sex ed, but this is a reasonable example of the kind of study I meant.
“When, as far as possible, like is compared with like, the apparent academic differences between single-sex and co-educational schools largely disappear”
I think the problem you have is more a potential for economic bias favoring all boy schools. (Which WOULD be wrong) You’re just falling back on academic comparative studies because “this might happen” isn’t a very good argument.
Comparing test scores is irrelevant. If parents are offered more choice, and “like is like”, then schools will have to compete for students and everybody wins. We have proven that throwing money at schools has little to no effect on test scores. Let’s throw some competition at the public schools and see what happens.
I think some people are too quick to identify potential negative aspects of sex segregation. My high school offered a female-only chemistry class – and I quickly enrolled. I was all-too familiar with the distractions and antics of the opposite sex, with their different learning styles (in general). I was more concerned with learning the material and wanted to elminate as many of the distracting variables as possible. It’s not that I dislike the guys – several of my closest guy-friends were in my coed classes. However, in the coed classroom, there is more emphasis on socializing and dealing with attention from the opposite sex, and competing learning styles – hampering certain learning situations. Even when both sexes are focused on learning, they tend to have different ways of processing information and getting involved in classroom activities. Single-sex classes aren’t the answer for everybody. They aren’t ideal for all subjects or grade levels either. I think same-sex classes are especially helpful for math and science – where typical gender-based learning styles can vary greatly. Of course, I only endorse same-sex classes if they are VOLUNTARY. There should be the option of coed classes also.
Nobody argues that learning styles corrolate absolutely with gender: even the nuttiest evolutionary psychology type acknowledges that these are tendencies, rather than absolute rules. So if you have sex-segregated classes which cater to stereotypical “learning styles,” you will always be punishing kids who don’t comply with gender norms/ stereotypes. Why not just set up classes for kids with different learning styles, and use learning style rather than gender as the principle of selection? That’s particularly true because my sense is that there are actually more than two learning styles.
then schools will have to compete for students and everybody wins
Except the students whose parents can’t afford the top schools, of course. But screw them.
is there nething that u would think is good about single-sex classes? i need 2 know 4 school
Do not believe the clap trap of ” voluntary segregation ” once there are many single-sex schools around – the closest school will be the school to which a pupil is sent to. Transport realities and money realities will dicate this.
as far as de-socialialing is concerned, the studious types in single gender schools will loose out. This is especially so if you are a minority which is not physically different in appearance. Minority males and females loose track with each other, the majority does not necessarily embrace them with open arms. Off course, once you are an alineated lonely adult, it is allways your fault, never society’s ! The former segregator-teachers/administrators will wash their hands of your problem.
Girls, especially, will only too readily be packed of to girls-only schools because they will seem safe, not because of much else. Somewhere on the Net, there used to be a entry from a now women – ” we girls used to call it the 12 year sentence “.
Pingback: Galois
Pingback: Diotima