Single-sex education

[Katieq]

Inspired by the Are You a Feminist thread, I'm creating a new thread for a question I asked in there, because it would have gone off on another whole tangent.

So I'll ask again: what do you think about single-sex education?

[MrsKey]

I assume you mean all-girls or all-boys schools?

I think it is a fine option.

My daughter will most likely attend an all-girls high school.

I think that the raging hormones of youth and close proximity to members of the opposite sex can be a distraction from the very important and necessary act of obtaining and education.

Though this may not be the ideal situation for all students I think it remains a viable educational option. And as single sex schools are generally private educational institutions and people attend them by choice (either the parents choice in high school or the students choice at the post-secondary level) I really have no problem with the concept of their existence.

[mayuko]

of course, being with a group of people all of one's same gender may not help the raging hormones thing. i know if i were hormonal, and surrounded by girls, i wouldn't be doing a lot of learning *cough* besides, even if one were not attracted to those of his/her own gender, without another option, one may become so inclined as to, shall we say, experiment a little? of course, the experimentation would tend to only occur at single-sex boarding schools, i would assume, but i don't think i've ever heard of a single-sex school that was not a boarding school.

i do agree that it's a good idea for some, though. to each his/her own. i just wanted to bring that up.

[Black Heart]

I went to an all-girls high school for 7 years and I like it on the whole. I wanted to go there, mostly because I felt I wasn't hard enough for the local comp and I felt more at ease with the idea of all girls, and less threatened by it. There was an all-boys school over the road that our school had links with and did joint activities with (not *those* kind of activities!), and we had joint lessons in sixth form, so we weren't totally isolated from the opposite sex. I'm glad I had the opportunity to go there, and I feel that for some people, it's the right choice.

I did hear that generally, girls do better in single-sex schools, and boys do better in mixed schools. Not sure how they explained that though.

[Black Heart]

even if one were not attracted to those of his/her own gender, without another option, one may become so inclined as to, shall we say, experiment a little?

That never happened at my school. I'm not aware of one girl who was gay or bi whilst as school, though I'm sure there must have been some in a school of 1000+ pupils. It wasn't a boarding school.

[Joe]

So I'll ask again: what do you think about single-sex education?

I think it has serious legal problems on the federal level in the US. Title IX forbids discrimination on the basis of gender for educational institutions receiving federal funds.

Feminists loved this when they could sue schools to get benefits for female sports programs, etc.

But many "feminists" seemed not to realize the implications of this law for single-sex education. This law practically makes single-sex education illegal for institutions receiving federal funds--at least, it does when the first male who is denied admission to a school or a class chooses to sue.

Katha Pollitt (sp?) has an essay about a tenured women's studies professor who tried to restrict her class to women. She was stripped of her tenure and fired when she refused to admit a male student to the class after the University administration directed her to do so. The University was threatened with a discrimination suit under Title IX.

Many "feminists" are all for equality when equality benefits them, but when it cuts the other way, they seem to react with astonishment and seem to think that it only applies to others, not themselves.

I don't see any practical framework for single-sex education at the post-secondary level in the US.

[Alfiedog]

I found that the kids that went to same sex schools did 'bad' things (drugs, sex) a lot more that the coed kids.

[Artichoke47]

It doesn't matter either way to me. Luckily, the same-sex schools are privately-operated, so the parents have a choice in the matter.

I couldn't figure out what in the world this thread was about, either. :lol: I thought maybe it was about teaching people to masturbate or something. "Single sex-education," I guess would be the appropriate term.

[kristadb]

That's what I thought it was about too!!! :lol:

[Katieq]

i don't think i've ever heard of a single-sex school that was not a boarding school.


wow, for real? there are a million (okay, i don't have the exact figures) non-boarding schools for all boys or all girls, particularly secondary schools, all over the world.

[Peebs]

Education should be left to the free market, and if demand exists for such a service then the free market will provide it.

As for what's better, I don't know enough about child psychology and this issue to form an opinion. I'll never have children so it's not an issue for me.

[MsRuthieB]

Ah, but it is an issue for you Peebs. Today's kids are tomorrows Society. You know, the future doctors,scientists, veg*ns, lawyers, I.T. people? And your tax dollars pay for other people's kids to go to school. So, you do have a vested interest in what's going on even though you don't plan to have kids.

[bluegrrrl79]

I don't think they're a good idea. How is that reality? Once they get out of school they'll be mixed with the opposite sex. What's the difference between single sex schools and single color schools? Also, a tidbit- all girl's schools tend to have higher rates of eating disorders.

And yes Joe, I'm a feminist. Please remember you're only talking about *some* people, there are many feminists against single sex schools (not that you said everyone is like that, just reminding you :) )

[ebola]

I am grossly uneducated in the issue, but I would have hesitations because it seems likely that students in single-sex schools would be missing out on an opportunity to lean skills in mixed-sex interactions.

