quote:

---

ABBOTSFORD, B.C - Two schools in Abbotsford, B.C., are hoping to boost grades by separating the boys from the girls in math and English classes.

Provincial test results and statistics over the past few years suggest girls do significantly better than boys in school, and are more likely to graduate.

...

Bruce Ivany, assistant superintendent of the Abbotsford school district, said boys and girls learn differently – and that adolescent boys are distracted by girls.

"We know now that the average adolescent male in that 10-16 age group gets seven to 11 spikes of testosterone per day," he said.

"The tendency is, in a mixed gender class, they're not as likely to ask for help," he said. "They've got this macho image and in an all-boys class, that's not an issue."

---

Yeah, because all-men frat houses, as we all know, represent the kinder, gentler side of masculinity; encouraging inquisitive learning and debate.

I find this really offensive. First of all, the affects this will have on female students seems to be a secondary concern at best. As though simply because "they're ahead" for now, the affects these measures have on them are not worth considering. Furthermore, girls are being blamed for distracting boys, yet there's no responsibility on the end of the boys to resist their own urges. It feeds into the idea of women as sultry temptresses, looking to lure men off the path to God and redemption, and men as not being responsible for their actions and behaviour because they have some kind of biological inclination that makes their sexual urges uncontrollable, which is just utter bullshit.

Finally, I would honestly like to have a chat with the moron that said the boys are more likely to participate in a class full of boys alone. For the boys that aren't at the top of the social hierarchy, it's quite unlikely they'll take leadership roles in the class room, for fear of breaking a social hierarchy that is even more rigid when girls are taken out of the picture. Also, if those at the top of the social hierarchy aren't all that bright, it will enforce a universal lowest common denominator standard on the entire class.

Jesus Christ, are they putting stupid in the Abbotsford water supply?

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: meades ]

I think it's hugely presumptuous to assume that this is a feminist issue. I perceive that your saying, "I dare you to disagree with my position, cause if you do then your a sexist freak". It's not as if they are being kept apart during lunch, recess, before school and in the rest of their lives!!

Boys and girls learn differently. Plain and simple if they learn better apart I don't think it's a bad thing to have them separated.

If one takes a look at this quote:

quote:

---

"At the end of the year they found boys in single-sex classes scored 10 per cent higher, on average, than those in mixed classes," said Gerald Fussell, vice-principal of Lake Trail Middle School.

---

There is a certain thing that has been stated in here. Boys do better in single-sex classes. Granted this could be due to a variety of things and only attributing it to this one thing would be monocausal it is still a very important thing to take into account.

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

I think that this is a feminist issue, and meades has already made it clear why: The issue isn't how to make school better for kids, just better for BOYS. Girls are left out of the equation entirely.

quote:

---

Boys and girls learn differently. Plain and simple if they learn better apart I don't think it's a bad thing to have them separated.

---

That's a pretty gross generalization. Learning is often a function of socialization, and within the sexes there is a great deal more variation that there is between sexes themselves. This concept doesn't hold true just for learning, but for any number of topics. Using sex to organize schooling is plain and simple a bad idea.

If students have the option of taking a mixed or segregated class, it's not as serious a concern, but the fact of the matter is, even if the grossly flawed assertions of the school board are correct and boys and girls learn better apart, when they get into the working world, working in segregated environments just isn't an option, so eventually they have to learn to speak up and assert themselves, without being disrespectful. Why delay that?

If policy makers were genuinely concerned about improving education, I think they'd persue solutions that would actually change the way we raise children: Stop forcing the macho model of manhood on boys and the obediant princess model of femininity on girls. You can solve the education gap by breaking down the gender barriers that create it, not by reinforcing them.

edit to add:

Zoot: Word.

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: meades ]

I recall being asked in to the office to be told that my dress was affecting the way boys were able to learn.

And if I recall most studies show that girls will dumb down to be "liked" by boys.

I can't believe this rediculous sexist bullshit is still with us.

Frankly I think it's about maximizing a child's potential, dumbing things down for either group (in this case sexes) seems -- well dumb. If the most efficient way of teaching children is by having them separated by sex then I think it's a good idea. Aren't there subjects other than Math and English where girls are behind boys? If there is scientific and statistical evidence that prove separate classes work they should separate the classes. Besides there is nothing in this story saying separating the classes make girls do worse, if it doesn’t negatively affect them then what’s the problem.

