Political Crossfire Forums

[Snake]

No.

Children need to interact with both sexes. Dividing them based on sex would cause a lot of problems, expecially in the puberty years.

[ontheyslay]

It gives girls a better opportunity to study more male dominated subjects such as math and science, same for boys with art and drama, music etc. It's also gets rid of the distraction of the opposite sex which does cause a lot of trouble in grade school.

Though kids will miss out on the interaction of the opposite sex. And there is a problem with funding, and equality of both schools.

But I say give it a try, if it doesn't work, end it.

[perdidochas]

johnflesh wrote: Let hear from the teachers on this subject, eh? It was my understanding that schools are closing more and more lately. It is also my understanding that there is a shortage of teachers, so just where are the facilities and teachers going to come from to facilitate all these new boy/girl schools?

Why would you need more teachers for teaching single sex classes? Instead of a class of 25 boys and girls, the teacher would teach either a class of 25 boys or a class of 25 girls. There is no need for single sex campuses. You could have a male wing and a female wing of a school.

I am a former teacher (8 yrs middle/high school). From talking with older colleagues who taught in single sex schools, as well as my general observations, I think single sex schools are a good idea. Research shows that both males and females benefit from single sex environments. It allows them to more easily go beyond traditional gender roles, and allows them to "relax" more. After all, if you aren't worried about impressing the opposite sex, you can pay more attention to school.

The colleagues I worked with who had taught in single sex schools said that there were fewer behavior problems.

In terms of personal experience, I have taught lessons and labs that most of the girls in class loved, and the boys hated, and vice versa. For example, I did a paper recycling lab. Boys could care less. The girls enjoyed it. In a single sex environment, I could concentrate on the learning styles that are predominantly male or female. For example, research shows that boys (for whatever reason) are turned off by some literature (Is there any male out there who truly likes "Pride and Prejudice" or other similar chick-lit). Similarly, girls are turned off by some literature (being a male former science teacher, I can't think of a good example here).

[perdidochas]

Kamel wrote: No.

Children need to interact with both sexes. Dividing them based on sex would cause a lot of problems, expecially in the puberty years.

Research doesn't bear this out. The opposite actually occurs. I do agree that children need to interact with both sexes--that's what families are for.

[Snake]

huh, I'll be damned.....

It just doesn't sound right to me though, I went to public school, interacted with both sexes, I turned out fine, so did just about everyone else I know. I can't really see how this would benefit the students. I can sort of see the argument for trying to impress the opposite sex, but I can tell you, I was completely distracted from age 12-18, whether there were girls around or not.

[Lumina]

perdidochas wrote: Girls and boys have different tastes and predominant learning styles. Research in same sex schools shows that they are more effective at teaching both girls and boys. Girls benefit from all-girl schools. Boys benefit from all-boy schools. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Yes, research does indicate that same-sex education encourages both girls and boys to more fully realize their educational potential. LOL, I think there may be a reason why junior-high girls suddenly become "dumb" at math.

At the very least, there are fewer distractions if same-sex classes...which is why my parents chunked boy-crazy me into an all-girls school in 11th grade. I was terribly resentful at the time--and then chose to attend what had been a formerly all-male university, LOL--but as an adult and the parent of both a son and a daughter (and the sibling of a "12-year girl" at that same all-girl school), I appreciate the values of a same-sex education.

[Snake]

perdidochas wrote: Research doesn't bear this out. The opposite actually occurs. I do agree that children need to interact with both sexes--that's what families are for. But there's just one problem with that, most parents don't stay together. I was the only child and my father lived all the way out in California, this kind of situation is increasing in America. To me, school isn't just about getting grades, it's about social interaction, it educates you not only in math and english, but how to interact and get along with people.

[Lumina]

Kamel wrote: No.

Children need to interact with both sexes. Dividing them based on sex would cause a lot of problems, expecially in the puberty years.

Of course, it also solves one huge problem: hormonal distractions in the classroom (at least among the straights).

[F'losrix]

Marzelvane wrote: but on a serious note....you dont call homosexual girls gay, you call them a dyke. unless they're hot, then they're a hot lesbian.
On an actually seriously note, you don't call them a dyke, either. Just like you don't call a gay guy a f**. You might think they're fine with it and they may not say anything to you about it, but don't take their silence on the matter for approval. It's a lot more likely to hurt your standing with them than improve it.

'Gay' is not exclusively a term for homosexual men - it can apply to same-sex oriented women as well, but some prefer or even insist on lesbian. The reasons why are probably too complex to get into here.

----

Back on topic, I can't say that I think much of the idea of separating the sexes for education. They're talking about doing this in my state, along with removing affirmative action. The end result if both go into effect will likely be inferior schools for girls.

I agree with other posters who have more or less said that the lessons learned from the opportunities for greater social interaction far outweigh the deficits of boys and girls being schooled together. If you think men and women don't understand each other now, just wait 'til you start educating them separately.

