Get Schooled

By Jeff

June 22, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Well, the current model is a FAILED model. Single gender classrooms/ schools worked back in the day, why not try it now. It CAN’T be any worse than the CES!!!

By LB

June 22, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

I see too many young teens with young harmones who can concentrate on nothing but each other. I personally think it would get kids focused on a good education and make them more productive in the future as adults.

By Hotlanta

June 22, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

I think that is a bad idea. I work a lot better when the opposite sex is around. I would go outta my mind being with females ALLLL day long. When they take their tests, it doesn’t matter if it is an all girl school or whatever. The main thing is did they pass the test.

By Cletus

June 22, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

I don’t see it as an improvement I attended a male only private high school,I see no advantage either way.The opposit sex is going to be a distraction either by their presence or by their absence. The thing to keep in mind is that the class is taught from the front, whoever is teaching is the person in charge of success or failure.When you tie their hands and restrict their powers to teach you have to expect some degree of failure. The race or sex of the students has no bearing whatsoever on their capacity to learn or the teachers ability to teach.I’m sure everyone needs to have some situation to blame their failure on,ghanges are the easy way to step away from failure. The one constant to keep in mind is, The teacher is the one standing in the front of the classroom.

By Shannon, M.Div.

June 22, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

I have two worries: the first is that single-gender schools do not prepare either gender for the reality of working with the other gender in the workplace. Studies have shown, however, that this fear of mine does not seem to be a problem (at least among girls who attend single-gender schools and who then tend to do quite well in later academica and the workplace). The other worry, particularly below the college level, is that separate does not mean equal, and girls will have a “feminized” curriculum while boys have a “masculinized” curriculum. Sure, most girls would thrive in a communication-heavy curriculum while most boys would thrive in a hands-on curriculum—but what about the outliers, those among us who do not fit stereotypes? I don’t want to see a cookie-cutter “boy” program and a cookie-cutter “girl” program.

By Cletus

June 22, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

The students need a real world situation to learn in, the only single sex application in the real world is the prison system, let’s hope thats not something we need to prepare them for.

By Ken Roberts

June 22, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

I think its a worthwhile experiment. We’re seeing a lot of new stories lately about how boys are falling behind in education, so it seems like using different methods of education for boys and girls could be an improvement.

Also anyone that has been around a teenager lately can testify to how much they are driven by hormones. Taking the opposite sex out of the picture may help them concentrate.

But either way, we should consider it only an experiment. After a few years we should analyze the results and decide whether or not to build more single-sex schools.

In any case the variety in education environments will be good for children overall, as parents can decide to send their kids to a school that best fits their individual needs.

By Lucille Willoughby

June 22, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

Girls do better academically in all-girl schools, and the incidence of teen pregnancies are reduced as well. It’s sad how many smart, otherwise gifted girls will ruin themselves over a worthless boy.

By ASCMOM

June 22, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

My daughter graduated from a very large high school in Gwinnett. She now attends Agnes Scott in Decatur which is an all girl’s college. The difference is palpable. Her involvement in activities and interests has soared and she is doing so much more than would have in a coed institution. Statistics from same sex colleges show that graduates are likely to go on and obtain advanced degrees and hold upper level jobs in the work force. ASC’s curriculum is academically challenging and competitive with other top rated coed schools. There is definitely a place for same sex education and one has only to look at the graduates from these institutions to prove the point. However, same sex education is not for everyone and should be a joint decision of both the parent and student.

By catlady

June 22, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

I, too, am an ASC mom and a Wesleyan mom and the daughter and niece of 4 Flastacowa women (Florida State College for Women, now FSU). My daughters are very different but both profited tremendously from attending women’s colleges. I would enroll my daughter (or now, granddaughter) in an all female k-12 school in a second as long as the program was strong. It is not that it protects them, but that it promotes girls and their leadership development actively by being the core mission. I am not as familiar with single sex male institutions and their benefits. Single sex-education is not for everyone, and it will be hard to evaluate if the assignment to single sex schools is by choice, rather than randomly. (Strong young women are more likely to pick a women’s college than are more pliant ones). To evaluate, you have to parse out the self-selection bias.

By catlady

June 22, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

I think the Title 9 claim is bogus—a boogyman to scare folks off. It is high time young women’s needs are taken into account. Seems to me that most classrooms are centered around boys in most schools.

