Get Schooled

By V for Vendetta

May 1, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Patti,

You’re right, some work and some don’t. I think it has more to do with the demographics and community involvement than anything else (such as the gender of the kids attending). In short, dumb idea. Pointless posturing as usual by the people in power. Love that alliteration.

By Aurore Murphy

May 1, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

I went to school in Chicago, where most of the catholic schools are single gender. Each girls’ school had a brother school for social events, plays and sports. Students seperated in differnet schools during normal class room time were more focused, relaxed, open and involved with teachers and each other. There wasn’t the distraction of the other sex nor the competition or other issues that would normally arise with teenagers. With the right management it can really work.

By Robert

May 1, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

It’s my understanding that research shows improved learning when the genders are separated. Girls are not as embarrassed in front of boys and boys don’t find the need to show off for girls.

IMHO, all school sytems large enough to support separate schools per gender should consider this. Of course, smaller school systems really cannot do this due to lower enrollment making it financially impossible to have dual buildings, administration, etc.

Schools can still hold social functions together so that the genders can mix. However, in the classroom it really is only a distraction.

By meme

May 1, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

It might actually work. After all, we were told that uniforms would never work in our school and the change in the behavior of the students is unbelievable. It won’t hurt (except some little darlings feeling) to try a single gender school.

By Jeff

May 1, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

“well endowed” teenage females with very low cut shirts. Males in the classroom. Enough said about distraction!!

By Cali Girl

May 1, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

I am a graduate of an all-girls high school in L.A. —- LOVED IT!!!

By Pompano

May 1, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Who cares if the idea actually improves test scores. Let’s implement it as a trial and track it to see if it has an impact on the “baby-momma” population.

By Erin

May 1, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

I think it could work well given the right oversight and administration. I’ve recently read a book (sorry, can’t remember the title right off hand) about the differences in learning styles between the genders.

What the book was saying - that girls and boys do learn differently and in some cases, behavioral problems in boys can be attributed to a learning style geared towards girls - made a lot of sense. If boys learn better in a way that is different from girls, then maybe having separate classes for them would help.

I think it’s an idea worth considering.

By high school teacher

May 1, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Are the teachers going to be the same gender as the students? Seems there is a disproportionate number of male teachers and female teachers.

By LHK

May 1, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Hey Patti, you should have watched The Simpsons last night! It was about this very thing. Springfield Elementary was split into a boys’ school and a girls’ school. The girls’ school was aesthetically amazing, with art in the hallways and purple ergonomic chairs in every classroom, but Lisa got fed up with her math class, which involved the girls trying to “feel” numbers and sing about how much they liked themselves. So she went to the boys’ school (dressed as a boy) and discovered that while the math class there was challenging, the boys fought physically all the time and there was no sense of discipline. I don’t care for the writing on the show much nowadays, but I think they did a good job of satirizing curriculums that take students’ self-worth into account over subject matter.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens when it’s put into practice. It’d be even more interesting if a high-test-score school was split in the same way, and we could have some comparison results from the two schools.

By Anita

May 1, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

I attended an all-girl Catholic school. Loved it. Want that for my kids when I have them…religious or public!

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

May 1, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Why not, it couldn’t get any worse by separating the girls and boys. I believe the mentoring partnership will also help the two schools thrive. I think it will be easier to get the girls to bund and form study groups. The boys might just gain more of a “team” spirit from this environment as well.

I heard something this morning on Good Morning America, from the #1 School in the countries Principal. He said, “Kids don’t care how much you know, but how much you care.” I saw something I liked as well. The entire classroom desks were in a circle. Every class in my elementary school was setup this way. They also had a low student/teacher ratio.

I don’t agree with the way the schools met the criteria to be on the list. It was not very efficient or precise. However, with the things I heard and saw, they were still way above the rest.

By Concerned

May 1, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

MY MOMMA ALWAYS TOLD ME, “YOU STAY AWAY FROM THEM GIRLS, THEY ARE THE DEVIL!!!”

By BlindHomer

May 1, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

At some point there needs to be a realization that more money, splitting the sexes, privatizing management, etc. will not overcome genetics and culture. In the meantime this approach probably will improve behavior. How much that will improve academic performance is hard to predict.

