Same-Sex schools

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't see what the problem with the option of same-sex schools is.  The ACLU claims it violates separate-but-equal, but if the same-sex schools aren't mandatory, why do they care.  The parents don't HAVE to send them there, but the ACLU has said they'll sue.  Thus, my vote is Yes/Yes/No

[Lunar]

Parents already have the option for same-sex schools - private education.

I do not see why the state should be involved in sexual segregation.  It's not really that harmful, but I don't see the benefits in separation.  As it is a public institution, it would make sense for there not to be any genetic (the way you were born) discrimination, except in extreme circumstances.  There seems to be a mild benefit of exposing children to the realities of a multi-sex world, and a mild benefit of streamlining the system a little bit.  I guess I don't see the reason why parents need a free alternative to coed education.

I don't care what the ACLU does about it.  I'll just vote NO/YES/YES just because I'm a fan of the ACLU recently.  If anyone wants to present some argumentation for optional same-sex public schools, shoot.

[Speed of Sound]

?/Yes/No


Im torn on two things:

The right to send your kid to that school if they feel its best for the kid.

The fact that inter-sex socialization is taken from the kid without thier chance to consent.


Hmmmm.....

But either way, the ACLU will sue, and will lose.

[bullmoose88]

Parents already have the option for same-sex schools - private education.

I do not see why the state should be involved in sexual segregation.  It's not really that harmful, but I don't see the benefits in separation.  As it is a public institution, it would make sense for there not to be any genetic (the way you were born) discrimination, except in extreme circumstances.  There seems to be a mild benefit of exposing children to the realities of a multi-sex world, and a mild benefit of streamlining the system a little bit.  I guess I don't see the reason why parents need a free alternative to coed education.

I don't care what the ACLU does about it.  I'll just vote NO/YES/YES just because I'm a fan of the ACLU recently.  If anyone wants to present some argumentation for optional same-sex public schools, shoot.

Well one *possible* benefit.

The schools could specialize in teaching styles which are better for each particular gender.

[Lunar]

Parents already have the option for same-sex schools - private education.

I do not see why the state should be involved in sexual segregation.  It's not really that harmful, but I don't see the benefits in separation.  As it is a public institution, it would make sense for there not to be any genetic (the way you were born) discrimination, except in extreme circumstances.  There seems to be a mild benefit of exposing children to the realities of a multi-sex world, and a mild benefit of streamlining the system a little bit.  I guess I don't see the reason why parents need a free alternative to coed education.

I don't care what the ACLU does about it.  I'll just vote NO/YES/YES just because I'm a fan of the ACLU recently.  If anyone wants to present some argumentation for optional same-sex public schools, shoot.

Well one *possible* benefit.

The schools could specialize in teaching styles which are better for each particular gender.

I can't imagine that being significant or the schools actually managing to pull that off.  But I'm open to this idea if you want to elaborate on what this would entail.

[jerusalemcar5]

It is completely wrong to deny social contact on the basis of sex.  These kids would have no say and that it also unfair.  I think the ACLU would win if they sue.

[bullmoose88]

Parents already have the option for same-sex schools - private education.

I do not see why the state should be involved in sexual segregation.  It's not really that harmful, but I don't see the benefits in separation.  As it is a public institution, it would make sense for there not to be any genetic (the way you were born) discrimination, except in extreme circumstances.  There seems to be a mild benefit of exposing children to the realities of a multi-sex world, and a mild benefit of streamlining the system a little bit.  I guess I don't see the reason why parents need a free alternative to coed education.

I don't care what the ACLU does about it.  I'll just vote NO/YES/YES just because I'm a fan of the ACLU recently.  If anyone wants to present some argumentation for optional same-sex public schools, shoot.

Well one *possible* benefit.

The schools could specialize in teaching styles which are better for each particular gender.

I can't imagine that being significant or the schools actually managing to pull that off.  But I'm open to this idea if you want to elaborate on what this would entail.

Well, I don't necessarily agree, but the news channels were talking about how boys were underperforming vis-a-vis girls. (The story may have been discredited)

But, boys could stand a school that breaks more frequently (considering it appears that boys can't stay in one place and be as focused).

But taylor the schools for each sex's strength's and weaknesses.

[bullmoose88]

It might be better to give some sort of test, maybe, and rather than separate by sex, separate by learning style.

shrug. I'm for solutions that emphasize individuals, but you have to start somewhere than trying the one plan for all.

[Lunar]

I think I would do better in the "female-style" learning area if that one involved less breaks, despite being male.  I've written essays for twenty-two hours straight with no problems whatsoever and breaks have forever frustrated me as a waste.

If you want to start a school for pseudo-ADD kids, that would be a much more interesting experiment for me than discriminating at the start based on sex.  To play the devil's advocate a bit too, I remember hearing that men were better spatial learners, or some terminology like that (which I'm too lazy to look up, of course), giving them an edge in subjects like geometry.  I'm not sure if it's possible to taylor to this sort of thing though.  I've never heard of single-sex private schools using specific psychological teaching styles.