By Fulton County Mom

June 22, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Cletus…what if some of your classes were single gender and others were co-ed…would it still be an issue of not being in ‘real life situations’? Would the absence of the opposite gender be an issue in say Math? Science? etc…..Because what I have heard out of children is that they are afraid to speak up or do well in certain subjects b/c they are afraid they males will not like them if they are smart. (I grant they are not HS people saying this)

By Jmarsh

June 22, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Little boys need single sex classes just as much as girls do. Boys are already far more likely to be at risk academically than girls, and that’s a problem we must pay attention to.

By Ernest

June 22, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

I like this as a choice option. As stated earlier, the current model has flaws. This isn’t an option for everyone however there are some students that could benefit from this.

Middle schools in our county are set up in ‘teams’ in which a group of students rotate between classes. There are recommendations that some teams be designated as ‘single sex’ with the understanding there is enough demand to justify this. It may or may not work but at least it provides an option for parents to consider.

A subtlety is this could have a positive impact on parental involvement. Oh if that could happen….

By Kari

June 22, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

I think it’s a great idea. Studies have shown time and time again that boys and girls learn differently. I have witnessed this since I pulled my boys out of school and started teaching them at home. I can give them the grace and space they need to be boys, instead of making them sit still and do workbooks many hours a day like they often do at school.

I disagree with Cat Lady…I think the current school system teaches more to girls’ style of learning than boys. Generally speaking, of course…there are always going to be those who don’t fit into those generalizations. But overall, kids are expected to sit still, do a lot of writing, worksheets, coloring, reading.

I honestly thought my son had problems with reading comprehension because he always had low scores on reading comprehension worksheets. When I started teaching him at home, I discovered that his comprehension skills were stellar…he was just bored out of his mind regurgitating information onto worksheets. So at home, he reads, and we do oral review. He just learns better that way.

I read a study that showed boys learn better when they’re given frequent activity breaks throughout the day. They need to get that energy out, but the way schools are set up, boys just get in trouble for not sitting still all day long. I was the kind of child who could (and still can) sit and read and write for hours…teachers loved me. But it bothers me how boys get labled as troublemakers because they aren’t given outlets for their energy.

SO all that to say…if I had access to an all-boys school with small class sizes, that catered to the way a typical boy learns, I’d enroll my sons in a heartbeat. Until then, I’ll continue to teach them at home, where I can educate them in the manner they learn best.

By mmm

June 22, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

Let’s separate the issue of single sex programs from the need for charter schools to obey the laws that govern their operations. Such schools may not discriminate on any basis, including things like academic ability (which magnet schools do) or disability (a district may send a child to a special program that isn’t offered at the home school over the parent’s objections, but a charter must take any presenting child.) In this sense charters must meet a higher standard than traditional system schools.

The federal law has recently been litigated and the courts will now allow single gender programs provided that an equivalent program is made available for each gender. i.e. you can have single gender classrooms or wings within the same school, or even two separates schools if the district elects to have TWO schools.

It does not appear that this charter intents to do anything for the boys, so if it does something unique and desirable, a boy will be refused this opportunity solely on the basis of sex. Any boy may that wishes in can sue them (and probably the district if they approve them). It would be an open and shut case.

In this case, the decision to deny the petition is the only one that the School board could legally make. If they had approved, the state level folks would have also turned them down. As it is, they can ask for state level arbitration and the state folks can explain the present case law—which they have been watching very carefully in discussions with Amana—and the petitioner can either decide drop the effort to create a school, or have a boy’s and girl’s wing.

Now if you are interested, I believe that Amana Academy has single sex classrooms within a start-up charter school, but they have been very careful to do something that passes constitutional requirements.

I was at the Charter’s subcommittee meeting where Amana’s program was discussed, and one of the board members expressed his opinion that folk with objections to single sex education needed to “just get over it”. I’m not opposed to it being a choice, but it does need to be a fair choice for either boys or girls.

By MrLiberty

June 22, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

The only step forward would be the complete elimination of all government involvement in the education of our nation’s children. Anything less is just a smokescreen for another future failure.

All boys, all girls, math and science focus, small class, large class, etc. are all the choices that parents should individually be making for their children, not the choices the bureaucrats of the totalitarian socialist state should be making for parents.