>>I did hear that generally, girls do better in single-sex schools, and boys do better in mixed schools. Not sure how they explained that though.>>

I'm not sure either, but I would hazard a guess that it has something to do with the hierarchical nature of gender as it is currently constructed.

ebola
np: morsecode heartbeat

[Peebs]

Ah, but it is an issue for you Peebs. Today's kids are tomorrows Society. You know, the future doctors,scientists, veg*ns, lawyers, I.T. people? And your tax dollars pay for other people's kids to go to school. So, you do have a vested interest in what's going on even though you don't plan to have kids.

Not my kids, not my business.

Ideally people would become good doctors/lawyers/etc because they have incentive to do so. Schools would have an incentive to provide quality education, because if they didn't, they would lose business.

I shouldn't have to do a damn thing.

[MsRuthieB]

I'm not going to debate it, but if you pay fed,state, and/or local taxes or own a home and pay property tax you are doing one damn thing for the schools. You are funding them. Want proof?

[Bankruptor]

Ruthie, single sex schools are private though, so tax dollars don't go there, at least in the US. They are funded by the tuition the parents pay.

I sure wouldn't have been happy going to school with no women myself . . . ;)

[Dirty Martini]

My DH went to the citadel when it was all-male, and it's certainly a different college experience than the co-ed college I went to! :p I never had my ribs, knuckles, nose, or toes broken. Thankfully.

Though if we're talking about children, I don't see a problem with it. I imagine that a lot of the studies that say "girls learn better" from same-sex schools are comparing girls from same-sex private schools, and girls from public schools... the difference would be obvious - private schools are usually better than public ones, that's why you shell out the $$ for them.

Though I can certainly imagine that it would be a shock to go to an all girls' school one's whole life, then go to a co-ed college... what would the social skills be like?

And I agree with Mayuko - no matter what kind of school you attend, hormones are hormones. If you're going to be distracted at school, it doesn't matter where you are. I went to a public school and, looking back, I wasn't distracted enough - I spent way too much time studying and not enough time hanging out with friends (though that 10pm curfew didn't help any).

[Jimdavis]

Ah, but it is an issue for you Peebs. Today's kids are tomorrows Society. You know, the future doctors,scientists, veg*ns, lawyers, I.T. people? And your tax dollars pay for other people's kids to go to school. So, you do have a vested interest in what's going on even though you don't plan to have kids.

:up:

Jim

[Jimdavis]

Ruthie, single sex schools are private though, so tax dollars don't go there, at least in the US. They are funded by the tuition the parents pay.

I sure wouldn't have been happy going to school with no women myself . . . ;)

No, tax dollars don't pay for it. It's paid for with even more funds, the consumer dollar. The people who are usually sending their kids to a single-sex school and paying that tuition are the rich or the soon-to-be-rich or the upper middle-class. People who own businesses and own stocks and make money because people spend money. Their children are getting the education we are paying for.

Oh... and I'm not saying that's bad... it just occurred to me.

Jim

[Jimdavis]

By the way, I went to Wabash College, an all-male college that is one of ... I guess... three in the nation. I'm not sure about the other two's current status. Wabash was rich enough to say that it didn't need federal aid going to its students, which was a string the federal government kept trying to pull. I don't know if the U.S. gov't ever followed through or not.

Jim

PS - This is an example of how single-sex colleges (and really colleges and education in general) is not a free market and is pushed and prodded by the federal government all the time by threats of removing money.

[Peebs]

I'm not going to debate it, but if you pay fed,state, and/or local taxes or own a home and pay property tax you are doing one damn thing for the schools. You are funding them. Want proof?

Thanks for explaining how taxes and public education work :rolleyes:. That's exactly what I said I was against. I advise you to read what I wrote before typing an irrelevant response.

Oh, and thanks for coming out.

[Joe]

And yes Joe, I'm a feminist. Please remember you're only talking about *some* people, there are many feminists against single sex schools (not that you said everyone is like that, just reminding you :) )

I agree that not all feminists support single-sex schools. I just don't see how any feminists can support or justify them, since they depend on discrimination on the basis of gender--applicants of the opposite gender will be rejected due to gender. Otherwise, you can't have a single-sex school.

[Joe]

Education should be left to the free market, ...

Gee, I live in a country where the opposite sentiment prevails and has prevailed for at least the last 100 years, where virtually every local government provides for education through the high school level, where virtually every state government has a state funded university system,
where virtually every state has a lottery to fund that university system and/or provide college scholarships, etc. And a country where the Federal government provides massive aid to education at all levels. I also live in a country where the practice of funding public education goes back to and before the founding of the Republic.

[MsRuthieB]

Ruthie, single sex schools are private though, so tax dollars don't go there, at least in the US. They are funded by the tuition the parents pay.

I sure wouldn't have been happy going to school with no women myself . . . ;)


In Cleveland we have a Bond Scholarship Program where if the child's parent(s) meet the income criteria and who's application is accepted can send their child to any private school the wish off of a list of participating schools. We, the taxpayers, pay a part or all of the tuition for said child.

The Bond Program is funded with tax dollars .

It's been the hot spot of many debates in Columbus because some tax payers do not believe it's fair to have to pay to send a child to private school when they themselves can't afford to send their own child to a private school.

On the other hand, why should the child suffer simply because the parent doesn't have the capability of earning enough income to send the child to a typically better school?