Frankly saying something to the effect of well now that boys are falling behind we shouldn’t make too big of a deal over it cause girls were behind before isn’t a solution to anything (not that I‘m suggesting that Zoot or Meades or Debra* said this but I have heard that ‘position’ before).

*cause you posted before I did

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

Segregation does not promote equality. Remember the civil rights movement? Seperate but equal? Does that ring any bells when you read the article?

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

I recall being asked in to the office to be told that my dress was affecting the way boys were able to learn.

---

Braggart!

(Straight) teenagers get distracted by the presence of the opposite sex--attention/coolness competition outweighs academic (self) competition and attention.

It's a common assumption about girls, that they do better in some subjects, at certain ages, when they don't have to worry about boys are thinking. This just seems to note that the same mechanism affects boys.

Now, maybe all teens really need liberation from these worries (its looked to me like the hard fights--liberation for (straight) women, and then gay people--would eventually lead to a similar liberation for men), but I don't think its outrageous to try a few experiments to help kids when they need it.

quote:

---

The idea that helping girls achieve their best is somehow harmful to boys, is exactly as dumb as the converse.

---

I would agree with you, however, the above statement is implied in the course of action and the male focus of the explanation. Not "it would be easier for the kids to concentrate and do better in school", but "it will be easier for the boys to concentrate and do better in school". The performance of the boys is made more important than girls' performance, simply by the focus and wording.

That kind of implication gets my spidey-senses tingling. Apparently, I'm not the only one.

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

But in regards to ‘separate but equal’ metaphor vs. the segregation of sexes into separate classes I don't think it's a fair or correct analogy. When it comes to education one of the obvious objectives is to be educated in the most efficient manner. If sexes learn differently the response should be teaching too each sex in the most efficient way.

With segregation there was the (completely false) assumption that Blacks and Whites learned differently because of their diffrence in ethnicity -- there is no scientific evidence to back that up. And any statistical conclusions one could draw from that are easily explained by socio-economic factors. And another difference in this was (and even still is) funding. Black schools were deliberately (and now inadvertently) under-funded. With regards to this the two sexes they will still be in the same schools and as far as I know be receiving the same amount of funding per student. Also there is a certain diffrence in the way males learn as opposed to females, this doesn’t mean there’s a diffrence in intellgence but it means there’s a diffrence in the path that each take.

I don't see how seperating classes is a bar in the road to inequality. I see how the thinking/reasoning that girls are the problem is a bar to equality. But the idea to separate classes to teach in the most efficient way isn't really the same thing.

Yes there are different learning styles but not among the SEXES merely among the GENERAL POPULATION!

quote:

---

When it comes to education one of the obvious objectives is to be educated in the most efficient manner.

---

Which is not necessarily done through sex segregation. The statistics mentioned in the article deal with averages. When you opt for sex segregation over non-segregated classes, you let some get ahead, but you push some behind. That's just part of the problem. The more serious, still, problems are those that arise out of the premises for sex-segretation (the distraction excuse, and creating problems further down the road when a student is faced with non-segregated environments, and unlike in school, will either sink or swim. There's no guidance councillor or individualized teacher attention in the job market).

quote:

---

If sexes learn differently the response should be teaching too each sex in the most efficient way.

---

quote:

---

And any statistical conclusions one could draw from that are easily explained by socio-economic factors.

---

Perhaps sex differences cannot be explained by socio-economic factors (perhaps), however they can be explained by the social construction of gender.

If we really want to help our kids, we need to stop raising them to fit such narrow social molds, and teach them methods to reach their full potential and self-actualization.

quote:

---

Also there is a certain diffrence in the way males learn as opposed to females,

---

There are wider variances within sexes than between them.

There are wider variances within sexes than between them...

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: meades ]

quote:

---

This is about all children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by meades:
Jesus Christ, are they putting stupid in the Abbotsford water supply?

---

quote:

---

The idea that helping girls achieve their best is somehow harmful to boys, is exactly as dumb as the converse.

---

I think that's something thats hard to say. I was recently sitting in on an education psychology class, and the teacher was speaking on racial and gender equity in examples for questions. I don't remember the exact details, but she mentioned that in X year(I think it was 1993) for the Alberta grade 6 provincial achievement test in science, they decide used almost exclusively female professionals as examples (like, Suzy is a botonist..., Amanda is a physicist) and after the exam was written, discovered that the average score for grade 6 boys decreased significantly compared to recent years.