Freedom is the only thing that hasn’t been tried by the failed government school system. After over 100 years of progressive decline, isn’t it high time to try it??

By high school teacher

June 22, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Bridget, I have a question that you might could check into…

How can APS open gender separate schools, but Gwinnett is halted because of Title IX? Is it because APS offers one for both genders?

By Ernest

June 22, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

MMM, very informative post! Your assertion is probably the reason it was denied. Given your knowledge of charter schools and their governing laws, you may want to change your handle to ‘Charter Lady/Man’…. :)

By Keith

June 22, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

This fails to address the real issues such as parental involvement and the perception among many African-American students that learning and academic excellence is “uncool” or “acting white”. With that said these young males need to see other males in the classroom as their teachers and counselors. They need role models and people that they can look up to and identify with, not someone who is just going to run-off to suburbia at the end of the day.

By Bob

June 22, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

Seperate but equal… wasn’t that something declared unconstitutional a long time ago.

By mmm

June 22, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Ernest—-you should be getting an e-mail from me within the next 30 minutes. I would prefer that the casual blogger not be able to make the connection to my real name and position, because sometimes I say things here that I am constrained not to say publicly before the school board and administration.

But after so much watching, sometimes you need to vent in order to avoid killing someone whose help you need.

By Ernest

June 22, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this

Keith, if we could come up with a guranteed solution for improving parental involvement, we could be millionaires. I say that kiddingly but despite the best efforts of many, some parents will have a limited involvement with their childrens education. I’ve seen schools offer free food for evening programs and go into the communities to the parents/guardians yet still have minimal attendance. Communities/schools have to deal with that.

Some could legitimately call this another ‘gimmick’ but if it can provide the right kind of environment for more children to succeed, I’m willing to give it a try. IMO, there should be minimal cost to implement this. The emphasis should be to offer it as a ‘choice’ for some and not attempt to make this a requirement for all. There should also be the right kind of metrics in place to help guide us if we wish to replicate this.

By fafad

June 22, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Well, it’s needed in Atlanta Public Schools! This will definitely reduce - or MAYBE reduce - their infamous teenage pregnancies! Hopefully! It can’t hurt them; they’ve hurt themselves enough already.

However, it WILL bring a lawsuit at sometime. Not in Atlanta, but probably out in the suburbs.

By catlady

June 22, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

I think the current school system teaches more to girls’ style of learning than boys. Generally speaking, of course…there are always going to be those who don’t fit into those generalizations. But overall, kids are expected to sit still, do a lot of writing, worksheets, coloring, reading. Kari

I agree with some of what you say, Kari, about learning styles or ways we have socialized our sons and daughters, especially as manifested in the early grades. However, much of school time is taken up with adversarial and competition style learning, which I would suspect favors the boys’ style. Fortunately we are seeing more collaborative learning in the last 15 years, but many people still pooh-pooh it.

Numerous studies have also documented the “squeaky wheel” advantage of boys in most classrooms. After a while young women give up trying to get appropriate academic attention, and subvert their needs for praise and accomplishment. See “SchoolGirls” by Peg Orenstein, especially Part 3, for example, and her extensive notes and bibliography on the accrued disadvantage most girls feel in the regular classroom. Also check out numerous documents from the American Association of University Women’s work on the subject, such as “Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America”.

An all-male academy would also be a way to address Title 9 concerns within that county.

By MrLiberty

June 22, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

Hey Ernest,

Why not try making every parent have to pay the total cost for their kid’s education? Think that might inspire them to care a little?

Now everyone gets a free ride on the rest of society. The average household of 2.4 kids pays $1000 to $2000 for everyone to go to school every year. Meanwhile, businesses and everyone without kids pays a total of over $20,000 every year for these kids to attend school. Even worse in households with more kids.

Socialism gets exactly this. It always has and it always will. When you “value” something it is because you can actually put a “value” on it. Sounds simplistic, but which would you value more, something you are forced to pay a pittance for that you have no choice over, or something that you have to pay a fair amount for that requires your absolute choice and is a choice among multitudes of options?

Be honest. Thank you. That is why govt. schools fail and why parents don’t and won’t every really care.

Oh, let them be able to take their money and their kids when the school fails and you will really see involvement.