By Mary

May 1, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t matter what the educrats do to try to improve test scores..They had a cure du jour” at least every 3 years of my many years in the school system. It was a joke….Educators,if you don’t like the new approach, don’t fret…it won’t last more than 3 years at the most. Until students **must achieve… meet an established criteria before proceeding to the next level..we will continue to have low test scores, as well as high school graduates who cannot read above a 3rd grade level.

By tls

May 1, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

I went to an all-girl’s Catholic school. We had a brother school. Most of our social events were held in conjunction with the brother school (school plays, dances, fundraisers, afterschool extracurriculars).

I loved it and am looking for a similar setting for my children (preferably parochial or private). It works.

By MathEd

May 1, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

JUST ANOTHER BAND AID APPROACH TO FIXING A PROBLEM WHICH NEEDS AN ANTIDOTE

By SER

May 1, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

I went to an all boys pubic high school in NJ in the sixties. Not a problem. We had a sister all girls school right up the road. No distractions. We can’t get any worse then what going on now. The focus is on education not on each other.

By V for Vendetta

May 1, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Wow, I never would have expected such a massive amount of positive responses…

I try to be open minded however, so if an idea like this has this kind of support from the community (something I did mention earlier), then I say go for it! If only every community contained people like the ones posting here today…

Think of all the problems that would be solved! Blog on!

By Bob

May 1, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

I really do feel that this is a good idea. Having both a boy and girl in public schools, I can attest that most problems happen because of the boy/girl issue. If the sex is split that takes care of the problem and they can get back to the basic of learning and becoming upstanding citizens. Lets worry about the dating game off school property.

By SET

May 1, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Too Little, Too Late.

What the proponents of this are hoping for is that by removing the testerone from the room teaching can be improved.

What about the “girlfight” problem we just got through talking about. Do you believe the girlfights will stop when the girls don’t have boys readily avilable to fight over? Maybe they will.

The only segregation we need in the public schools is segregation by ability. And return of discipline.

It’s a solution so simple it escapes the educational establishment.

By Joe

May 1, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Let me start off my stating that I am a graduate of an all-male Catholic school. I thought that it was the greatest thing for me.

Environment is extremely essential in development and education, but environment is not limited to the gender of the people in your classroom. While I think this plan will help, it is not the only solution. The mentoring aspect is key here, and it’s more important than the separate genders, in my opinion. That is one thing that I was talking about when I mentioned environment.

However, we will continue to have serious educational problems here while these children’s environments are shoddy. When we face up and seriously address the issues of the cycle of poverty and the modern anti-intellectualism of American culture, we will never see progress.

By Prootwadl

May 1, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Separation into unisex schools might help.

Then again, I come from an area {the SW suburbs of Minneapolis, e.g., Minnetonka/Edina/Eden Prairie} where the public schools tend to be very good overall, and that sort of separation wasn’t needed.

Could simply be a cultural thing, though. I don’t know. Or maybe they simply had more money to work with up there.

Sports weren’t a big focus up there, either, at least to the extent I see down here.

By meme

May 1, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

The girl fights are ususally the result of boy problems. Notice I said usually.

By another teacher

May 1, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

At the school I teach at (in one of the large Metro districts), the science courses are taught that way. Empircal evidence points to a very positive result. The teachers are not generally the same gender as the students, but that doesn’t seem to be an issue.

By E. Lewis

May 1, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

There is this document called the US Constitution that mught put a damper on this separate but equal thing.

While it might work in some aspects for the genders to be in separate schools, what are we going to do if it turns out that African American students (substitute any racial group here) do better in black only classes? What if separating students according to social class will improve the learning abilities of some?

By SER

May 1, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

I see this going 97% in favor of splitting up the sexes. Okay, AJC how do we get this out of the blog and on the ballots…..

By Bibliowyrm

May 1, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Wow, think of what this could do to improve middle schools! All those hormones that would stand a much better chance of being under control, in my opinion. As the mother of two kids in the throes of puberty (one of each), I say let’s try it. I had 3 different teacher’s in my kids middle school tell me that all they did was try to get the kids through puberty. The teachers told me that learning was secondary!

By MMM

May 1, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Go for it! When you are at the bottom, SOMETHING must be done and the window dressing of the school name change clearly wasn’t changing anyone’s behavior.

One of our problems in public education has been that we keep looking for THE ONE THING and then try to apply it everywhere. Maybe there are many things. Expecting “it” to be proven to work in all situations with all children before we approve it is an excuse for being lazy and trying nothing!

