Gender segregated classrooms? Yay or Nay?

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][quote name='Dagger']Mm, I don't think it'd be so terrible. Unless you're talking about the vicious social aspect of it, in which case I'd agree--but only for middle school and maybe the beginning of high school. [/quote]
You know in my [i]first hand painful experience[/i], that viscious social aspect extends far beyond the beginning of highschool. I can't see it getting any better in an all girl environment, where **** like that is allowed to foster and grow in its own scary bubble without outside influences.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=DeadSeraphim][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]
You know in my [i]first hand painful experience[/i], that viscious social aspect extends far beyond the beginning of highschool. I can't see it getting any better in an all girl environment, where **** like that is allowed to foster and grow in its own scary bubble without outside influences.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Yeah, that was a bad assumption on my part. From what I saw, it seemed like the wave of girls ganging up on one another peaked in middle school and gradually dropped off after that. I was lucky in that I went to a middle school where they placed a huge emphasis on eliminating cliques and those kinds of conflicts; by the time we were settled in high school, everyone had gotten burned out on picking on each other. It would make sense for this to vary a lot depending on the environment/school you're in.

Whether or not it ended up being more socially Darwinist than your average co-ed school, I don't think I'd have enjoyed going to an all-girls' school.

~Dagger~

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Sorry I'm jumping in a little late here. I just noticed this topic and had a few thoughts.

First, I?d like to take a moment to look at the article [COLOR=DarkRed]ChibiHorsewoman[/COLOR] provided us with and note some of the statements I am uncomfortable with.[/FONT]
[QUOTE=10NBC News]It's being called the biggest change to co-ed classrooms in more than 30 years. The Bush administration is giving public schools more latitude to teach boys and girls separately. Some education officials say students learn better in a single-sex environment. The U.S. Department of Education is changing the rules on how it enforces the Title Nine Landmark Anti-Discrimination Law. Starting next month, local schools will have the ability to create same-sex classes, grades, or even entire schools. Single-sex classes have been in session at Our Lady of Mercy High School since 1928.

Principal Vilma Goetting has been in the education field for nearly 40 years. She believes the U.S. Department of Education is making a wise decision to give public schools more flexibility. ?I truly believe in the single sex-education, particularly at the middle school and high school level.? Goetting says when it comes to boys and girls, ?They do learn differently and they think differently and they may look at the same thing from a different perspective.?

The changes affect elementary and secondary education and would allow schools to separate genders if school leaders believed it offered educational benefits. In all cases, single-sex enrollment would be voluntary. Students and parents we spoke with at Monroe High School are ok with the idea.

Ninth grader Israel Headley feels same-sex classes would mean less distraction in the classroom. ?I think it'd be better because you'd have more focus in the classroom like not looking at a lot of females.? Officials at McQuaid Jesuit High School know the benefits of same-sex education. ?When you look at the United States, one of our concerns is what's the best for students? I think we have to be realistic that there are different learning environments that best suit students.

Principal Bill Hobbs says there's no doubt, boys and girls learn differently. ?What I want to see is equal opportunities, but in terms of learning styles.

Hobbs hopes some public schools will take advantage of the choice now being given by the Department of Education. ?I think we can't be afraid of experimentation in that regard, saying what?s going to be best for the future generations.?

The new regulations take effect on November 24th. Not everyone is happy about the decision. Critics say it will create sex discrimination in schools. We spoke with Rochester City School District officials and they said the district will definitely consider single gender classes.[/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]My first bone is that this is not [I]news[/I]. This is an [I]opinion[/I], slanted towards gender-segregated classrooms and worded to give the illusion of impartiality. Note that not one quote the article used offered any sort of counterstatement to gender-segregation. Even though the final paragraph made an effort to address the opposing viewpoint, it was merely cursory; the article had barely mentioned the dissenters ? and failed to clarify [I]who they were[/I] ? before it shifted back to its initial stance:[/FONT]
[QUOTE]The new regulations take effect on November 24th. [COLOR=DarkRed][B]Not everyone[/B] is happy about the decision. [B]Critics[/B] say it will create sex discrimination in schools.[/COLOR] We spoke with Rochester City School District officials and they said the district will definitely consider single gender classes.[/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]Who is ?not everyone?? Who are these ?critics?? And why aren?t they happy with the decision? That paragraph is not impartial; it is an attempt to appear impartial by saying opposition exists, but the two stances are not presented in an equal light. I?m not even sure what the opposition?s arguments against split-sex education are, so how can I agree or disagree?

