Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Is this OT?



At 12:16 -0500 9/5/02, Rick Tarara wrote:

Now to stir up thing even more, let me propose that we separate the sexes
from 5th grade through HS (and if you do that, you can probably do without
the uniforms).

[Does anyone want to talk 9-month boarding schools to really improve
learning! ]

I have seen situations where a single-sex class works to the
advantage of the girls, who don't have to compete with the more
aggressive boys (of course that does nothing for the less aggressive
boys, does it?). In that sense, it can be very good for individual
girls, but it also can work to the overall disadvantage of girls as a
group. Since there are advantages for individual girls, such classes
ought to be available as an option (probably not feasible in public
schools, so it will remain an option for those who can afford private
schools).

But since men are still dominant in the work force (don't believe
that? Just look at what has happened in the nursing and flight
attendant fields since men have been able to move into them. In a
very short time, men have moved into leadership roles in both, often
pushing aside or pushing out senior women. Since managerial abilities
vary, sometimes such actions are the way they should be, but often
this happens because the women are not used to competing with men at
that level and don't know how to be effective at it. This may change
is the women learn how before the men manage to dominate the
leadership.), separating them from the girls in school enables them
to a) further cement their prejudices about the inadequacy of women
and/or their suitability for only certain functions, and b) establish
their own power-structure network without interference from
women--the rebirth of the old boy network, as it were. Both of these
will cancel out the educational advantages of educating women
separately.

What is likely to be more effective overall in helping girls to
achieve in school (especially in science and math, where the boys
most resent their competition) would be aggressive intervention with
teachers, to make sure that they truly give girls an equal shot in
classes. I believe it was the League of Women Voters (maybe not;
perhaps another women's org.) who published a study they had
commissioned that showed that even female teachers in early classes
favored boys over girls in their classes, being quicker to call on
boys, giving girls less chance to excel in the class, holding the
girls to higher standards of behavior and performance, etc. This may
be a well-intentioned strategy since girls tend to be more mature
than same age boys, up through the 5-6th grade, and maybe beyond, but
the long-term consequences are an erosion of self-confidence and
self-worth among the girls and therefore a lowering of their
ambitions. Not a good result. It is hard enough to overcome the boys'
attitude toward girls who excel, without enlisting the teachers on
the side of the boys. At least we need to get the teachers to be
neutral.

With regard to boarding schools, since I teach at one, I'd love to
discuss it in this context. Since we are an academically selective
school, it is hard to say whether the fact that we are residential
makes a big difference, but it certainly has some advantages (also
some disadvantages). I wonder what its effect is in the private
schools, where the selection is more economic than academic?

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************