Why Florida Wants To Expand Single-Gender Classes

[alp227]

A handful of public schools in Florida have either all-girls or all-boys classrooms. More could be coming.

Rep. Manny Diaz, R-Hialeah, is behind a bill that would have one school in each school district offer only single sex classes. The proposed legislation would create a pilot project in designated districts for two years.

“With the idea that children all learn differently, this is a way that we can provide those parents – that don’t have the resources to send their students to a private school or a parochial school that has a gender specific setting – a local public school where they have access to it,” Diaz said.

A handful of public schools around the state already have single sex classrooms.

full: http://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2014/01/13/why-florida-wants-to-expand-single-gender-classes/

BACKWARDS.

I wonder how many at DU would defend such a backwards idea? How is this different from the racially "separate but equal" public education of the Jim Crow era?

[HockeyMom]

1. Be careful what you wish for

All Girls HS can get VERY Cut throat. Been there, done that, back in the 60s. From what my male friends at all boys schools said, the all girls were far, far worse. Both sexes seems to be the middle ground.

[cali]

4. far worse in what way?

[pnwmom]

2. I went to an all-girls school. I'd defend it.

Socially, it was far more relaxed than the public school I'd attended for middle school. No boys to compete for or impress, and all the leadership opportunities were open to girls.

Obviously, some people will have had a different experience, so the best idea is to give people a choice.

I think there is something to be said for the idea that choice should be available for public school kids too -- not just those with enough money to afford private schools.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. I'd certainly defend single-sex education.

There are a number of very obvious reasons it's not comparable to racial segregation.

Firstly, there's far more difference in the distribution of a whole range of characteristics between boys and girls than there is between different races, or even than there is between adult men and women.

Secondly, there's the potential for distraction at the age when hormones start flowing.

Single-sex education isn't going to be the best thing for all children - arguably not even for most - but it's certainly a perfectly legitimate approach, with potential benefits.

[alp227]

6. So what do we do about such differences?

Continue to perpetuate the stereotypes or act like the REAL WORLD?

If the REAL WORLD is not gender segregated (OK, we can get in arguments about certain sectors of the economy like fashion and engineering) why should children be allowed to be educated in gender segregated environments?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. We acknowledge that biology plays a significant role, and that they're not just stereotypes.

As I said, the difference* between boys and girls in their teens is significantly greater than between men and women (and also significantly greater than between younger boys and girls).

And cultural pressures obviously play a significant role in that, but so do biological factors.

Most obviously, girls go through puberty younger, and I would be amazed to learn that that was cultural rather than biological. And on average (and never, ever forget the "on average&quot they mature emotially faster: a class of sixteen-year-old girls *is* likely to stigmatise being a "swot", but on average it will do so rather less than a class of sixteen-year-old-boys. And men and women have fewer raging adolescent hormones, and more emotional maturity.

And some of that is directly relevant. For example, it's well-documented that on average boys do better when progress is measured by exams; girls do better on average when it is measured by coursework.

School is already completely unlike the "real world" (i.e. adult life) in practically ever particular, so I'm afraid I don't see that as being a relevant objection.

Here in the UK, single-sex schools of both genders are significantly overrepresented among the best schools. There are a number of reasons why that is certainly not a wholly causal link, and may not be a causal factor at all, but I think it's more likely than not that it's a factor.


*Difference in distribution, not universally, in case it's not obvious - there are practically no measurable properties beyond the crude biological ("has a Y chromosome&quot where all teenage boys measure differently to all teenage girls, but there are an awful lot that correlate with it, sometimes quite strongly. There are still correlations between men and women, but they're weaker.

[alp227]

9. So how can single-gender schools compromise between equality and biology?

That's what's frustrating. People who justify prejudices in a variety of degrees...no i'm not comparing your opinion with what the KKK would promote...use "because biology" as their rationale. How would such an education system promote the idea that human beings may be different but are still as worthy as one another?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Two obvious responses leap to mind.

Q: How would such an education system promote the idea that human beings may be different but are still as worthy as one another?

A1: How would it undercut such an idea? Saying that two people will benefit from different approaches to education, or even from the same approach to education but from keeping away from one another, is not saying anything about their relative worth.

A2: That's not what an education system is mostly for. It's a desirable outcome, sure, but the primary goal of an education system should be to educate as many children as well as possible, and reducing sexism is only one facet among many of that.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "compromise between equality and biology". Are you asking how we can have single-sex schools without them becoming unequal? If so, I think the main part of the answer is obvious: by funding them equally.


"Because biology" is a good argument, when, and only when, it's right (like all arguments). The biological* impact of your race on who you are and what you are like as a person is tiny, so "because biology" is almost always bad argument there. The biological impact of your sex on adults is much larger than from race, but still not that large - "because biology" has some role in explaining things like wage gaps, but it's easy to overstate. The biological impact of sex on teenagers, especially younger teenagers, is larger still, making "because biology" an important element of discussing of treating teenagers of different sexes differently.


*As opposed to the social impact. People of different races are obviously often treated differently, which *does* have significant impact, but given equal treatment you wouldn't be able to predict someone's race from things that matter about their mind with much more accuracy than from random guessing.

[PuppyBismark]

5. Single Sex Female Education can be an Excellent Idea

My daughter went to a single sex school and the results were amazing. She graduated and then excelled in two ivy league schools. In the school, leadership opportunities were available for everyone, not just the males, the learning environment encouraged women to excel in science and math.

I cannot speak for an all male school, but I would recommend all female education to most all females.

Also, as a dad, the social aspects were better, (less contact with boys while growing up.)

[Shandris]

8. All I see is a way to attack trans-folk.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't find this to be an attractive argument given the obvious exclusion. If we could rely on these schools being open to gender (not biological sex) expression, then I could get on board with the idea.

But in Florida? Yah...I'm having difficulty seeing that as something likely to spark much interest.

[davidn3600]

10. That's actually a good point

The transphobic folks would get behind this idea of sex segregation very quickly.

What do you do when you have a kid that seems to be transgender?