Senators Kay Bailey-Hutchison and Barbara Mikulski promoted single-sex education on the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal last week:
"Studies have shown that some students learn better in a single-gender environment, particularly in math and science. But federal regulations used to prevent public schools from offering that option. So in 2001 we joined with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Susan Collins to author legislation that allowed public schools to offer single-sex education. It was an epic bipartisan battle against entrenched bureaucracy, but well worth the fight.
Since our amendment passed, thousands of American children have benefited. Now, though, some civil libertarians are claiming that single-sex public-school programs are discriminatory and thus illegal.
To be clear: The 2001 law did not require that children be educated in single-gender programs or schools. It simply allowed schools and districts to offer the choice of single-sex schools or classrooms, as long as opportunities were equally available to boys and girls. In the vast and growing realm of education research, one central tenet has been confirmed repeatedly: Children learn in different ways. For some, single-sex classrooms make all the difference.
Critics argue that these programs promote harmful gender stereotypes. Ironically, it is exactly these stereotypes that the single-sex programs seek to eradicate.
As studies have confirmed—and as any parent can tell you—negative gender roles are often sharpened in coeducational environments. Boys are more likely, for instance, to buy into the notion that reading isn't masculine when they're surrounded by (and showing off for) girls.
Girls, meanwhile, have made so much progress in educational achievement that women are overrepresented in postgraduate education. But they still lag in the acquisition of bachelor's and graduate degrees in math and the sciences. It has been demonstrated time and again that young girls are more willing to ask and answer questions in classrooms without boys.
A 2008 Department of Education study found that "both principals and teachers believed that the main benefits of single-sex schooling are decreasing distractions to learning and improving student achievement." The gender slant—the math-is-for-boys, home-EC-is-for-girls trope—is eliminated.
In a three-year study in the mid-2000s, researchers at Florida's Stetson University compared the performance of single-gender and mixed-gender classes at an elementary school, controlling for the likes of class sizes, demographics and teacher training. When the children took the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (which measures achievement in math and literacy, for instance), the results were striking: Only 59% of girls in mixed classes were scored as proficient, while 75% of girls in single-sex ones achieved proficiency. Similarly, 37% of boys in coeducational classes scored proficient, compared with 86% of boys in the all-boys classes.
Booker T. Washington High School in Memphis, Tenn., the winner of the 2011 Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge, went to a 81.6% graduation rate in 2010 from a graduation rate of 55% in 2007. Among the changes at the school? Implementing all-girls and all-boys freshman academies.
In Dallas, the all-boys Barack Obama Leadership Academy opened its doors last year. There is every reason to believe it will follow the success of the first all-girls public school, Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School, which started in 2004. Irma Rangel, which has been a Texas Education Agency Exemplary School since 2006, also took sixth place at the Dallas Independent School District's 30th Annual Mathematics Olympiad that year.
No one is arguing that single-sex education is the best option for every student. But it is preferable for some students and families, and no one has the right to deny them an option that may work best for a particular child. Attempts to eliminate single-sex education are equivalent to taking away students' and parents' choice about one of the most fundamentally important aspects of childhood and future indicators of success—a child's education.
America once dominated educational attainment among developed countries, but we have fallen disastrously in international rankings. As we seek ways to offer the best education for all our children, in ways that are better tailored to their needs, it seems not just counterproductive but damaging to reduce the options. single-sex education in public schools will continue to be a voluntary choice for students and their families. To limit or eliminate single-sex education is irresponsible. To take single-sex education away from students who stand to benefit is unforgivable.
Ms. Hutchison, a Republican, is the senior senator from Texas. Ms. Mikulski, a Democrat, is the senior senator from Maryland.
I strongly support single-sex education, especially in the lower grades. Look at the unwed birthrates in Mississippi. 70% in Hinds County. Probably higher in the black community. Some counties have rates of nearly 90%. Let that sink into your brain for a minute. Compare the graduation and dropout rates between boys and girls in Mississippi. Some of these schools such as Wingfield and Provine had graduation rates in the 50's but when you examine them by sex, the male graduation rate is in the 30's. That's right. At some schools barely a third of the boys graduate. Boys growing up on the streets, no dads, no positive male role models, yet we expect the teachers to just fix everything. Separate the children by sex until high school and try use same-sex teachers when possible, especially for the boys.
You can pay for it now.... or pay for it later when Chris Epps says he needs more money.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Senators push single-sex classes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Has anyone ever thought about having a whole set of schools dedicated to only black males, only black females, only white males, and only white females? Maybe we can try something like that in charter schools. Think it will work?
KF,
Using your reasoning, why stop the gender separation in high school? Seems like that would be a crucial time to focus on studies.
As a Wingfield graduate, the state of affairs over there is disgusting. At some point, the black community needs to take some responsibility and society as a whole would be well served by bringing back some shame to being a single mom. I can say that since I was a child of a single mom, growing up before it was "ok" to procreate without a wedding band. Yep, life was hard but that was some powerful birth control...I knew first hand what was in store for me if I got knocked up in high school. Those hard, early lessons proved to be powerful motivators.
At some point, the black community needs to take some responsibility ...
Yo Mamma!
In four years this will be the Liberal agenda to end teen pregnancy. You got to keep them separated.
Kapt Kangaroo is the poster boy for problems in education.
