Political Crossfire Forums

[Abner Doon]

Quote: WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is giving public schools wider latitude to teach boys and girls separately in what is considered the biggest change to coed classrooms in more than three decades.

After a two-year wait, the Education Department issued final rules Tuesday detailing how it will enforce the Title IX landmark anti-discrimination law. Under the change taking effect Nov. 24, local school leaders will have discretion to create same-sex classes for subjects such as math, a grade level or even an entire school.

"Some students may learn better in single-sex education environments," said Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. "These final regulations permit communities to establish single-sex schools and classes as another means of meeting the needs of students."

"Every child should receive a high quality education in America and every school and district deserves the tools to provide it," she said.

Education officials initially proposed the rules in early 2004, pointing in part to some U.S. research suggesting better student achievement and fewer discipline problems in single-sex classes including math and foreign languages.

After receiving 5,600 public comments, education officials said they were moving forward with the plan with some wording tweaks and assurances from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that it was legally sound.

Critics who compare the plan to "separate but equal" segregation-era classrooms haven't been so sure.

The National Organization for Women says it creates the risk of breeding second-class citizens. The American Association of University Women has said it would "throw out the most basic legal standards prohibiting sex discrimination in education."

A school board in southeastern Louisiana dropped plans last month to segregate two middle schools by sex after meeting with a federal judge and attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, which expressed concerns about the plan.

Since current rules began in 1975, single-sex classes have been allowed only in limited cases, such as sex education courses or gym classes involving contact sports.

Under the new rules, schools could separate genders for a variety of subjects if they believed it offered educational benefits, such as promoting greater student comfort or higher attendance. In all cases, enrollment in a single-sex class would be voluntary.

If a school creates a single-sex class, it would not be required to offer the other gender its own similar class, but it would have to offer a coed version of it.

The rules also make it easier to create single-sex schools, as long as the district can demonstrate that it also provides coed schools with "substantially equal" benefits to the excluded sex.

The changes affect elementary and secondary education, but not colleges. The current ban on single-sex vocational education in both classes and schools at the K-12 level will remain in effect.

The new regulations also require that school districts evaluated their single-sex classes at least every two years to ensure compliance with the Title IX law.

"The department's office for civil rights is responsible for investigating any complaints in discrimination. We take that charge very seriously and will continue to fully investigate any allegation," said Stephanie Monroe, the department's assistant secretary for civil rights.

Education officials said some districts were interested in single-sex schools but said they don't expect a rush to make wholesale changes. In most cases, local school leaders will probably wait until at least the next semester to ponder moves, they said.

Single-sex classrooms have become more common in recent years. In 1998, only four public schools had them, compared to at least 228 this year, according to the National Association for Single Sex Public Education.


I thought this was interesting. I don't support the idea of same sex public schools because if a family lived in an area where there was an all boys school, and they wanted to have a co-ed school, what do you do (besides move.) What if your child was a girl? They would have to have two schools per district, which would tighten funding overall. Here's the link. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_go_ot/single_sex_schools

[agentkgb]

No, for a number of reasons. There are funding issues like you said, so it would reduce the number of classes available to a student (therefore fewer honors and AP courses also). In addition it's unfair to students who's way of thinking don't fit the stereotypes. Boys who happen to be better at English or art are going to be in a situation where they're expected to be better at math or science (and due to the funding problems, there might be fewer advanced English or art courses), and vice versa for girls.

[Marzelvane]

agentkgb wrote: No, for a number of reasons. There are funding issues like you said, so it would reduce the number of classes available to a student (therefore fewer honors and AP courses also). In addition it's unfair to students who's way of thinking don't fit the stereotypes. Boys who happen to be better at English or art are going to be in a situation where they're expected to be better at math or science (and due to the funding problems, there might be fewer advanced English or art courses), and vice versa for girls.

ok, you're right. perhaps an exception should be made where the gay-artistic type boys may attend a girl school.

[patrickt]

No, obviously. How are we going to make boys more like girls if they don't have role models?

[Abner Doon]

Marzelvane all boys that like art are gay (gasp). You must be a genius to have figured that out all by yourself. Does that mean girls don't like sports or they're gay? Wow!
(PS I was being sarcastic if you couldn't tell)

bssp I was kidding. I assume you're being sarcastic.

[agentkgb]

Abner Doon wrote: Marzelvane all boys that like art are gay (gasp). You must be a genius to have figured that out all by yourself. Does that mean girls don't like sports or they're gay? Wow!
(PS I was being sarcastic if you couldn't tell)

bssp I was kidding. I assume you're being sarcastic.
I wouldn't be too sure of that (no offense Marzelvane if you were being sarcastic).

[perdidochas]

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.

[agentkgb]

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.
Research from where? I'm just wondering.

[Marzelvane]

Abner Doon wrote: Marzelvane all boys that like art are gay (gasp). You must be a genius to have figured that out all by yourself. Does that mean girls don't like sports or they're gay? Wow!
(PS I was being sarcastic if you couldn't tell)

bssp I was kidding. I assume you're being sarcastic.

yes, im just f'in around....

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.

[Spider]

Sure, why not, since there's no better way to prepare young people for life than by creating a completely artificial environment for them to spend their formative years in.... :roll:

Mix people up for crying out loud! Life is a big random juggle, and schools should reflect that.

Segregating people according to their plumbing....how rediculous.

[MG1962]

I went to a same sex school - And think the idea was so bad - I made sure all my children went to coed schools

In Australia we have a trend going back the other way. Same sex schools have been in the majority here for years - so go figure[/quote]

[Abner Doon]

Quote: 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.

