Teaching Girls and Boys Separately -- Good or Bad?

Read this, and then see if you agree with my take on things. Leave comments! :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=2c738e6056cb2eeb&ex=1362027600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

On one hand, it probably is a good idea because, yes, there are obvious differences between how they learn and express themselves--and many examples were given in the article (like light, temperature, and even use of crayon colors). However, if we continue to break it down and separate different students, we're eventually going to end up on an individualized system---where it's one teacher per one student. Since this obviously isn't practical nor possible (since we struggle to get one good teacher per 18-30 kids)---we have to accept that kids are going to have to be grouped together at some point and in some fashion. People used to (and some still do) complain about keeping children with certain disabilities out of the mainstream classrooms, so now, we're required to include them, and teachers have to create an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) for those students to make sure they're making progress according to their abilities.

The reality is, once the kids grow up, they're going to have to work in a coed environment--both at work and in their personals lives. Apparently, it is already hard enough for men and women to understand each other, so how would separating them at an early age really benefit them in the long run? I believe they should have coed classrooms, where the teacher recognizes the differences of each student--whether it means boy or girl, black or white, fast or slow, or whatever--and that teacher uses that knowledge of differences to create a positive learning experience for each child. Doing different things to cottle each child's needs should be done in an effort to individualize the education of every student in a mixed student environment.

Do I believe separating them is going to help both in the here-in-now and the future? No. Sure, there is a list of things that might benefit them slightly in the present (i.e., classroom lighting and temperature), but is that going to make a big enough impact on how they learn now without depriving them of normal social interaction and learning about each other and how to work with each other? I don't personally think so.

In reaction to the part that said the South has a more "conservative view" of gender roles...What we need to do, instead of separating the kids, is find teachers who know what they're doing and who don't promote or favor one gender over the other, or one culture over another, or whatever the case may be.

By separating boys from girls, I think the people are using those differences against the children. And if you have a teacher that believes radical thoughts one way or another about one gender and then shares those ideas through his/her teachings, the kids are not going to benefit from that. It's going to create a further divided society---actually, even if the teacher doesn't have radical teachings, it can create that sort of dynamic.

Nowadays, they tell us future teachers (like a million times a week) to use cooperative learning--where children of different abilities can work together and feed off of each other's strengths. I think this should apply to gender as well. If boys "can see action better" than girls, but the girls can see the "color and texture," then why not put them together to create the picture you want them to see as a whole?

To sell single-sex classrooms to parents by only providing the positives is not honest. How about giving them the positives and the negatives? Sax apparently has a problem with looking at research that disagrees with his views.

Anyway, the fact is, students are resilient and will conform to whatever is thrown their way--consider the one-room schoolhouses that used to exist. However, whatever they're being "thrown into" is not always the best way to go, of course. And in this case, single-sex classes are not the best way to go.

Ugh---I'm reading the article as I respond, and I just read the one part that says, "tidy science experiment: pouring red water, blue oil and clear syrup into a plastic cup to test which has the greatest density, then confirming their results with the firsthand knowledge that when you're doing the dishes after your mother makes fried chicken, the oil always settles on top of the water in the sink." What the heck? This is part of the problem!!! You are, as a teacher, supposed to use examples that bring aspects of the students' experiences into your teaching when it's applicable, but to say something gender specific like that is dumb. How about saying, "like when your mom or dad washes dishes after cooking"---not just the mom, Ward Cleaver (from "Leave It to Beaver")!!!

As for the success that has apparently been generated just by parents enrolling students in a single-sex class...how can we say it's not just the placebo effect? In other words, the parents, teachers, and/or students are led to believe the children's education system is better, so they play into that and benefit. It is said that when students--like those from a low socioeconomic status--get put in a new building with new things, they are more likely to treat it better than they would a run-down school. So, since this is a new teaching style, what's to say the students (and teachers) aren't reacting in a positive wayy just because it's a new system with new promises? And like the article states, those positive results were mostly seen where the higher-performing teachers and students were a big part of the active members in the single-sex classrooms. This goes back to the fact that the lower-performing teachers and students (especially the latter) are not often offered and/or exposed to things that are said to improve learning.

--What's with the inclusion of the 'dead rat in the wall' part? Ew.--

I totally agree with Giedd here--- "Giedd suggests the same is true when educators use gender alone to assign educational experiences for kids. Yes, you'll get more students who favor cooperative learning in the girls' room, and more students who enjoy competitive learning in the boys', but you won't do very well. Says Giedd, 'There are just too many exceptions to the rule.' " Definitely. What works for some children does not work for all, which is why teachers are told to engage all of the different kinds of learning styles and strengths in their lessons--for the benefit of each individual student.

A thought-provoking article--no? :)