Education shouldn't be about " liberal vs conservative" or " black vs white", it should be about the best ways to educate our children.
It should be about scientific research in child development and educational methods.
Liberals and conservatives are too often more concerned with what they don't want children to learn than with learning.
They are more concerned with the costs in money than the costs of ignorance.
We don't want our children to learn how to think for themselves and make good decisions based on reliable information, we want them to believe what we believe whether it's mythical or not.
We certainly don't want them to understand the basics of parenting or how their own bodies work.
But, the very worst is those parents and adults who deep down fear their children being smarter than they are.
The" if it was good enough for me, it's good enough for them" or " I turned out ok the way my parents did it", are plentiful. They won't bother with idea there may be better ways to raise children.
And, of course, there are those who think money is the key to child rearing and every other aspect of life. There are parents who aren't just physically absent through divorce or never marrying, they are emotionally absent in their children's lives.
We need to quit worrying about what new gimmick can be used to educate the kids and start worrying about how to educate their parents.
Agreed, Bill , but parents don't want to have parenting classes for their children and they are too defensive to admit they are messing up.
Bill: Very clever bumper sticker comment. In what venue/forum do you suggest your idea would take place?
What? You expect me to provide the details? I'm an idea guy - I leave the details up to my people.
As you well know, SF, it's too late for the parents of the current crop of miscreants, and it's just as doubtful that the kids will learn anything at this point. Parenting classes really need to start in middle school, but most middle school kids aren't old enough to learn anything that will stick. By the time some are in high school they're already parents and have quit school, so it's too late for them. Churches? Nah. The ones who go don't need it as much as the ones who aren't there. Community health centers? They'd have to be pretty big and have lots of staff, which ain't gonna happen in these hard times. I'd say freshman, sophomore year of high school, before the pressure to have sex is too great, and I'd try to reach the boys as much - maybe even more - than the girls. I know it will never be done - classroom time is too precious to teach something dooming generation after generation of inner city and low income rural kids to poverty if we don't try something.
Bad last sentence. Insert "like this, but we're" between "something" and "dooming."
in re: October 22, 2012 6:34 AM
I'm going to take it easy on you b/c I think you don't know what the hell you are talking about or what I posted in opposition to the lunacy presented in the article.
If you knew me, you would know, I don't agree with what I see as a much further down the road agenda emerging with the Madame Senator's comments.
I'm not focused on the day to day ignorance of trying to keep racism alive in this state. There are lesser forums for that.
Your response was foolish.
If you understand why the Senators introduced their statements into the "narrative" you might have understood my sarcasm.
If you are a regular reader you would know that "unwed pregnancies" are a major problem for Jackson and, frankly, for most, if not all major cities.
This introduction of education promoted by separation of men and women into the dialogue is an attempt to "solve the problem of unwed mothers" and it frankly smacks of a trampling of civil rights. It promotes a policy of separation. The thinking is, separate them and they won't have sex. C'mon. That is ridiculous. Why not put women east of the Mississippi river and men on the west. Absurd! It is unbelievable in my mind.
I don't take your criticism to heart, I take it as an opportunity to make you think before you speak.
Cap'n; Debate protocol inquiry here. Where did you learn that it's productive to address your adversary with comments like "You don't know what the hell you're talking about", "Your response was foolish", "If you understand...", and "...an opportunity to make you think before you speak."
If your objective is to come off as pompous and elite, you have succeeded. Whoever 6:34 was, he/she gave it's ideas on education. You, in turn gave what appeared to be an onslaught of insults. Your retort would have been complete had you thrown in at least one "YO momma!"
Who is being pompous?
Further research and discussion into the topic leads me to conclude that while an absolute separation is not warranted; the cycle of raising children with no family unit and, in turn, no parental figures (note plural) may warrant an elementary approach as the post suggested. I'm not certain that it is appropriate to maintain it throughout the entire schooling process, but it may be the only solution to breaking the cycle of poverty when it relates to family and role models.
Teach them young and they will carry the lessons forward. However, there is a point where socialization is required.
As to SFX, I cannot comment, he continues to add nothing to the conversation.
You've always bristled at constructive criticism. How dare Shadowfax or anyone else visit reproach upon the Kaptin'.
Ibid (ref: October 23, 2012 10:08 AM).
In 1965, my large high school actually had a required course in family and economics.
Half of the year was spent in basic family economics...budgeting, insurance, investing, cost comparison shopping.etc.
The second half was qualities one should look for in forming life long relationships, maintaining good relationships with a spouse and others, and child-rearing.
That my classmates have a divorce rate of less than 10%, have children who are independent , self-sufficient adults with few exceptions and have done well themselves is a testament to the value of that course and to an excellent teacher.
I still remember Mrs. Bradford saying, " You should treat your spouse better than you treat your closest friends and respect them your spouse as much as you do those you value".
We also learned that all relationships ebb and flow and that we shouldn't have unrealistic expectations that marriages don't do the same.
We learned the difference between a discussion and an argument and that marriage is about partnership and problem solving, not about winning and losing.
The details are out there , Bill, already. Some folks just find those comcepts frightening as they have bought into " winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" and " the end justifies the means". Such folks forget that no human or group of humans is omnipotent so no human or group of humans should win or be " in control" all the time.
Post a Comment