Where do we go from here?

Though both articles take a particular opinion on single-sex classes, both comment on how single-sex education is becoming an option for parents, students, and teachers. The best thing we can take away from the two points of view is that girls and boys may have different learning styles, some girls may interact better with boys, some boys with girls, either way, the best possible academic environment should be available for everyone. The articles also brought to light a need for research on public single-sex education. Studies on single-sex education have been mostly in private schools, and not very many have considered socio-economic factors in their research. In order for single-sex classes and schools to best serve their populations, it would be best to have knowledge and research. The final point to learn from both articles is that neither commented fully on the psychological side effects of kids growing up in single-sex environments. I think it is important for us to consider boys or girls who do not fit gender stereotypes and think about what may happen for them. Developmentally, how important is it for girls and boys to interact? What kind of learning exists there, only negative? only positive? Probably both. So which is more important, reducing the distractions of flirting or learning how to interact with a different gender in an education setting? The answer to this question can only lie in research and a case by case consideration of individual students.

Same-sex schools plan comes under fire

Women's, civil rights groups at odds with administration

Source: CNN.com
Author: The Associated Press
Date: September 18, 2002

The headline indicates that same-sex schools are in trouble, "under fire", and that they are under fire because they somehow violate women's rights and civil rights.

Arguments

• single-sex schools promote sexism, offer poor preparation for integrated workplaces, and distract from proven ways to improve education
• little research has been done on public single-sex classes
• success in single-sex schools may have more to do with money than kicking boys/girls out

Though all are valid arguments, the two more prominent arguments are...

• results that show academic improvement in single-sex schools do not hold up when socio-economic factors and ability level are taken into consideration
• schools that focus more on increased funding, smaller classes, parental involvement, and better teacher training will be just as successful as single-sex initiatives

Characters

Who’s in?

• Joan Hall, president of the Young Women’s Leadership Charter School
• Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation
• National Organization for Women, National Council of Women’s Organizations, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, and the National PTA
• “top Education Department official”
• Nancy Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
• Brian Jones, Education Department’s general counsel
• National Education Association
• Sandra Feldman, President of the American Federation of Teachers

Who's out?

• A psychologist’s perspective
• Students, in co-ed and single-sex education environments
• Parents, for and against single-sex education
• Teachers, with co-ed and single-sex classroom experience
• Medical commentary, especially on neurobiology
• A lawyer’s perspective

Why are they left out?

This article focuses on the civil liberties of the students and the fact that other factors may contribute to the academic problems, not just having the opposite sex in the classroom. The main argument states that single-sex educational successes are negated when socio-economic and ability factors are taken into consideration. This, combined with single-sex classes promoting sexism, leads the argument to take on a question of civil liberties and the equal opportunity to education, not segregated by race, gender, or any other factors. Parents, teachers, students, and psychologists are left out of the argument because the article assumes that the main issue of single-sex education is its existence at all. Comments from parents, teachers, and students would lead to a discussion of single-sex education specifically, whereas, the article is focused more on other factors that go into creating a positive school environment and how single-sex education can enhance gender stereotypes.

What’s left out of the discussion of single-sex education here?

The main point of discussion that is completely left out is a positive commentary on single-sex education and its benefits. Any possibility of this discussion is extinguished by the article’s argument that successes in single-sex education settings could very well be due to other factors, especially funding. The article also does not address any biological basis for learning. It avoids possible differences in learning style and brain functioning by masking the argument in saying that segregation on any level is unconstitutional. The article avoids personal commentaries, and instead focuses on large organizations’ and groups’ stances on the issue. Single-sex education is framed as violating civil rights, and feminists and civil rights activists want to prevent segregation.

Ideologies

Ideology: a set of values, beliefs, perceptions, or assumptions through which one comes to understand the world and formulate what one would consider "normal"

Ideologies used in the article's arguments:

• Gender differences are socially formed: girls and boys are socially trained to behave in certain ways
• Segregation is form of discrimination: separate but equal does not exist
• Equality: girls and boys deserve the same opportunity to be educated
• Single-sex education benefits are myth, actual factor for better education is funding
  

The article uses the ideology that boys and girls are socially conditioned to take on certain gender roles and single-sex schools would not adequately prepare girls for working with boys later in life. The article sees sex segregation as propagating the social expectations for girls. Also, since the article is heavy on quoting, and noting the side taken, of several civil rights groups, it places an emphasis on being anti-segregation. The article has an overarching theme of equality. This theme of equality is tied into the ideology that better funding and new initiatives in teaching are better indicators of a positive academic environment.

Equality is a dominant ideology of society today. Our country places an emphasis on equal opportunities, whether or not they are achieved is another story, and many people in society think absolutely equal situations are the best for everyone. Another dominant ideology in society today is that gender roles are socially conditioned in children. There is a debate between biological and social conditioning of gender specification, and it certainly relates to the two articles here.

Keeping the boys away from the girls

Schools try to close an achievement gap with single-sex classes

Source: The Boston Globe
Author: Tracy Jan
Date: May 9, 2008

The headline indicates that single-sex classes will improve boys' achievements, and that their achievements were hindered by being near the girls.

