Teaching boys and girls separately in NYC and beyond

Posted by Philissa at 7:23 AM

The internet's abuzz with talk of this week's New York Times Magazine's cover story, "Teaching Boys and Girls Separately." The article describes a growth in single-sex education nationally, fueled by two sets of proponents of single-sex education: neuro(pseudo)scientists, who believe hard-wired differences in the way boys and girls learn make sex-segregated classrooms necessary; and those who want to empower boys and girls to succeed despite societal pressures that inhibit their success.

Those who believe in single-sex education because of its purported biological advantages are more plentiful, at least according to themselves, but in New York City, it's the second set of single-sex advocates who have opened schools. The Young Women's Leadership School and its three clones and Excellence Charter School, both of which appeared in the article, offer high academic standards and supportive environments. The tone of the schools may be aided by the lack of gender diversity, but those schools' success "has at least as much to do with their rigorous academic approach, commitment to high-quality teaching, and shared culture of excellence as it has to do with the fact that they're single sex," writes Sara Mead of the Early Ed Watch Blog.

(The city has several other single-sex schools, including Urban Assembly's all-girls math and science, business, and criminal justice schools for girls and history and citizenship school for boys; the Academy for Business and Community Development, an all-boys school that is adding a high school this fall; and Eagle Academy for Young Men, a successful high school that will see its first clone open in September. I've also visited a few schools that have single-sex periods during the day, often for math and science classes.)

Should public schools segregate kids by gender? The article makes it clear that despite proponents' claims, there isn't any biological justification for teaching kids separately and differently. And as Dana Goldstein at The American Prospect writes, the neuroscience approach smacks of "stereotyping, heteronormativity, and misogyny."

But I also agree with Alexander Russo's tentative claim that that single-sex education "could do some good" and Insideschools blogger Seth's opinion that some children might feel more comfortable in a single-sex setting. As Sara Mead points out, research has shown that girls can benefit when they have math and science instruction to themselves. And when issues of sexuality and gender identity come up at school, it can be safer for kids to discuss them in a single-sex environment, as in the AP English class at TYWLS the article describes. I've been to a number of schools lately that have single-sex advisories for that purpose. But shouldn't schools also teach young adults how to interact courteously and appropriately with their peers of the opposite gender, even when sex or sexuality is the topic of conversation? That's an important lesson that single-sex schools are incapable of offering.

Student Thought: Boys and girls

Posted by Seth Pearce at 1:30 PM

Yesterday, Newsday published an article entitled "Single-Sex School Aren't the Educational Answer," by Caryl Rivers and Rosalind C. Barnett, co-authors of a book on how gender myths are hurting our society. In the article, Rivers and Barnett explore the current media clash between those who think girls are favored in our schools and those who believe that boys are.

There has been a lot said about girls doing better in school thanks to (as New Republic puts it) a "verbally drenched curriculum," designed to encourage girls to succeed. In my experience as a student, only recently (the end of junior year) have boys been able to catch up to girls academically.

However, as Rivers and Barnett point out, data has shown that boys are getting into colleges and getting bachelor's degrees at ever-increasing rates. A recent US News article supports this side of the argument, noting that it is much harder for girls to gain admission to college than it is for boys due to overwhelming competition. When colleges try to maintain gender balance and have a larger female applicant pool, boys have it much easier.

With all of these gender issues some public school systems have been creating single-sex schools, something that Rivers and Barnett are very much against.

The evidence hardly suggests single-sex public schools are the answer. When you account for such factors as parents' income, student motivation, teacher ability and class size, kids in co-ed class and kids in single-sex classes perform about the same. When California set up single-sex schools in the '90s, it failed to improve academic performance. And, says the Ford Foundation, the schools tended to foster gender stereotypes, not helpful to either sex.

As a student, I cannot endorse this view. Sure, single-sex schools are not best for many students, but for some it is a very valuable option. I know that most of pro-single-sex-schools arguments were said a long time ago but for some students they are still true. Students of both genders can find members of the opposite sex distracting or pressure-causing in an academic setting. For them, a single-sex school can be much more relaxing and a better learning environment. Single-sex schools are not for everyone, but until the we have all the answers you need to keep all options open.