• 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
Bonaparte

Bonaparte

Eugene, OR
September 2006

OCT 02, 2007 01:47 PM

Agincourtdb said:


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



+1



+1 also.

and, if this whole thing happens, these children are going to be socially retarded.

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

OCT 02, 2007 01:49 PM

The only problem I have with these is that they're statistical. Sure, boys tend to learn better from experimentation and physical stuff than girls who learn better from reading and discussion. But that's why you need to offer a balanced approach that offers different types of learning. This way you end up screwing the girl who learns by experimentation and the boy who learns by reading, because trends and tendencies are not absolutes and don't apply to individuals equally.

Tyvron

Tyvron

Ann Arbor, MI
September 2007

OCT 02, 2007 02:02 PM

apesamongus said:
The only problem I have with these is that they're statistical. Sure, boys tend to learn better from experimentation and physical stuff than girls who learn better from reading and discussion. But that's why you need to offer a balanced approach that offers different types of learning. This way you end up screwing the girl who learns by experimentation and the boy who learns by reading, because trends and tendencies are not absolutes and don't apply to individuals equally.



Well said.

Gylrek

Gylrek

Chula Vista, CA
August 2007

OCT 02, 2007 02:05 PM

I dont understand if the kids are learning better in seperate classes why is that wrong? we should stay with a program that has less results? As you said you "loved showing up boys" maybe thats the problem ,girls are more likely to ask for and/or help from other girls and the same with boys.

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

OCT 02, 2007 02:07 PM

Tyvron said:

apesamongus said:
The only problem I have with these is that they're statistical. Sure, boys tend to learn better from experimentation and physical stuff than girls who learn better from reading and discussion. But that's why you need to offer a balanced approach that offers different types of learning. This way you end up screwing the girl who learns by experimentation and the boy who learns by reading, because trends and tendencies are not absolutes and don't apply to individuals equally.



Well said.



right.
my other concerns with single-sex education are that while it may not be intended to socialize based on gender, i fear socialization creeping in, especially long-term. i have read various articles about single-sex education and it seems like some people do thrive in that environment, so i'm not discounting it entirely, but it seems something that should be approached with extreme caution, and as always, there are tradeoffs. one of them being that it may make it harder for kids to interact with the other sex if they are separated from them for so long. i think we benefit from a diverse learning environment and separating by gender would diminish that.

also, i'm concerned that long-term, a boys' club hierarchy may result.

Heracleitus

Heracleitus

Arlington, VA
May 2005

OCT 02, 2007 02:15 PM

Heracleitus didn't care about gender and always enjoyed showing up both sexes in class.

Ridley

Ridley

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

OCT 02, 2007 02:16 PM

I support gender separated classes in some ways. It is true that many boys and girls learn differently from each other. The throwing the ball around to keep boys paying attention is a good example.

There are always individuals who do not fit the normal learning need, which is why some schools have gifted, and special ed programs.

I don't think it's sexist to cater to a gender's needs, especially if the school is optional and parents choose to put their kid into it.

Plus if these schools have gender mixing at lunches, recesses and some classes like Art and music, than why does it matter? You still get social interaction with the opposite sex.

Ridley

Ridley

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

OCT 02, 2007 02:21 PM


In reality the best thing is to have great teachers who understand both sexes needs and teach both ways at the same time. That way both sexes learn and interact in the classroom. But this is an ideal that isn't always met.

Markus001

Markus001

United Kingdom
November 2004

OCT 02, 2007 02:59 PM

apesamongus said:
The only problem I have with these is that they're statistical. Sure, boys tend to learn better from experimentation and physical stuff than girls who learn better from reading and discussion. But that's why you need to offer a balanced approach that offers different types of learning. This way you end up screwing the girl who learns by experimentation and the boy who learns by reading, because trends and tendencies are not absolutes and don't apply to individuals equally.



+1

It's all a bit general, really. I think they're trying to apply single-sex school concepts to a mixed-school class system. Or maybe I'm just really tired.

Johnny_Flapjacks

Johnny_Flapjacks

Williamsport, PA
September 2006

OCT 02, 2007 03:59 PM

Tyvron said:

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.



You are speaking about private schools, this is about the public school system... big difference.

Johnny_Flapjacks

Johnny_Flapjacks

Williamsport, PA
September 2006

OCT 02, 2007 04:04 PM

creativename said:

In reality the best thing is to have great teachers who understand both sexes needs and teach both ways at the same time. That way both sexes learn and interact in the classroom. But this is an ideal that isn't always met.



You are such a dreamer.... I'd be happy with a mediocre teacher who understood what they were teaching.

Drakyn

Drakyn

New Providence, NJ
September 2006

OCT 02, 2007 04:04 PM

I'm gonna have to be contrarian to this. While growing up I would have hated being forced into an all boys class(Mistakingly thinking that being around girls would get me dates, Not the case) It would have been more beneficial.

I fell asleep in class all the time, and I tended to learn more from the male teachers who would improvise more physical lessons that they themselves respond to(One such lesson, Is a football helmet enough protections to keep me from being brained with an aluminum bat). and the Added difficulties of feeling awkward around girls REALLY cut into my self-esteem.

Being that it is optional, I agree with The SCDoE willingness to experiment with new educational styles.

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

OCT 02, 2007 04:14 PM

Johnny_Flapjacks said:

creativename said:

In reality the best thing is to have great teachers who understand both sexes needs and teach both ways at the same time. That way both sexes learn and interact in the classroom. But this is an ideal that isn't always met.



You are such a dreamer.... I'd be happy with a mediocre teacher who understood what they were teaching.


I'd be fine with moderately bad teachers who aren't completely ignorant.

DownNeck

DownNeck

Jersey City, NJ
March 2006

OCT 02, 2007 04:25 PM

Tyvron said:

apesamongus said:
The only problem I have with these is that they're statistical. Sure, boys tend to learn better from experimentation and physical stuff than girls who learn better from reading and discussion. But that's why you need to offer a balanced approach that offers different types of learning. This way you end up screwing the girl who learns by experimentation and the boy who learns by reading, because trends and tendencies are not absolutes and don't apply to individuals equally.



Well said.



+1

Nixon

Nixon

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

OCT 02, 2007 04:25 PM

I have to go call my Mom now...she's a teacher there...

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next