Obviously, going from a male-centric education system to a more equal system (or even more of a female-centric education system, because IMO, in atleast some areas, it has gone past equality and moved into being a system that is geared more towards female achievement than male achievement.) there is going to be some reduction in the achievement of males, but that's to be expected to equalize the system.

As far as the article, I particularly liked:

quote:

---

"The tendency is, in a mixed gender class, they're not as likely to ask for help," he said. "They've got this macho image and in an all-boys class, that's not an issue."

---

I remember reading about similar issues a few years ago.

First, there were reports about girls performing better in segregated schools. Basically the converse of this story.

Then there were "new findings" or whatever, that while female teens did better when segregated, male teens did better in integrated environments.

Now, with the current situation, they're just talking about a couple of classes, so the males would still benefit from the integrated school environment overall, but have a couple of more male only classes, in addition to, say, Phys Ed.

I think what drives these stories, more than pro-male chauvinism (which I sensed was the initial spark for the "feminist" reaction in this case) is that parents of children of gender "A" insist on the optimum learning environment (according to the latest, trendiest, study) so their little darlings aren't prevented from getting ahead and becoming the nobel laureates they are destined to be.

I think a more important discussion, which other
posters are hinting at, is when, why, and who chooses how raw academic scores are balanced with social learning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
And another thing...

What are the segregated boys and girls going to do when they grow up, enter "the real world", and find out about the distractions from which they've been protected?

---

The ones who grew up with brothers and sisters, and semi-capable parents, deal with it fine (after being lousy boy/girfriends through their university years).

quote:

---

Which should be easyh, since the public education system is chronically overfunded.

---

If only...wouldn't that be nice?

quote:

---

The ones who grew up with brothers and sisters, and semi-capable parents, deal with it fine (after being lousy boy/girfriends through their university years).

The other ones take a few years, but get with the programme, or else they don't, in which case being integrated in public school wouldn't have made a difference (IMO).

---

But how can you say it wouldn't have made a difference? Somebody who went through their education in integrated classes, having to interact with members of both sexes, is not going to spontaneously be unable to work with members of the opposite sex once they enter the real world. Somebody who's been segregated for their entire life doesn't have those years of experience dealing professionally with the opposite sex, and, IMO, be at a disadvantage, and possibly be unable to cope.

Teenagers are a nasty mix of hormones, insecurity, angst and lust. It may be useful and helpful to separate them for certain classes, and it may benefit both sexes.

I'd like to see girls-only math and science classes, for the opposite reason - because girls often "dumb down" in front of the boys in math and science classes, whether because of peer pressure or a drop in self-esteem at the critical early-teens age, and boys are called on much more often than girls in them.

If they feel the same thing is happening to boys in English classes, then I don't have a problem with them dealing with that.

I sure as hell don't like the whole "girls distract the boys", or "boys distract the girls" argument. I wouldn't make it, myself. But to ignore the social aspects of learning, including peer pressure and self-esteem, doesn't help.

If I had a daughter, I would consider putting her into all-girls math and science classes.

[ 13 October 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

In regards to the entire question of do girls and boys learn differently I realize the basis is a generalization, but if it's widely true then it's not as if it should just be thrown out. There are scientific differences*, and of course an educational curriculum should be tailored towards an individual so in some cases this won't be the best idea, but it's not as if this is something we should be scared of for all children/teenagers. If the educational system is to be largely tailored in favour of an individual student, gender is an issue. So Meades -- your mantra -- isn’t applicable.

Let's take this quote from Meades:

quote:

---

Sex-segregation could leave potentially 40% or more students behind.

---

Okay so let's suppose this is true. What will we do with the other 60% hmm just tell them well since your already behind or not meeting your potential don't bother expecting us to do anything to try to solve this problem, lest we offend anyone. To improve the educational system, not that I think it's crumbling but it could always use improvement, a variety of actions can be taken. Including experimenting with this so long as it's done in an intelligent and thoughtful manner.

I'll quote it again, but I don't think I need to, if there's a ten percent improvement, for in this case, boys in the single-sex classes that can't be dismissed for political reasons. And I don't think girls or boys must learn differently, I just think it has been proven that large numbers of them do.