P.S. Charter schools can’t do this because the law would not allow admission policies based on sex.

By Patti Ghezzi

May 1, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Darn it, Husband and I gave up on the Simpsons after about season 10… I’ll have to catch that one on a rerun….

Regarding male and female teachers… an Atlanta school official said the schools will not have all male or all female staffs. Hiring practices cannot be based on gender. However, schools can - and the good ones do - recruit male teacher applicants so they will have some male authority figures for students of both sexes.

By luvs2teach

May 1, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Having taught both, and having raised both, I think it could be positive - possibly more so for the boys than the girls.

I have had classes that, through the luck of the computer, have been almost all boy or all girl - those were some of the easiest classes to teach, because I knew what would win the class over - boys loved a chance to go outside; girls loved a chance to talk. Boys enjoyed learning games and girls loved being creative with projects. Of course these are generalizations, but the trends held pretty strong.

I think that it would definitely minimize boy/girl/hormonal issues - possibly even help those who are self-conscious because they think they are expected to act a certain way in front of members of the opposite sex.

The only negative things I can think of would include female cattiness (in middle school you are ‘in’ one day and ‘out’ the next - it’s pretty brutal) and the competition among the boys could go too far.

Overall, I think it’s worth a shot!

By SET

May 1, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

I agree sex-segregation would probably help both boys and girls. I also agree that courtship & mating issues get in the way of smooth functioning of public school education (especially for the left side of the bell curve which reach puberty and become sexually active early).

The girlfights are likely over (perceived) affection and attention of boys. It can occur from lesbian issues, but it’s usually boy crazy girls doing combat over someone stealing a boy. They aren’t fighting over grades and test scores, or who gets called on in class.

Sex segregated schools would have the fastest payoff in the urban areas with the lower class. But should we sex-segregate the teachers also? Men teaching the boys and women teaching the girls? It works for PE I suppose… Lot’s of progress there!

By Peter

May 2, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this

You’ve got to be kidding me. Yet another example of proposed change where I just don’t get it. I grew up in a normal school where both genders attended, so did all of my friends. We turned out just fine.

Why not just home school them all and kids would never have to leave their own homes, just keep them in a plastic bubble until they reach the age of 18. It’s called the real world people, let your children live in it.

By oldteacher

May 2, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

We have done field trips where we put the boys on one bus and the girls on another. We have even taken them to separate venues for the same events. It really cuts down on problems.

By Karen Armsby

May 2, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

I think sex segregation would be a good tool to use in a bag of tools to get poorly performing schools back on track. For success in the classroom you also need to enforce a code of good conduct with real consequences for the bad actors, and enforce accountability of students for attendance, diligence in schoolwork, participation, and performance at least on grade level.

Reward the diligent and well behaved students, by allowing them to track together. Group students by ability, not chronological age. Mandate the age of 18 as the last year in high school, no matter what grade the student has achieved.

We need a fundamental sea change in the administration of schools. Restore to teachers the authority to create a discipline of learning in their classes. All students who won’t cooperate, show up, or work will be shunted to boot camp classes for remediation in core courses, and for behavior training to get them back on track to join the general school population.

By Argus

May 2, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

This is potentially going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. First you would have same sex schools, which could lead to mandatory dormitories for students. UGA requires their freshmen to live on campus. Could public schools soon follow suit? Can you imagine the economic impact on the United States?

By Karen Armsby

May 2, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

Argus, What? I think we are just discussing how to group the kids in the public school classrooms, not sending them to boarding school.

By meme

May 2, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

If so many middle school children of all races would stop dressing like sluts and thugs, maybe separate sex schools would not be necessary. BTW - Parents don’t always know how their children dress because some of the girls hit the restrooms as soon as they come to school and put on make-up and take off clothes. Thank goodness we have gone to uniforms.

By SET

May 2, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Meme:

If we had schools and teachers worth a damn middle school students who show up dressed as thugs and sluts would be held in detention until they were picked up by parents - or just sent home. They should never be allowed inside the school or on the grounds dressed like that.

Is does seem simple enough. Except nobody wants to fight with these kids or their parents. Maybe the schools need to staff a special conflict department that would be called to take these kids away and deal with today’s problem with Sonny and Cher… Leaving the other kids and teachers at the school campus able to get wirk done.

