Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
SAME SEX EDUCATION CONSIDERED.
My first thought when reading this week's New York Times Magazine's cover story on same-sex public education was, "hey, they quoted Sara Mead, proprietor of the fine new blog Early Education Watch!"
My second thoughts were more complicated. Leonard Sax, the self-styled neuroscientist attempting to base his schools around studies showing that girls hear better, and draw with more colors, than boys, is an obvious crank, and it's a shame that anyone is giving his theories credence. But even a crank relying on spurious research could actually tumble into a good idea.
But did he? There's no real evidence of it. And it would be very difficult to generate good empirical data on the subject. After all, a school in which the principal is frustrated by current methods of pedagogy and casting around for alternatives is already an outlier of sorts. Add in a faculty positively disposed towards the suggested change and parents making affirmative decisions to shake up their child's curriculum and you're already looking at a pretty rare institution. Indeed, you can find lots of good schools, using all sorts of pedagogical innovations, that seem like an excellent model for public education, but are actually powered less by curriculum innovations and more by a combination of excellent leadership, above-average instructors, engaged parents and bright kids. And personnel is much harder to replicate than subject matter or demographic sorting.
Additionally, the specific strain of same-sex education Sax is pushing -- which caters to boys' loud, aggressive "natures" on the one hand, and emphasizes the quiet, cooperative, domestic-oriented "natures" of girls on the other -- seems far riskier than simply segregating students by gender. Eventually, these kids will be mainstreamed back together, albeit with certain aspects of their gender roles reinforced in a classroom setting. Putting boys who've been taught to be louder and more aggressive in a class with girls who have been habituated to learning through quiet, open conversation seems somewhat problematic. In general, I'm not opposed to same sex education, but using it to reinforce a certain conception of masculinity and femininity is a much dicier proposition.
COMMENTS (14)
For reasons that are sadly obvious, no one ever thinks about the gay kids (particularly the boys) when same-sex education comes up. Reinforcing gender roles may have a temporary beneficial effect for some, but I see lots of others who will try to fake illness every morning and come home crying every afternoon. High school is already rough enough.
And yeah, unless you plan to isolate yourself from the opposite sex for your entire life, you're going to need some experience in co-ed situations.
Posted by: Mike B. | March 2, 2008 3:25 PM
Same-sex education is all about enforcing gender stereotypes.
And nothing else.
Gay kids who'll "fake illness every morning and come home crying every afternoon"? If they're lucky.
The unlucky ones will end up like Lawrence King.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | March 2, 2008 3:38 PM
The problem with education in general is basically that we don't know what works. Most of the reputable studies contradict themselves or say nothing, and then all we have are anecdotes, which of course also contradict themselves. From a technocratic perspective this is really annoying, and it might just be that there's no such thing as one-theory-fits-all or even one-theory-fits-most. It's obvious to everyone that we need better teachers, better curriculum, and somehow help the poor minority kids, but it's not at all clear how we might achieve those things.
As for same-sex education, if you want to segregate it probably makes more sense to segregate on the basis of some form of testing. But as with all such segregation it's unlikely to actually be "separate but equal."
Posted by: Korha | March 2, 2008 3:43 PM
There are only so many kids in the world who are going to transgress gender roles. The primary social question is how do we improve public education for all the kids who are currently failing out of our economic-funneling system, many of them poor minorities? If same-sex education dramatically improves kids' ability to graduate and get into college, then we should do that. Of course the NYMag article makes clear that it's not at clear that same-sex education does these things.
Posted by: Korha | March 2, 2008 3:50 PM
There is, its worth noting, a huge research literature on same-sex education in the real world- so we don't need to rely on the speculation of neurologists for this. Its not like same sex education is something that's never been studied - its something thats been studied over and over and over again by all sorts of researchers of varying ideological stripes. And the conclusion is that basically on the whole it makes no difference. There are times when it works very, very well, times when it doesn't work at all, and times when it has iatrogenic effects. Seems to me that the logical conclusion then, is that whatever the magic ingredient that makes same sex education work so well in some instances, it is not same sex education per se.
Posted by: brklyngrl | March 2, 2008 4:18 PM
Kids really need to learn to form effective relationships with members of the opposite sex. I don't care if it stunts their learning, not having this will stunt their development as a human being. Society really doesn't need to start thinking up new ways to damage people.
Posted by: soullite | March 2, 2008 4:45 PM
The Patriarchy IS pretty tough - demanding, rather?- on nice little boys...tho.
[Just by way of confounding
some of that thesis]
Posted by: has_te | March 2, 2008 5:50 PM
Everyone is mean to nice people.
this is America: Kindness = Weakness. Didn't you get the memo, has_te?
Posted by: Soullite | March 2, 2008 5:53 PM
I read that article. It was right out of But I'm A Cheerleader with the boys in blue rooms with blue bed spreads and blue outfits and the girls done up in pink.
The real problem is that Americans want a gimmick.
Posted by: Kaleberg | March 2, 2008 8:10 PM
The funny thing is, all the previous articles I've read arguing for same-sex schools takes the tack that it would be better for girls (less argument that it would be better for boys) because it would be a way of sheltering them from gender-stereotype roles. This means they feel free-er to be more aggressive about raising hands in class etc.
Posted by: battlepanda | March 2, 2008 9:47 PM
That's like saying that racially segregated schools are good for black children because they shelter them from racial stereotypes.
Kaleberg hit it on the nose. People don't want to face up to the deep-rooted, systemic problems of education, so they get excited about apparent quick fixes that don't ask anything of anybody.
Posted by: amy | March 2, 2008 11:34 PM
Incidentally, a good way to make girls more comfortable about raising their hands in class is to call on them. Lots of studies show that teachers are more likely to call on boys; girls are taught to be 'uncomfortable' about being vocal. Training teachers to be aware of their own classroom behaviors is not hard to do.
Posted by: amy | March 2, 2008 11:53 PM
Yes, clearly our schools should be separate but equal. Why hasn't anyone thought of that already?
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | March 3, 2008 2:58 AM
Thank you my friend ...
http://www.m9ryh.com
Posted by: دردشة مصر | June 12, 2009 11:59 PM