As for the argument that "oh what about the 'real world'" school isn't the 'real world' for a variety of reasons. Schooling is about learning classrooms are about learning they are not supposed to be models of society of which children/teenagers then begin to adapt to a wider sociological construct. Such constructs exist within school and there is some adapting and it would be dumb to dismiss them and we should try to work out (as in get rid of) of genderbased stereotypes, but let's not kid [no pun intended] ourselves school isn't the be all and end all of a child, or in this case, a teenager's life. They interact just about everywhere else.

I don't know if Michelle wants it but she's getting a virtual high-five from me for her post. So -- WORD M.

*No, I'm not dismissing other diffrences which may or may not be larger.

[ 13 October 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

What are the segregated boys and girls going to do when they grow up, enter "the real world", and find out about the distractions from which they've been protected?

---

I wondered the same thing when I went to university and lived in a co-ed dorm. Did you know there are still "male only" and "female only" residences? And that 19 year olds would actually choose to live in them? For four years?

We are all human, I think that anyone who says they have never looked at a girl/guy while in class is either making a bald-faced lie, or, has super-human self control. I myself admit to doing so on occasion.

BUT

it never stopped me from learning. The occasional glance while bored is not responsible for getting a 40 rather then an 80. a 79 rather then an 80, perhaps.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:
Yes there are different learning styles but not among the SEXES merely among the GENERAL POPULATION!

---

actually, I think this should be more of a focus.

Let me tell you all an anicdote. about two teachers, Mr.Arsenault, and Mr.Robichaud.
About 10 kids took both Mr.Arsenault and Mr.Robichaud's class. Half hated Mr.Arsenault's class (me included) and half hated Mr.Robichaud's class. Mr.Robichaud tought things visually, he often explained things using motions, I could picutre everything in my mind, moving along in a seamless fashion.
Mr.Arsenault tought things using words, dates, facts, and figures. I could not make the connections between the things, and in my mind the remained lumpy unconnected figures. I asked some of the 10 if they thought they learned visiually, or by reading, and everyone I asked fell into line. Visiual people liked Mr.Robichuad, and the people who learned by reading liked Mr.Arsenault. Some guys some girls in each group.

In the end, I got an 85 in Mr.Robichaud's class and a 67 in Mr.Arsenault's class.

Today, Mr.Arsenault is just a high-school teacher to drives a pickup truck. Mr.Robichaud is the leader of the PEI NDP

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Did you know there are still "male only" and "female only" residences? And that 19 year olds would actually choose to live in them? For four years?

---

I got stuck in an all-male dorm for a year. 'Twas dreadful. Testosterone oozed from the walls of the place, and the unchecked macho posturing was unbearable.

One significant study in it, documented teacher gender biases in the classroom and how they played out in learning curves between the sexes. Teachers play a huge role in how children learn, or do not learn.

Also significant in teaching factors are our linguistic modalities on how we learn as individuals.

quote:

---

I think I could handle one class out of many being all male, but if I wanted to be surrounded by nothing but men I'd have entered the seminary, or perhaps the army. Or, for that matter, prison.

---

Back in architecture school, my class started with 4 women out of around 60 guys. After they and around 10 of the men dropped out before the first Christmas, we were left for the better part of 4 years with a de facto all male program (except for the one elective per/semester). Because of the way the program was designed you spent around 90% of your waking hours with that group, summers excluded.

I still don't understand how "macho" keeps getting dropped into the discussion.

As to my point about what happens when previously segregrated students get dropped into the "real world" well, that would happen around university, so there's a buffer of integration before employment for those that do post-secondary. My point earlier was that for some people, they can spend all their lives in integrated environments, and still end up sexist jerks.

I would bet that by late twenties, assuming integrated uni classes, the ratio of sexist-jerks:not-so-much would be about the same for groups who had segregated high schools as for those wot had integrated ones.

I get the feeling that much of the ire is over the assumption that

"girls distract boys"
will be broadly interpreted as "girls are bad because the divert boys attention from the important stuff"

whereas

"boys distract girls"
more often gets interpreted as "girls a flighty and hard to teach".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Being in a dorm, or being segregated/seperated from females for a long period of time, is a lot diffrent than a couple of classes taking place over a whole 3 hours max everyday.

---

This is certainly true. Mr. Magoo's comment just reminded me of decade-old horrors and at 1 AM I felt compared to share.

quote:

---

As meades stated earlier: "there are wider variances within sexes than between them."