A removal squad? I think they have them in prisons now. They drag away the prisoner who is having a temper tantrum to some dungeon leaving the normal guards to finish the meal service or whatever.

By Andi

May 2, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Same sex schools or classes would work in conjucntion with other updates. But nothing will work if bonehead parents don’t get involved in the lives’ of their children. I see so many kids walk into my school presenting themselves inappropriately in order to impress a boy or girl. A HUGE DISTRACTION- education is secondary to behavior problems. An 11 year old boy wore a t-shirt from AE that read “BEAVER FEVER…catch it”. Abercrombie & Fitch, American Eagle, Hollister, etc. all make these suggestive t-shirts and parents allow their 10, 11, 12, 13 year old to buy them. WAKE UP PARENTS

By SNY

May 2, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Andi,

What does that mean? What exactly is wrong with that shirt? If it has a cute little beaver on it and my child wanted to wear it I would let her. She’s 8 and she loves animals.

By luvs2teach

May 2, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

SNY - you’re kidding, right? If you’re not, FYI, “beaver” is slang for female anatomy - the rest should make sense, now.

By SNY

May 2, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

luvs2teach,

No, I wasn’t kidding but thanks for the heads up. I really don’t deal with many teenagers and I was a TOTAL prude growing up. I guess beavers aren’t as innocent as I thought they were! Ha Ha.

By luvs2teach

May 2, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

SNY - no problem - I didn’t know if you were trying to be funny or not - of course, I graduated from the college (KSU) that needed to change the name of its basketball stadium - the KSU Owls used to play in the Hooterdome.

SET - as a middle school teacher (who tries to be worth a d*), we fight the dress code battle EVERYDAY!! What’s sad is when mom comes in and it looks like she’s robbed her child’s wardrobe - then you know you’ll never win that battle.

By luvs2teach

May 2, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

I just remembered - we had a battle yesterday over an 8th grader (so 13, 14 years old) wearing a Playboy Bunny shirt - she argued with us, “What’s wrong qith this shirt? It’s just a cute little bunny.” etc, etc.

Turns out mom wasn’t able to come get her, and ISS was full, so she had to turn the shirt inside out and wear it that way for the day. It was still pretty apparent just what it was.

Where was mom when she bought the shirt? Doesn’t mom ever check her room or see her clothes? I understand sneaky, but I can’t imagine some things going completely unnoticed.

By jim d

May 2, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry folks, but y’all worry way too much about whats on a kids back. You need to start worrying about whats in their heads.

By C.R.H.

May 2, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

I know the school “another teacher” is talking about…’nuff said. Same sex classes only work in schools where there is discipline. Separating the sexes won’t solve anything without strong administration to back up teachers. The “pimp & ho” show that goes on daily at most public schools is mostly due to parents who do not take responsibility for being a parent. Call it culture, call it the latest trend…I call it just laziness and indifference on the part of the parents.

By jim d

May 2, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

C’mon ladies, be honest.

Did ya ever wear a mini skirt or hip huggers to school?

By C.R.H.

May 2, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

Jim D., No I haven’t worn either EVER. And I have also never wore a thong that can be seen by anyone standing behind me because my rearend is hanging out of my pants! Yep, saggy pants and low riders are becoming common among the girls too.

By SET

May 2, 2006 07:11 PM | Link to this

I have been told by women in their 80’s that when they were young they would have to wear clothes over the clothes they would go to school in to get out of the house. It seems their mothers wanted them to wear less stylish (read skimpy?) clothing to school. So they would sneak the preferred clothes out and change en route or just layer it. And that would be in the 1930’s.

Teachers have to do what they can with what (administration) they have to work with.

I like the part of Mom showing up at school in a slut outfit. Does the teacher write Mom up also? I could see a letter going out to Mom that she will be banned from campus if she doesn’t learn how to dress herself decent…

Wasn’t there a song called “Harper Valley PTA” about this?

Still, I support the teachers who get up every day and go to work to deal with whatever new kind of madness walks through the door at them. It helps if the principal is the roughest, toughest Madam in the school.

Better teaching through intimidation!

By SET

May 2, 2006 07:15 PM | Link to this

If I were sub-teaching again I’d prefer to work at the Boy’s school rather than the girl’s school. I found the difficult high school girls were more unstable and unreasonable and harder for me to get control of. Compared to them, the difficult boys were easy.

