• news
  • TUESDAY OCTOBER 2 2007 12:00 PM

S.C. Department of Education Separating the Men from the Gals



You can forget about Baby X. Single-gender classrooms may very well be in our immediate future thanks to South Carolina Department of Education administrator, David W. Chadwell. According to his online résumé, the Director for Single Gender Initiatives has his MA in Elementary Education as well as Philosophy and Social Policy, so how can this highly-educated and presumably enlightened individual ignore the blatant conditioning of gender roles in his program? How can he openly advocate segregation?

Well, like any overly analytical academic, he has accredited scientific research to support his claims. Since it’s been physically proven that boys do not hear as well as girls, Chadwell suggests that teachers of all-boys classroom utilize microphones. In comparison, teachers in all-girl classes say they have learned to speak more softly and refrain from yelling. This is because “[girls] can take yelling more personal than boys.”

Oh, and the shameless structuring of gender doesn’t by any means stop there. Because boys have proven shorter attention spans, more physical lessons are ideal. For example, throwing a ball to a male student answering a question will give the rest of the all-boy class incentive to retain the information. Seventh-grade boys are using measuring tape and skateboard parts to practice their algebra. Meanwhile, girls are interviewing each other to classical music about who is shy and who has a pet puppy at home. In already established programs, boys are reading action novels and girls are evaluating cosmetics for “science projects”.

This innovative education system is supposed to better meet the individual needs of each sex. As Seanna Adcox, Associated Press writes:

The theory is that by separating girls and boys – especially during middle school years typically marked by burgeoning hormones, self doubt, and peer pressure – lessons can be more effective because they are in unique classroom settings.


And, the US Department of Education seems to agree. Just last year the government updated its rules and regulations, making it easier for schools to create single-gender programs, so long as they feel it will improve their students’ academic achievement. Leave it to S.C. to be the first state willing to possibly sacrifice our children's education and use them as guinea pigs. Are our educators finally getting desperate?

Before recently, boys and girls in were rarely segregated with exception to physical and sex education classes. Looks like our public education system will now be taking over the formerly laborious task of training our boys to be boys and our girls to girls in both elementary and middle school. Say goodbye to any hope you had of gender equality and hello to a stricter system of societal gender roles. Not to mention an even wider communication gap between the sexes.

Obviously, not everyone is keen on separating the sexes in public schools. Kim Gandy, the current president of NOW (National Organization for Women), urges states to resist experimentation with single-gender classrooms. Gandy feels that these reported favorable results may actually be due to smaller class sizes and better teachers. Good call!

Elly has always enjoyed showing up the boys in class.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
LiquidSunset

LiquidSunset

Huntington Beach, CA
August 2006

OCT 02, 2007 12:15 PM

That is one of the most sexist ideas I've ever heard of.

JeffX

JeffX

I'm lost
June 2006

OCT 02, 2007 12:24 PM

I'm really glad I'm done with that era of my life. I mean the only reason the only reason I went to school those days was to talk to the girls and if they weren't there then my day would have been nearly pointless.

Tyvron

Tyvron

Ann Arbor, MI
September 2007

OCT 02, 2007 12:26 PM

DarkRocker said:
That is one of the most sexist ideas I've ever heard of.



Why? We already have all-boy and all-girl schools of all levels, including college. At least in this set up they could potentially interact at lunch or something. Not saying it's a good idea or isn't doomed to failure at some point sooner or later, but it isn't any worse than entire schools devoted to one gender.

SouGei

SouGei

Blackwood, NJ
January 2007

OCT 02, 2007 12:35 PM

So...there would be NOTHING good about school.

Xombies

Xombies

Montreal, QC
September 2005

OCT 02, 2007 12:35 PM

this is kind of funny, and not that i completely oppose gender segregation in schools. private schools do it a lot, its old fashioned and as long as no ones repressed i dont see an issue.....but how will this keep the children from having kids at what...now 15 yrs old?

ps while its amusing to joke about how guys are "stupider" than girls, making this a reality kind of ticks me off, and i feel like they would then feel less pressured even more to grow up, therefore making it seem okay for them to be "slower"

eeesh

thanks.

Rapid_Fire

Rapid_Fire

Saskatoon, SK
July 2007

OCT 02, 2007 12:41 PM

This is the worst idea ever!

Half the reason I went to middle school was to stare at the cute girls!

NadzOfSteel

NadzOfSteel

Brooklyn, NY
August 2004

OCT 02, 2007 12:47 PM

I'm all for the experiment, actually. Boys and girls learn with and react to different stimuli. I don't think you've related anything in this story that suggests that the boys are going to be trained to be rugged or that the women are going to be trained as housewives.

I went to an all-boys high school, and anyone who knows me could tell you it didn't make me any "manlier". wink

semiretiredpunk

semiretiredpunk

USA
March 2007

OCT 02, 2007 12:48 PM

You know, South Carolina was the first state to leave the Union so it could keep slavery, too. What a wonderfully progressive place! puke

Agincourtdb

Agincourtdb

I'm lost
November 2005

OCT 02, 2007 12:48 PM



Gandy feels that these reported favorable results may actually be due to smaller class sizes and better teachers. Good call!



+1

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

OCT 02, 2007 12:54 PM

Holy god. This was a Simpsons episode. To the letter.

NadzOfSteel said:
I went to an all-boys high school, and anyone who knows me could tell you it didn't make me any "manlier". wink


Great. You just related penis size into this. Way to make your point have resonance in a discussion about sexism.

merryplot

merryplot

Fort Eustis, VA
December 2006

OCT 02, 2007 12:55 PM

I don't know. At least there isn't talk about racially segregating the schools so I suppose that's a step forward for knuckle-draggers ooo aaa

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

OCT 02, 2007 12:57 PM

merryplot said:
I don't know. At least there isn't talk about racially segregating the schools so I suppose that's a step forward for knuckle-draggers ooo aaa



Not in South Carolina, anyway.

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

OCT 02, 2007 01:11 PM

go south carolina!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
somebody get me out of here!

yeojanamja

yeojanamja

Malaysia
July 2007

OCT 02, 2007 01:17 PM

Oh can you believe the audacity of Mr. Chadwell in trying to apply some knowledge of biology and sociology into the education process? Boys and girls are identical in every way! (and that's why it's so exciting to be alone in my room??) confused

boombands

boombands

Summerville, SC
May 2007

OCT 02, 2007 01:24 PM

You really seem to have no clue what you're talking about in this article. This isn't a forcible thing, the parents will choose. It's also not sexist. If you've ever taught children you would understand that boys and girls learn completely differently. You do have to be louder with boys than girls and other such things. This is simply helping kids learn not tring to be sexist. I wouldn't have liked it but if you have a child that does have a hard time learning this is a great idea. There is nothing wrong with specialising teaching programs to help children.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next