Arguments

• Single-sex classes are a way to tame hormones, refocus students on their studies, and address the achievement gap between girls and boys
• In co-ed situations, girls surpass boys in test scores, graduation rates, and attendance
• In co-ed situations, boys more likely to get suspended, be held back, and drop out
• State education department allows for single-gender programs as long as they offer equal opportunities
  
• In co-ed situations, boys and girls distract each other by flirting and picking on each other

Though all used as valid arguments, the most prominent, inclusive argument of the article was...

• Single-gender classes offer a way to bridge the achievement gap between boys and girls by improving boys' achievement in a single-sex environment

Characters

Who's in?

• Carol Johnson, superintendent of the Boston Public Schools
• Sarah Wunsch, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of MA
• Paul Reville, Governor Patrick's newly appointed education secretary
• the superintendent of Haverhill middle school
• Margaret Spellings, US Secretary of Education
• Marco Flores, Tykwan Boswell, and Allister Williams, male eighth graders in single-sex classrooms
• Emily Padilla, Christina Soto, female eighth graders in single-sex classrooms
• Virginia Fusnock, female English teacher in single-sex classroom of girls
• Joseph DeCelles, male English teacher in single-sex classroom of boys who prefers co-ed classrooms
  
• Sabrina Gray, elementary school teacher in single-sex classroom
• Sandra Mitchell-Woods, principal of Elementary school in Roxbury
• Felicia Gay, parent of boy in single-gender class

Who's out?

• a psychologist's perspective
• a feminist perspective
• medical doctor's perspective, especially on neurobiology and development
  
• long standing empirical research on single-sex education and its outcomes, both successes and complications
• a parent against single-sex education
  

Why are they left out?

The article sought to highlight the positive qualities of single-sex education, and an in-depth discussion of psychological and developmental side-effects of single-sex classrooms was not included. The feminist perspective was eliminated because the article stressed how boys and girls are inherently different and, therefore, how different teaching methods and environments is more equal than a co-ed environment in some cases. It states that girls are more able to shine and achieve in all girls classrooms, but certain feminists would argue that all girls environments are not preparing girls for co-ed work environments. In all, the article sticks to academia and avoids psychological and social ramifications of single-sex classrooms.

What's left out of the discussion of single-sex education here?

In this article, it leaves out any suggestion of long-standing empirical evidence that supports single-sex education as a viable and productive route for improving boys' achievement. The research may not exist yet, but no effort was made in finding evidence to support the fact that girls were inhibiting the boys' education in some way. There also were no comments from psychologists about the possible implications of boys and girls being separated. Identity formation and gender specification are likely to be a concern for parents and students entering a single-sex environment. Also, comments from a feminist perspective were missing from the social and psychological discussion about single-sex environments. In all, the author leaves out comments about the psychological or social ramifications of single-sex environments by making the argument that the education received is better for all involved and test scores will increase, while preening and flirting decrease. No discussion exists about students that may not fall into the biologically stereotyped gender roles and learning styles.

Ideologies

Ideology: a set of values, beliefs, perceptions, or assumptions through which one comes to understand the world and formulate what one would consider "normal"

Ideologies used in Jan's arguments:

• Biology: girls and boys are innately different. their brains are different, and therefore, their learning will be different, too
• Gender stereotyping: girls and boys naturally, connecting to the biological ideology, exhibit different attitudes and learning abilities during adolescence
• Teaching styles/methods: teachers can adapt to all boys and all girls classrooms with more effective teaching techniques so that all their students will benefit
• Boy/girl interactions are negative: boys and girls are distracting and inhibit each others' learning
  

These ideologies closely connect to society's dominant ideology that boys and girls are inherently different. From the beginning of a child's life, they are presented with gender specific toys, colors, and activities. There is much discussion and argument about whether gender specification is biological, as assumed in this article, or more socially formed. Another ideology in this article was the gender difference in learning style. It is assumed by society that girls are going to prefer quiet time, and boys need more time to move around. Therefore, this article uses the ideology to support the argument that single-sex environments are more enriching for boys who need a different teaching method than girls. Finally, the article uses the dominant societal ideology that boys and girls are distracting to each other in an educational environment. The article sites several students and a parent who take notice of differences in students when they do not feel the need to flirt or preen for the opposite sex. Inherent in this assumption, however, is that all of the students are heterosexual. The ideology leaves out psychological discussion of identity formation for students who do not fall in the biological or gender stereotyped learning style of their sex.

Social Context in the Media Assignment

I chose to explore the controversy over single-sex education in the media. I found two articles that frame the issue in different ways:

Keeping the boys away from the girls; Schools try to close an achievement gap with single-sex classes

Same-sex schools plan comes under fire; Women's, civil rights groups at odds with administration


The rest of the blog is dedicated to analyzing how the articles frame the issue of single-sex classrooms. Enjoy!

Please use the videos, both ABC's news segment and the Learning Matters short film, to establish a context for the controversy. The Learning Matters video covers the beginning of public schools offering single-sex education options, and the ABC news segment shows several perspectives on the issue.

ABC News Segment on segregated classrooms in Georgia

ABC did a news segment on a Georgia school district that segregated boys and girls in the classroom. The segment includes comments from an administrator, parents, and a superintendent.

Part 2

Part 1: Learning Matters segment on separate classrooms for boys and girls