I think women can best deal with an out of control girl. The girls are more afraid of a female disciplinarian than a male. Maybe it’s because the ladies can read them better and better know how to get them where they live than men do.

By oldteacher

May 3, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

We wore mini-skirts in the late 60’s. BTW - we were not allowed to wear pants to school.

By luvs2teach

May 3, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

jim d - we ARE worried about what’s in their heads - that’s WHY we worry about what’s on their backs (or not covering their backside, as the case may be).

By oldteacher

May 3, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

I also teach in a school that has uniforms and it has really cut down on the number of fights in school. When they are dressed properly and not distracting others then everyone has a chance to learn.

By V (no vendetta)

May 3, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

jim d,

As a male teaher, even I get distracted by female students wearing skimpy clothes in class. Now, I’m an adult male that can control himself and knows that anything that happens with said female will cost him his career. But what about a teenage male student that HASN’T learned the control and DOESN’T have the restrictions?? I remember those days all too well, and trust me, what today is a minor nuisance was almost completely debilitating in class back then!

By SET

May 3, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

As a lawyer my experience includes a lot of sexual assault cases. It’s interesting to see the common denominators in the female victims.

In my experience I find that there is such a thing as “ready to go victim”. And it really starts with Mommy and Daddy. (Or Mommy and Baby’s Daddy). Occasionally I see people whose child hasn’t been attacked yet, getting the child ready for a life of victimhood. I say nothing nowadays… It doesn’t do any good to try to explain the facts of life to these people. They only learn through lots of pain.

Then (after doing all they can to raise the odds of daughter being a victim) when there is a rape or some other attack - they blame everyone else in the world and never themselves for setting the stage.

Teachers probably see beginnings of dancing-on-ice behavior by girls in schools. Are teachers supposed to play Sir Save-A-Ho? Notify the parents of boy-crazy behavior in their 14 year old daughter? Write the girl up for the indecent dress? Ask questions about the 19 year old picking her up at school? I don’t think the mandated reporting laws come anywhere close to reporting this.

Again I say that sex segregated schools would provide the greatest benefit for the lower class and the lower functioning (left side of the Bell Curve). This group needs the most supervision and training and the greatest structure. Left on their own they are more reckless because they are the most present oriented.

Since government policy clearly is to destroy the lower (and middle?) class and to keep them from becoming capable citizens we will not see sex segregated public schools. This may sound presumptions but I believe there are no accidents and what has happened to the public schools in the last 40 years was done on purpose, knowing the likely results.

By meme

May 3, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Oh, SET, you are so, so right. Some of these girls have an, “I’ll just tell them to stop and they will”, attitude. They don’t have a clue. The sad that is that as a teacher, if I approached a parent to warn them, I would be told it is not my business. Again, thank goodness our students wear uniforms.

By jim d

May 3, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Uniforms are bogus.

A study published in The Journal of Education Research by David L. Brunsma, of the University of Alabama, and Kerry A. Rockquemore, of the University of Notre Dame, found that student uniforms neither improved attendance and discipline nor decreased drug use. Uniforms did not significantly improve academic performance or students’ attitudes toward school. Peer-group relations were not improved. The study also found that uniforms had a negative effect on student attitudes.

By luvs2teach

May 3, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

jim d - not to dispute your study - it sounds like it was conducted by a valid group of people - but one study does not a foregone conclusion make. I would like to see things like methodology and sample size before I make a decision - as well as more similar results from other studies.

By jim d

May 3, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

Ok, but let’s see some study results from uniform proponents.

My take on uniforms and all the supposed good they create is that it’s just another method of keeping the sheep in the flock. God forbid people actually assume responsibility for their own actions or start thinking for themselves.

By jim d

May 3, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

L2T,

I will concede that uniforms may tend to diminish peer pressure and promote school pride,” but that it.

It is not an act of magic that will transform schools overnight.

Uniforms won’t replace good teaching, good principals and small classrooms. These are things we should be striving for in education. Not worrying about what kids wear. IMHO, Uniforms will never improve education

By SET

May 3, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

My previous post also had to do with my seeing and reading about serial victims - women who present with a history of being sexually assaulted and beaten by various males over their whole lives.