Even if they do learn better in a same sex environment, the schools funding would have to be lower to provide two schools per district. Therefore, even if they did better, they wouldn't have as many AP/ honors courses. They also wouldn't learn how do deal with boys/girls. I think that they probably learn better because of the absence of relationships, dating etc. That is a learning experience in itself however. It sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.

[agentkgb]

Spider wrote: Sure, why not, since there's no better way to prepare young people for life than by creating a completely artificial environment for them to spend their formative years in.... :roll:
:lol:

[perdidochas]

agentkgb wrote: 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.
Research from where? I'm just wondering.

One example:

www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/news.asp?section=000100010003&item=335

[The Grandmaster]

The first thing I though when I read this was quite simply “Oh no… :cry: ”

It’s 2006, and I feel like each day we go by, we are quite literally going backwards more and more.

This poster said it best…

Spider wrote: Sure, why not, since there's no better way to prepare young people for life than by creating a completely artificial environment for them to spend their formative years in.... :roll:

If we are lagging in education, it is for reasons other than the fact that boys and girls can interact. The countries ahead of us have sexes that can interact, the succeed because their school system isn’t so shi**y. Quite simply, they teach better.

Interacting with the opposite sex is a part of life. It isn’t merely enough to learn your ABCs, learn math, and learn how to be a good employee. You need to learn how to live. You need you learn how to interact with people. You need to have a social foundation. You need this not just for your job. You need this for your life.

How about the fact it’s nice for boys to have girls around? How about the fact that it’s nice for girls to have boys around? Have we gotten so uptight in today’s world that we see literally living a life where we interact with the opposite sex as a distraction from the “work” that needs done?
And quite simply, it would be less fun. Is the answer to make the kids miserable?

What about learning how to talk to a girl? What about dances? What about learning to be a social person. What about life?

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.

I knew you would say that. :(

There is more to life than just a job and work. You are older and more experienced in life than I am. Surely you would know this better than me.

This is like fixing a flat tire with a bottle of pickle brine. It’s just not the answer.

I’ve got some news for everyone. It isn’t enough to be book smart. It isn’t. If you can’t deal with people, having a Fields Medal in mathematics isn’t going to help you.

[BigOMG]

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.

Having attended an all boys school for 6 years, I have to tell you, you are WRONG. So is this research and it's findings. Everyone I know who went to the "Same sex" schools then went to a public school did considerably better in the Co-ed environment. Learning from several perspectives and views. And it would be another huge waste of money in an area that wastes money with little or no benefit.
It could be better spent ensuring that teachers are actually teaching what needs to be taught, not some more PC bs.

[perdidochas]

The Grandmaster wrote: The first thing I though when I read this was quite simply “Oh no… :cry: ”

It’s 2006, and I feel like each day we go by, we are quite literally going backwards more and more.

This poster said it best…

Spider wrote: Sure, why not, since there's no better way to prepare young people for life than by creating a completely artificial environment for them to spend their formative years in.... :roll:

If we are lagging in education, it is for reasons other than the fact that boys and girls can interact. The countries ahead of us have sexes that can interact, the succeed because their school system isn’t so shi**y. Quite simply, they teach better.

Interesting that Germany and England, among other countries, are also contemplating going back to single sex education.

The Grandmaster wrote: It isn’t merely enough to learn your ABCs, learn math, and learn how to be a good employee. You need to learn how to live. You need you learn how to interact with people. You need to have a social foundation. You need this not just for your job. You need this for your life.

School is not a normal social environment. Besides school, where else do you sit in a room with a single older individual and a group of 15-40 same aged (or close to that) individuals. School is not (nor should it be) a training ground for social interaction between the sexes.


The Grandmaster wrote: How about the fact it’s nice for boys to have girls around? How about the fact that it’s nice for girls to have boys around? Have we gotten so uptight in today’s world that we see literally living a life where we interact with the opposite sex as a distraction from the “work” that needs done?
And quite simply, it would be less fun. Is the answer to make the kids miserable?

Actually, they find that most kids in single sex classes prefer it. They don't have to try to impress the opposite sex, they can relax and be themselves.

The Grandmaster wrote: What about learning how to talk to a girl? What about dances? What about learning to be a social person. What about life?

Hmm, 3 minute intervals between classes. That's a good time to talk..... Historically, joint dances between a boys school and a girls school were the norm.



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.

I knew you would say that. :(

There is more to life than just a job and work. You are older and more experienced in life than I am. Surely you would know this better than me.

This is like fixing a flat tire with a bottle of pickle brine. It’s just not the answer.

I’ve got some news for everyone. It isn’t enough to be book smart. It isn’t. If you can’t deal with people, having a Fields Medal in mathematics isn’t going to help you.[/quote]

The research shows that girls in all girls schools get more benefits out of it than mere "book smarts." They have increased confidence, social skills, leadership abilities etc. Not as much research has been done in all boys schools.

Also, if you look at cultures historically, coed education is the new wrinkle (since about the 1960s). Same sex education is the way things have been done historically. Maybe there are good reasons for that. Men and women do have different interests/abilities/tastes. Having teenagers

[perdidochas]

BigOMG wrote: 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.

Having attended an all boys school for 6 years, I have to tell you, you are WRONG. So is this research and it's findings. Everyone I know who went to the "Same sex" schools then went to a public school did considerably better in the Co-ed environment. Learning from several perspectives and views. And it would be another huge waste of money in an area that wastes money with little or no benefit.
It could be better spent ensuring that teachers are actually teaching what needs to be taught, not some more PC bs.

Well, why did they go from same sex schools to a coed environment? Could it be they did better in the coed environment, because it is better in comparison to everyone else, rather than compared to how they could have done. Also, anecdotal evidence tells us little.

[StrangerWitCandy]

This is a big ol' step backwards in my opinion... lets not segregate the sexes.

[johnflesh]

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?