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.