[lovebush]

the benefit of socialization of kids in public schools is a myth. I cant imagine very many thinking adults interact with each other in the same ways they did in high school or junior high. Teens are trying to figure out who they are themselves and spend much of the time trying to be who they think others would like. rather than discovering who they are and then finding friends who like them for who they really are. My teen daughter is a social bug, she throws parties at our very modest home and about 8-10 kids will show up. the last time she required them all to make a dessert and bring it, and they did, even the boys! they do nothing but talk and laugh for hours. Did she learn to network her friends in a coed public school? Nope, she and her sister are both home schooled.
Clearly separating the sexes will not work in all areas for some of the logistical and budget reasons previously mentioned. In areas that don't have those issues, why not try it. Our public schools are such an abysmal failure, we could hardly make them worse. Coed schools should remain an option for parents who would not want their kids segregated.
I think a far more productive type of segregation would be to separate kids by their learning styles and tailor the lessons accordingly. this is one of the huge advantages of homeschooling that some public schools could utilize.

[Snake]

lovebush wrote: the benefit of socialization of kids in public schools is a myth. I cant imagine very many thinking adults interact with each other in the same ways they did in high school or junior high... What kind of job do have? I have to talk to people all day, every day. Whether it's customers, employees, trainees, my bosses, etc. When I come home, I make something to eat, watch some tv, take a shower, go to bed, wake up go to work and the cycle continues. I guess the biggest difference is now I get paid to go to a place I'd rather not be 5 days a week.

[lovebush]

Kamel wrote: lovebush wrote: the benefit of socialization of kids in public schools is a myth. I cant imagine very many thinking adults interact with each other in the same ways they did in high school or junior high... What kind of job do have? I have to talk to people all day, every day. Whether it's customers, employees, trainees, my bosses, etc. When I come home, I make something to eat, watch some tv, take a shower, go to bed, wake up go to work and the cycle continues. I guess the biggest difference is now I get paid to go to a place I'd rather not be 5 days a week.

I just lost my job of ten years, my last day was yesterday. But
I interact with adults all day also, but the ones who have problems getting along with others are the ones who still act like teenagers.

[Snake]

And they're also the ones that don't get promotions or raises.

[lovebush]

Kamel wrote: And they're also the ones that don't get promotions or raises.

BINGO! now do I want my kid "socialized" in an environment full of those types? No!

[Snake]

So you're saying that a unisex school prevents children from growing up to be succesful adults? That's a pretty lame argument.....

[perdidochas]

Kamel wrote: perdidochas wrote: Research doesn't bear this out. The opposite actually occurs. I do agree that children need to interact with both sexes--that's what families are for. But there's just one problem with that, most parents don't stay together. I was the only child and my father lived all the way out in California, this kind of situation is increasing in America. To me, school isn't just about getting grades, it's about social interaction, it educates you not only in math and english, but how to interact and get along with people.

School in no way teaches proper social interaction. School is an artificial environment and resembles no other social environment except for school.

[Snake]

No, this right here is an artificial social environment. In school, the people you talk to are real, and right there. You think the only things the kids are learning in school come from the teachers?

[perdidochas]

Kamel wrote: lovebush wrote: the benefit of socialization of kids in public schools is a myth. I cant imagine very many thinking adults interact with each other in the same ways they did in high school or junior high... What kind of job do have? I have to talk to people all day, every day. Whether it's customers, employees, trainees, my bosses, etc. When I come home, I make something to eat, watch some tv, take a shower, go to bed, wake up go to work and the cycle continues. I guess the biggest difference is now I get paid to go to a place I'd rather not be 5 days a week.

I work with different people all day. Nothing I learned about social interaction in high school helped me one iota in my job. Most I learned from my parents and their interactions with people. School is a totally artificial social environment unlike anything else except school.

[F'losrix]

perdidochas wrote: School is a totally artificial social environment unlike anything else except school.
Where do school-age children spend most of the waking hours? In school. Where does most of their early socialization take place with those outside the immediate family? In school.

Where do adults spend most of their waking hours? For many of us, it's in the 'artificial social environment' of work.

Your argument strikes me as a case of misplaced emphasis. The social interaction learned in the school environment isn't about teaching kids how to get along in a similar environment. It's about teaching them how to interact socially, period. Those are transferable skills that apply to anyplace where social interaction occurs.

Now, which more closely matches social interaction in the 'real world'? A school full of same-sex peers, or one where there is exposure to those of both sexes?

Unless you live in a world where the sexes continue to be strongly segregated, I would have to say the latter.

[perdidochas]

Kamel wrote: No, this right here is an artificial social environment. In school, the people you talk to are real, and right there. You think the only things the kids are learning in school come from the teachers?

Where else besides school do you deal primarily with 20-30 people of your own age led by an older individual who does most of the talking? I don't know about you, but I don't.