My beliefs on this particular issue aside, I cannot stand biased news articles. They serve less to inform and more to influence the reader, and that is [I]not[/I] the true function of the news.

Additionally, there were several ambiguous statements made throughout the article. I mentioned two above, and more follow:[/FONT]
[QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]It's[/COLOR] being called the biggest change to co-ed classrooms in more than 30 years?.

[COLOR=DarkRed]Some education officials[/COLOR] say students learn better in a single-sex environment?.

[COLOR=DarkRed]Officials at McQuaid Jesuit High School[/COLOR] know the benefits of same-sex education. ?When you look at the United States?.?[/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]I point out the article?s beginning, even though it clarifies itself in the following statement, because the sentence is not meant to [I]inform[/I], but to attract attention. The emphasis is on the biggest change in thirty years, not what that change is, and while it does a great job of eliciting an immediate response from the reader, i.e.: ?Ah, progress in action!? or ?Who do these people think they are to challenge a set institution?? blah-blah-blah, etc., it still tells the reader nothing about what they are reacting to. Essentially, it biases the reader before he/she even knows what they?re biased about.

The second and third statements offer opinions without clarifying who has them. Admittedly, the third statement is a bit more specific, narrowing the field to McQuaid Jesuit High School, but in neither case is a truly specific source cited. [I]What[/I] ?education officials? say students learn better in a single-sex environment? [I]What[/I] MJHS officials know the benefits of same-sex education? And what [I]are[/I] these ?benefits?? What I see is a classic cop-out in essay writing called Bull-Sh**ing to fill up space. (I should know ? I?ve done it a few times myself.) It?s used when the writer wants to make a particular point but can?t use anything from their sources because none of the statements are definitely in agreement with what he/she wants to say, so they make a generalization and fail to support it adequately. It also reflects a very juvenile newswriter.

The other article provided by [COLOR=DarkRed]ChibiHorsewoman[/COLOR] is also much too vague for my liking. Until I am presented with the [I]statistical evidence[/I] these ?researchers? claim to have, and have tested it thoroughly myself (which I know how to do, thankyouverymuch) or have the appropriate processes shown to me, I will remain somewhat skeptical of their ?conclusions?, for I know just how easy it is to manipulate figures, data charts, models, and graphs to suit one?s own purposes.

Now, as to the issue itself, I believe that gender segregation in the classroom is a nice idea. Just that, [I]a nice idea[/I]. Like communism, it?s great in theory. Knowing how to apply it properly is a whole ?nother story. I honestly see no problems with the proposed idea. I also see no possible benefits it will definitely have. I do not think that the education solution lies down the path of ?How can we optimize the learning experience in the classroom?? The problem isn?t the teachers or the system, so changing them will not help matters in the long run.

The problem is the students.

My ?learning experience? (a term at which I snort derisively) was pretty much made by me. I was homeschooled: my parents gave me material to work with, said ?Get it done,? and lo? and behold, I did it. Granted, I learned some things faster than others (I never finished handwriting courses ? I saw them as irrelevant ? and I excelled at mathematics and writing), but when [I]I decided to do something[/I], I got it done. This was most of the time, since I saw no particular reason not to do my work.

I entered public school in the sixth grade. As time progressed, I began to notice that I was always at the top of all my classes. I also noticed that there were generally more girls than boys up there in the ?honors-sphere? (^_^), making it very lonely for poor little male me, and I started watching my fellow classmates to see why. What I noticed was this: those that made better grades were those that [I][B]focused[/B][/I]. And the lack of focus in the others, even through my senior year of high school, was [I]not[/I] because there were members of the opposite gender present. It was because my classmates just didn?t want to do the work. They didn?t care. I noticed few guys, if any at all, staring at girls, or vice versa. I also noticed several instances of [I]girls[/I] who just didn?t give a bloody d*mn.

I will instantly agree that girls and guys learn differently. I will also agree that girls and guys can let themselves get distracted by the opposite sex, but that generally doesn?t occur heavily until grades 8-10 ? around puberty, but still lacking in mental maturity. However, until the student him/herself actually [I]Wishes To Learn[/I], there will always be cases like this, and no amount of tweaking the system is going to solve them.

-A

P.S.: Just for the record, the majority of guys like active things, like running, baseball, beating-the-snot-out-of-each-other-for-the-deuce-of-it, etc. This may explain why so many boys have ?trouble concentrating?. They want to be doing something. It?s a mental thing. Sitting in a classroom doing jack-diddly is not the best way to keep their attention, so the teacher needs to demand it. Respect may be earned, but attention is given, regardless of whether one wants to or not.[/FONT]