[MaC]

It's a bad idea.  If kids are going to be segregated in school, how well can they socialize in real life with the opposite sex.  I sure hope this doesn't pass in my state.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Seperate but equal"? Now where have we seen this before?

[adam]

I would prefer that my tax dollars not go to satisfy the idiocy of a few parents who believe that their daughters are going to become whores if they come within 10 ft of a member of the opposite sex. If you want to water down and deprive your child, do it with your own money.

No/Yes/No

[MasterJedi]

Yes/Yes/No

[MODU]

Focusing just on the first question, I say the state can allow private schools to be same-sex, but not when it comes to public schools.  It would be a waste of money (since additional schools would eventually be needed to carry this out without sending students two to three times the usual traveling distances in order to segregate the kids).

[Nym90]

I would definitely oppose it in public education. School is about more than just learning the "3 r's", and learning how to interact with other people is a key part of it, as well. I think it's almost impossible to learn effective human relations if your relations are confined almost exclusively to one gender, due to the large differences in them.

[© tweed]

In public schools it should not be allowed.  In private schools it should.  So please clarify what "schools" means.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Parents already have the option for same-sex schools - private education.

I do not see why the state should be involved in sexual segregation.  It's not really that harmful, but I don't see the benefits in separation.  As it is a public institution, it would make sense for there not to be any genetic (the way you were born) discrimination, except in extreme circumstances.  There seems to be a mild benefit of exposing children to the realities of a multi-sex world, and a mild benefit of streamlining the system a little bit.  I guess I don't see the reason why parents need a free alternative to coed education.

I don't care what the ACLU does about it.  I'll just vote NO/YES/YES just because I'm a fan of the ACLU recently.  If anyone wants to present some argumentation for optional same-sex public schools, shoot.

1st, private schools cost $$$$$$$.  It's not that I think the schools SHOULD be segregated, it's that I don't think that there shouldnt' be the option.  The benefits said by people is that it allows the kids to focus more on the schoolwork instead of the girl sitting next to them.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It is completely wrong to deny social contact on the basis of sex.  These kids would have no say and that it also unfair.  I think the ACLU would win if they sue.

But their parents have a say.  After all, the parents are usually (not always) right.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's a bad idea.  If kids are going to be segregated in school, how well can they socialize in real life with the opposite sex.  I sure hope this doesn't pass in my state.

I'm not seeing what the problem is if it's an option.  This is not something where if the law passes, there are no co-ed schools.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"Seperate but equal"? Now where have we seen this before?

What's your point?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Focusing just on the first question, I say the state can allow private schools to be same-sex, but not when it comes to public schools.  It would be a waste of money (since additional schools would eventually be needed to carry this out without sending students two to three times the usual traveling distances in order to segregate the kids).

You (& Vlad) have a point here, but then do you support vouchers, or would the parents have to pay on their own?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In public schools it should not be allowed.  In private schools it should.  So please clarify what "schools" means.

Considering that the state has no right to step in and regulate private schools, this means public.  Why should it not be allowed?  Elaborate for me.  I really want to understand why the ACLU cares so much about something that's not even mandatory.

[Lunar]

Parents already have the option for same-sex schools - private education.

I do not see why the state should be involved in sexual segregation.  It's not really that harmful, but I don't see the benefits in separation.  As it is a public institution, it would make sense for there not to be any genetic (the way you were born) discrimination, except in extreme circumstances.  There seems to be a mild benefit of exposing children to the realities of a multi-sex world, and a mild benefit of streamlining the system a little bit.  I guess I don't see the reason why parents need a free alternative to coed education.

I don't care what the ACLU does about it.  I'll just vote NO/YES/YES just because I'm a fan of the ACLU recently.  If anyone wants to present some argumentation for optional same-sex public schools, shoot.

1st, private schools cost $$$$$$$.  It's not that I think the schools SHOULD be segregated, it's that I don't think that there shouldnt' be the option.  The benefits said by people is that it allows the kids to focus more on the schoolwork instead of the girl sitting next to them.

Well, if you advocate spending hundreds of thousands of dollars setting up a single-sex public shcool network, I think you need more concrete evidence that it would lead to a score improvement.  As Nym90 said, public schools do more than teach you algebra, they teach you some real-world communication skills and so on that multi-sex participation is an important part of.

It's not like the boys lose their hormones without girls around.  I've never heard of single-sex private schools doing better than multi-sex private schools, but if you want to do some Google research on it, I'm open to being convinced.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clearly same-sex schools are needed so that there will be more gay sex in school.

[Ebowed]

I'll only answer the first question posed, since I don't know anything about the ACLU's intentions or its hypothetical chances.  What I do know is that the state should not be directly sponsoring same-sex schools in public education; it's totally unnecessary and a waste of money.  The argument that private schools cost too much money could be applied to practically any dispute over public education (i.e. "I want to send my child to a private school that teaches the earth is flat, but it costs too much money; put it in the public education curriculum instead").