By Cletus

June 22, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

Change always follows failure, in Georgia there mave been many failures. In education this state has always been on the bottom or very near the bottom. Let me take this opportunity to assure you, coed, single sex or whatever sex isn’t the cause of our educational problems, granted there may be some students who thrive in a single sex situation, but they aren’t the norm. The reason that Georgia is always very near bottom of the list has nothing whatsoever to do with the students, it is wholly the Faculty and above who are to blame for our dismal failure.

By Mike

June 25, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

I am glad she is a former employee. Just another example of people wasting thier time trying to solve issues other than the fact we are ranked 48th in terms of education. I don’t care what sex or race my kid goes to school with. I do care that he is getting a bad education at the hands of techers that aren’t being held accountable.

By Ernest

June 25, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

MrLiberty, I respect your opinions and the choices you made in educating your children. I’ve got to believe deep down you know what you are suggesting is not possible, primarily for historical reasons. Could you imagine doing the same thing for social security or other ‘income transfer’ programs? IMO, that would further the divide between the ‘haves and have nots’. Some might say, ‘so what’ but I believe deep down the compassionate side in all of us wants to find a workable solution.

Everyone is not going to succeed, because of a variety of factors. How can we create an environment that at least improves the chances for those willing to put forth effort? Do we believe that can be done? Questions, questions, questions……

By pookie

June 25, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

For those who feel that single sex schools do not prepare one for the ‘real world’ of gender mixed society, consider this: schools are already not reflective of the real world in that students are segregated by age—there is no situation in the workplace where people will interact only with people who are within a few years of their own age. Does this mean that of necessity they are going to be ill equipped for reality?

It’s nice for people to have options as far as education is concerned. Children learn differently, respond in myriad ways to different environments, and the fact of the matter is that the current status quo is failing many of our students.

By mum

June 25, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Having attended a single gender school that was on the same campus as a boy’s school, where we were separated totally, then later changed to coming together only for morning assembly in my primary grades. I truly feel that we as young women benefited from the single sex environment, because for those easily distracted by boys, in that particular environment, your focus isn’t on “is he looking at me” much of the time. It makes women more comfortable depending on and working with other women. You’re still in the “real world” because we all have brother, uncles, fathers, that we interact at the end of each day so that’s not an issue.

Single gender for boys is a great idea because you need to catch and hold their attendion early and that’s the greatest challenge right now. I’ve seen way too many MIDDLE school boys and girls skulking around in dark corners in school when they should be on their way to classes. The problem is that Georgia education officials never seems to give genuine support to programs but chop and change every couple of years.

By catlady

June 25, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

“For those who feel that single sex schools do not prepare one for the ‘real world’ of gender mixed society,” perhaps that is a GOOD thing. From what I have seen, girls are conditioned by their earliest experiences in school and home to “give way” to the boys, to negate self in favor of being “nice” and “feminine”. I’d rather my daughters have the affirming experiences of being in charge (some in our society fear this greatly) and leading before getting out in the “take no prisoners” real world of male-model business competition.

I would think single gender ed for boys would be good too, because the format could play to strenghts and characteristics of male learners and reinforce correct male behavior without the posturing that goes on to impress young females.

Might not be for everyone, but should be an option.

By OldSchool

June 25, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Why not have single sex classes in the academics (maths, language arts, science, social studies) and co-ed classes in the arts, vocational, foreign language)? Physical education and health classes might also be single sex which could make students more apt to participate in discussions.

Just a thought.

By Arsenal

July 3, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

I think that educating anybody in a single-sex classroom is a bad idea. can you imagine what it would be like to see teenagers with hormones, but they can’t even focus there sexual energy. It would be way too energetic, not a good environment to teach in. And they wouldn’t be able to learn social skills at all. They would not be able to learn what it is like to socialize with the other sex and they might not learn until college or maybe even after college and it might be too late by then.

Well this is just my opinion among many others, but i would like you to think about it.

By catlady

July 3, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Too late for WHAT, arsenal?

Talk to some who have had the single-sex experience and get their feedback on the advantages and disadvantages.

My daughters have profited 100% from those learning siturations in college, although they are very DIFFERENT from each other with very DIFFERENT skills and interests. And they are entirely heterosexual, outgoing, socially adept, and feminine, I might add.

I am hopeful my granddaughter will be able to be in a single sex school such as the one in Atlanta started a few years ago. Her mom, a teacher, would like to teach in one, and supports the concept completely.