When I was a sub in the early ’80s I had to give a test to a class - maybe 9th grade. I heard a loud slap - “Ace” had slapped “Mary”. Mary immediately got up from her seat (unbidden) and came to my desk and said “he didn’t mean it”. Ace just kept doing his work. I told Mary she was referred to the office immediately and sent her out, and ignored Ace. Pretty soon a runner came from the office and got him. These were 9th graders.

From my point of view, Ace is not the problem. Mary is. Have girls changed so much since I was in 9th grade? Maybe it was the Nuns being role models, but the boys were afraid of the girls (and what they’d do if you made them angry) in my day.

I do remember the song “He hit me (and it felt like a kiss!)” from the 60’s but nobody I went to school with took that seriously. At that time anyway.

Brave new world.

By meme

May 3, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Don’t care what anyone else says, since we have gone to uniforms, our discipline has improved. I see it every day. I don’t have to read any studies.

By SNY

May 3, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

I was an abused teenager. My boyfriend thought that it was okay to hit me every now and again when he got mad. I didn’t dress the way these kids are dressing now. Of course, I put an end to it after the 3rd time. Shouldn’t have taken that long but I thought I was in love. WHATEVER!! Boys and girls in different school settings is a great idea to me. I think that girls are acting dumb to be with certain popular boys who really are dumb. Every popular girl knows that the popular, cute guy is the dumbest in the school but they want him anyway. You can’t be a straight “A” girl and be popular with the boys. Take away the temptation and maybe the girls will work to their potential.

By luvs2teach

May 3, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

jim d - I agree it’s not an act of magic, and I agree it’s not going to transform anything overnight, however, it is another tool in a toolbox that, when applied appropriately, can be useful.

I don’t think it would work well in an upper middle class armosphere where kids have been brought up with upper midel class values and lines of thought. However, kids from poverty don’t think that way - clothing is a very personal way of expressing themselves - but what they’re often expressing is inappropraite in a school setting - think gang alliances, sexuality, drug use, etc - it is from that mess that dress codes are born, and enforcing the dress code (and the arguments that ensue) is a large part of any socio-economically diverse middle school or high school discipline problem.

We have had “Sunday best” dress up days, and I’ll be d* if behavior isn’t better on those days - I know I feel more casual in attitude on Fridays when I’m allowed to wear jeans. I would imagine dress translates into atittude for many of us.

You are right in that it encourages “sheepdom” - however, it’s a sheepdom that somebody in the community has deemed the standard for that community. Again, rightly or wrongly, it’s easier to try to fit everyone into a one-size-fits-all-mode in an attempt to churn out our “product.”

By SET

May 3, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

SNY: This is my whole point. Girls should not be shacking up (pairing off) with a boy in any way - including exclusive dating - until later than 9th grade, or 11th grade.

Girls get beaten because they have themselves partnered with the boy involved and he needs to control his property. Of course he’s too young, stupid, immature and hormonal to have any idea of what we can do to men who beat women in this brave new world. He just sees that this new piece of property he’s had handed to him won’t behave. Hey, it works with a dog, why not her?

All of these kids need a lot more work before they pair bond. The girls have not been properly trained on selection, dealing with, or managing males. The boys are just drunk with testosterone. Neither side sees anything coming so they get crazy when the predictible (to us) happens. Someone says “No”.

Some of them get dead.

The parents - if they even have parents - neglect the kids development so often that being in HS is like driving through a town where 25% of the drivers don’t know what a red light means. Not everybody crashes but it’s dangerous.

Sex segregated schools would cut some of these problems down at least during instruction hours. If the parents would enforce group dating only until 18 it would help. So would ending the practice of 14 year old girls dating age 18 and up boys.

But sometimes I’m an extremist… Imagine telling Jonny and Susie they can’t go steady! At least until Susie has taken Cultural Anthropology and finished her black belt.

By Kimberlee

May 4, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

To answer the question, are single-gender schools viable? YES, THEY ARE! Especially when they are started properly, with the appropriate training for the teachers and when the school district provides the school administrators with adequete support. I have done a substantial amount of research on single-gender education during the middle grades; the research overwhelmingly supports my contention. Single-gender schools are especially beneficial to low income students. The research also found that young men who may not have a father in the home fare well with single-gender education when they have male teachers; this gives these boys the stable father figure that they crave during the middle school years. I feel that implementing gender based schooling is a viable option that school districts and school boards should have considered yesterday.