---

quote:

---

I had a girlfriend once who lived there; guys could visit and it was a nice enough place. Theoretically, guys couldn't stay overnight.

---

quote:

---

Go dudes!

---

quote:

---

If the educational system is to be largely tailored in favour of an individual student, gender is an issue.

---

You obviously completely missed my point if you seriously still believe that.

quote:

---

Okay so let's suppose this is true. What will we do with the other 60% hmm just tell them well since your already behind or not meeting your potential don't bother expecting us to do anything to try to solve this problem, lest we offend anyone.

---

The premise on which you base your support for sex-segregation is also flawed. Test scores and grades are not the only measure of education. Any teacher worth their salt will tell you that. Even if the measure increases English and Math grades on average for boys, it does not necessarily benefit their education, part of which is about opening minds.

quote:

---

Including experimenting with this so long as it's done in an intelligent and thoughtful manner.

---

Of course test scores aren't the only measure of the success of an educational institution -- I mean if we don’t agree over that let's argue over how water isn’t actually wet. But the fact of the matter is that tests are used to measure the academic prowess of a student when it comes to a specific subject. Sure students might be a lot smarter than their test scores show, but were talking about high school here. If one student has a 70% average and another has an 80% average, based upon grades that take tests into account, it's not like a University will just say "oh well -- perhaps the student with the 70% average is actually smarter -- so we should let them in over the one with 80%". That's just not how it works when it comes to entrance into high-learning institutions so yeah tests are important. There's some prominence placed on non-grade related factors, but grades are important.

In regards to this:

quote:

---

Tell me, if studies "proved" black and white adolescents had better test scores in segregated classes, would you support racial segregation?

---

Ah but they don't. There isn't any scientific evidence that this is true, none. And as I've already said statistical evidence can easily be dismissed. From reading your post there seems to be some, albiet only a little, acceptance of the fact that there is a difference between girls and boys -- even though (and I admit it) there are bigger differences within genders in addition to the differences between genders. So frankly your metaphor is an irrelevant intellectual ‘trap’.

As for this being a band-aid solution, it's still a solution, and frankly perfection doesn't come right away (nor does it likely exist). As far as I know we've both recently attended high school, and as far as I know neither of us are experts on the proper solutions that should be used to solve all sorts of problems that plague them.

quote:

---

As for this being a band-aid solution, it's still a solution

---

That's some nice rationalization.

quote:

---

From reading your post there seems to be some, albiet only a little, acceptance of the fact that there is a difference between girls and boys -- even though (and I admit it) there are bigger differences within genders in addition to the differences between genders.

---

I believe in gender difference like I believe in god and vaginal orgasm. Gender differences in learning are primarily social constructs, and don't really exist. Which is to say the "differences between boys and girls" are primarily learned behaviours and perceptions, which are reinforced by the patriarchy in which we live.

quote:

---

even though (and I admit it) there are bigger differences within genders in addition to the differences between genders.

---

No, not in addition. The differences among genders are simply more relevent than the "differences between genders" (which are essentially meaningless averages) because those variances are greater.

quote:

---

So frankly your metaphor is an irrelevant intellectual ‘trap’.

---

quote:

---

I would simply repeat the point that I think people should be taught to in the way that is most efficient, meaning whatever way they learn best.

---

Is efficiency really justifiable when you're facing a problem of systemic oppression? Honestly, I find that response no better than a pooh-pooh.

quote:

---

Uh, then I'm confused. Got a new emoticon and couldn't wait to use it?

---

[ 13 October 2004: Message edited by: meades ]

I don't necessarily think it's the best decision, I just said it's a decision that can be taken -- because it works, at least it does for some people -- although I realize that's not a finish point so w/e.

In regards to your metaphor frankly I don't take your use of the metaphor seriously because I know a little something about it, so don't force the issue, because your use of it is wrong. It's rather simple, and I don't have to explain it any further. You can force it if you like, I have no have no way to stop you or even real desire to do so, but I won't respond to it any further in regards to it if you do because you are not going to convince me. Maybe saying this is improper message board etiquette, I really don't know but I'm just saying it cause that's the way I see it -- and I'm not going to get into an LPS situation.

