I found this NYT article by Jennifer Medina, “Schools Try Separating Boys from Girls”, interesting. The following are some of the highlights from this article on same-sex education:
Different Approaches to the Sexes:
“Michael Napolitano speaks to his fifth-grade class in the Morrisania section of the Bronx like a basketball coach. “You — let me see you trying!” he insisted the other day during a math lesson. “Come on, faster!”
Across the hall, Larita Hudson’s scolding is more like a therapist’s. “This is so sloppy, honey,” she prodded as she reviewed problems in a workbook. “Remember what I spoke to you about? About being the bright shining star that you are?”
Number of same-sex classrooms nationwide:
“The single-sex classes at Public School 140, which started as an experiment last year to address sagging test scores and behavioral problems, are among at least 445 such classrooms nationwide, according to the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education. Most sprouted since a 2004 federal regulatory change that gave public schools freedom to separate girls and boys.
In general, struggling students are steered toward the single-sex classes (anyone who objects can opt out). While test scores might not show it, Mr. Cannon and his teachers said there have been fewer fights and discipline issues, and more participation in class and after-school activities, since the girls and boys were split up.”
Benefits of same-sex classrooms according to teachers and students:
“There’s an aspect of male bonding, a closeness that we wouldn’t otherwise have,” he said. “I feel more like I am teaching them about right from wrong than I might have normally.”
And he said he can “be a little more stern” with his students now. “If I get in the face of a girl, she would just cry,” he said. “The boys respond to it, they know it’s part of being a young man.”
The overall jury seems to be out on same-sex education in terms of quantitative studies. That’s fine. Sometimes things don’t need to be quantified. The last comment from a boy tells volumes about the potential of this form of instruction. One size does not necessarily fit all when it comes to learning, but there are significant benefits, it seems, to this particular model.
The real key with education, of course, is the teacher. If one has a talented, engaging teacher who knows how to handle both sexes, great. But many schools have very few of this type of teacher, and most boys are taught predominantly by women. I don’t care what the NYT or any other cultural authority says, common sense tells us that such a setting will have an impact on a boy. It’s a great thing for boys to have at least some time around older men and peers of the same sex.
Boys learn different skills under a man and with boys than they do in a female-dominated classroom. They learn not to apologize for their sex, they’re able to be, well, boys, and they are likely far better understood and handled than they are in other settings. Of course, male culture does have some negative aspects of its own, and boys need teachers who will instruct them to be understanding, kind, civil, and nice. Boys often don’t get these lessons like they need to from male coaches and authority figures, and that is a major problem. Male culture alone is not ideal.
Here’s hoping for more parents who will think hard about their children’s education and training and who will not buy the cultural myth that boys and girls are generally the same and can be treated as such. Boys and girls each need adult role models who can instruct them in sex-specific ways. Otherwise, who else will help pre-teen boys get the hint about the necessity of deodorant?