You keep dragging me into the oppression orbit. Well I'm not advocating oppression; you're either misrepresenting my position on purpose or misinterpreting it. I'm saying this issue, this story you linked us too is about education and feminism. And in the story it shows results so......on we go I guess....although I see no point in continuing.

[on edit]
If you really think I'm supporting oppression why don't you make the same claim of Michelle. After all she had a post that was saying it might be a good idea in some cases..

[ 13 October 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

So here's a good excuse to bring some traffic to my blog (tee hee).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pellaken1:
why does everyone assume that if classes were separated that the girls would get the short end of the stick?

---

Some schools have experimented successfully with all-girl technology classes, which were optional.

In my experience, males are strongly overrepresented in chemistry and physics. Females, whether consciously or not, tend to "steer" towards biology and biochemistry. Take the research group I'm in right now, which is hard nuclear science stuff. Two females, and god knows how many males. I've lost count.

By contrast, take the biochem class that was taught by one of the few female chemistry professors. The class was virtually all female.

I suspect that females would feel more comfortable in the sciences if we could get more females in teaching positions as a kind of "entering wedge".

quote:

---

Wurdz R fur chicks, numberz R fur dudes

---

quote:

---

Bruce Ivany, assistant superintendent of the Abbotsford school district, said boys and girls learn differently – and that adolescent boys are distracted by girls.

"We know now that the average adolescent male in that 10-16 age group gets seven to 11 spikes of testosterone per day," he said.

---

This pre-supposes that males are the norm. They are the one's being studied, it's their hormonal levels we're concerned with,their academic progress (or lack of) and once again, girls are relegated to the position of an independent variable.

Maybe, just maybe, boys are as much a distraction for girls, but since girls are seemingly able to compensate this distraction without compromising their academic progress (statistically speaking) they are not included in this research as anything more than an 'effect' on the more normative males.

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: Crimson ]

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: Crimson ]

quote:

---

This pre-supposes that males are the norm. They are the one's being studied, it's their hormonal levels we're concerned with,they're academic progress (or lack of) and once again, girls are relegated to the position of a dependent variable.

---

quote:

---

I'd like to see girls-only math and science classes, for the opposite reason - because girls often "dumb down" in front of the boys in math and science classes, whether because of peer pressure or a drop in self-esteem at the critical early-teens age, and boys are called on much more often than girls in them.

If they feel the same thing is happening to boys in English classes, then I don't have a problem with them dealing with that.

---

The whole "boys are distracted by girls" thing is so entrenched in society, and so deeply wrong, it does such damage to girls, and no doubt to boys as well. It's really much more a part of our way of thinking about ourselves and others than it should be at this point in our social development, and it really is frustrating and disappointing to hear someone in charge of the education of young people repeat such crap with such conviction.

quote:

---

Girls go to college to get more knowledge but boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider. But that's because girls are smarter than boys! but everyone knows that.

---

I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest since my 13 year old daughter goes to an all girl school. My son's school used to be all boys but, for financial reasons, decided to admit girls a couple of years before he was accepted (actually the year my daughter entered school).

My wife and I debated at great length where to send my daughter since she had been accepted into the (now) co-ed school my son attends. Every study I'm aware of says that girls do better in all girls schools, boys do better in co-ed facilities.

I can't speak for why the boys do better but in terms of the girls, there's none of the nonsense about boys being better, smarter, certain subjects being male, etc. In my daughter's school the best athlete is a girl, the best mathematician is a girl, the best ... No questions. By the way, the school is tough - her math text is for GCSE students over age 16 and they're just tearing through it.

The quote at the top of the page - when my daughter entered P1 (essentially kindergarten) I came home after her second day of school only to be met by a five year old reciting this to me by rote.

If you want to fast forward a couple of years, my daughter's 9th birthday, I had inlaws visiting and commented to my brother-in-law that my daughter's schools unofficial motto was "girls go ..." at which point every girl within earshot picked up and chanted

quote:

---

Girls go to college to get more knowledge but boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider. But that's because girls are smarter than boys! but everyone knows that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
I agree. I'd like to see some long-term studies done on separating boys and girls for particular classes from, say, age 13 onwards. That's the age where girls begin to "dumb down" or generally signify less interest in maths and sciences. Separate the boys and girls in math and core science only, and have them together for the social sciences, health and sex ed, arts and some components of phys ed. Compare them to a similar group separated in only the traditional classes (phys ed, health) and see how each group performs from grade 7 to 12. Monitor the post-secondary choices each group makes...does one group seem more inclined to post-secondary education than the other? Do more women enter traditionally male-dominated fields in one group than the other? Does the performance of one sex significanlty fall behind the performance of the other in one group, and not the other?

---

However, I found that I learned better in single sex environments. Some of my math groups were all female as well as my labs. But I had to take math and science all the way through high school. The real sticking point for me was gym. I absolutely refused to take co-ed gym, and dropped it entirely when they stopped offering girls gym. I would never be as good at a sport as any boy, and I didn't want to be compared to them.

It was an unmitigated disaster, abandonned after 1 year. The "B" classes were just incredibly rowdy, as peer admiration was gained almost exclusively on one's ability to be disruptive, fart and belch lowdly, taunt the teaches (particularly female), etc., etc. Rumour and conventional wisdom had it that the teachers union members refused to accept assignments to the school if the grand experiment were to be continued.

BTW, can you imagine what a herd of thirty 14 & 15 yr.old buys sweeping through the halls an hour or two after gym class smelled like ?

Edited to explain - showers were optional, as was the cheap Right guard, and what the hell, if you're just spending the rest of the day "with the guys, far better to stuff the sweaty jock, gyn shorts and t-shirt into the book bag, and use the extra few minutes to sneak out back or into the can for a quick smoke !!

[ 16 October 2004: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
The whole "boys are distracted by girls" thing is so entrenched in society, and so deeply wrong, it does such damage to girls, and no doubt to boys as well.

---

Huh?!? Am I hallucinating here? Of COURSE teenage boys are attracted/distracted to/by girls, biologically as well as socially (the construction part), just like many girls are (gasp!) distracted by teenage (often older) boys attention, just like a minority are attracted/distracted to the same sex. How is this "deeply wrong", sexual attraction/distraction is a fundamental part of the human experience (save perhaps the 1% who are asexual)???

My sister is a middle school teacher and they have an "ugly t-shirt" policy" if/when girls dress inappropriately for school ( my sis simply says "hey, you're looking great, but it just ain't appropriate for school", and hands the teen a XXL t-shirt with "I love my school !" on front. It's quite successful in changing the fashion sense for girls at school, as well as boys who wear t-shirts with inappropriate text for it's shock value.

In my eye girls/boys will always be distracted by each other... and it's something that should be taken for granted in any public school system... segregation is a cheap and easy way out that probably isn't a "real" solution... but in limited form (where it can be stasticially proved to actually make a significant difference) then perhaps it would be interesting to test out on a trial basis.

[ 16 October 2004: Message edited by: Panama Jack ]

I'm forced to disagree there... not on the context of the article, but on the assertion that what happens/should happen in university doesn't have relevance to high school.

Kids don't miraculously mature when they graduate from high school. In fact, many of the distractions of sexual attractions operate in the first two years of university exactly the same way they do in grade 12... these are still teenagers, after all, and separating them will only ingrain all "male" and all "female" learning styles. This is bound to make the transition to high levels of learning in co-ed environments even more traumatic for many students than it is now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Would I have still earned that barfy if I'd replaced "Go dudes" with "Nice pink bathrobe that comes almost down to your scrotum there, studman!"?

---

Ooh là là!

I'm reacting viscerally to this thread... there's been a lot of good debate but I don't feel I can address it right now. From my own perspective... I went to what would be the equivalent in the British system of an all-boys middle and high school. I'm gay, and I knew when I was 12 that I found some of the other guys and some of my teachers disturbingly fascinating. You'd think that spending every day with a bunch of horny adolescent boys would be paradise for a gay kid, but you'd be sadly rong in my case. There I was trapped in a classroom full of homophobic straight males all doing the macho thing that straight males tend to do when they flock together. It was seven years of pure hell. The school was at admitted a few girls in the upper forms if they were good students and if they wanted to study the math and science that boys were expected to study. Frankly, it was a huge relief to have them around... they seemed to moderate the machismo a bit. I think that sex segregation is a horrible thing to do to queer kids.

quote:

---

Originally posted by khrisse-boy:
Frankly, it was a huge relief to have them around... they seemed to moderate the machismo a bit. I think that sex segregation is a horrible thing to do to queer kids.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
You're probably right, but the overt homophobia of young men far surpasses that of young women...

---