Same-Sex schools

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Haha, no worries.  Take your time.   Just bump the thread back up if it drops down.

Same-sex schools rule?
BY ERIN EINHORN
 
In the urban swirl outside a converted office building on E. 106th St., a swarm of aggressive boys menaced a teenage girl not far from where other girls witnessed a shooting weeks earlier.
But high on the upper floors of the East Harlem building, Samantha King, a diligent seventh-grader, sat focused on her school work, measuring angles on a recent day for a pie chart.

Down the pink-painted hall, high school senior Lydia Warr laughed as her English teacher compared "Beowulf" to the movie "Jaws II." And Natasha Williams, a 16-year-old junior, flipped through a guidebook in search of a midsize college where she could flourish.

One of the keys to the public school's success: there are no boys.

"I get sidetracked a lot when I'm with boys. They tend to be a little crazy sometimes," said Lydia, 17.

The controversy that surrounded the Young Women's Leadership School when it opened a decade ago as the nation's first single-sex public school has never disappeared.

But success stories bursting from schools like Young Women's Leadership have sparked a renewed interest in single-sex public education.

Five all-girl public schools already are open in the city, and the Education Department plans to create three similar schools in the next couple of years. Three public schools enrolling only boys also operate in the city, with more being planned.

Mayor Bloomberg announced the creation of several of the single-sex schools during his campaign for reelection.

The trend is not confined to the city.

Recent changes in state and federal laws have led to the opening of 42 single-sex public schools across the nation and another 151 schools that offer some classes to boys or girls separately, according to the National Association for Single Sex Education.

Same-sex public schools are too new for researchers to determine their value, given the many factors - not just who children sit next to in class - that contribute to their success.

Though supporters point to positive studies done in classrooms where teachers are trained in gender-specific teaching methods, detractors gripe that all children do better when teachers are well-trained and motivated.

The city Education Department says it has no data on the success of same-sex schools. Only the Harlem school has a long enough track record to produce meaningful numbers.

Yet, there's no argument that the school is impressive.

When Insideschools.org, a parent-run assessment group, used an analysis to find the most "value-added" schools - meaning schools that could turn kids with poor test scores into top grade-getters - Young Women's Leadership landed on top.

"We're pushed by the teachers to do our best," said Natasha, who wants to be a doctor. She said the lack of boys "allows the different distractions to be limited."

Supporters cheer the school and its imitators for addressing the unique needs of boys and girls, and offering families options previously available only in private and parochial schools.

But critics dismiss the schools' success and say the movement undercuts civil rights.

In 1996, when philanthropist Ann Tisch proposed returning gender segregation to a public school in New York, critics charged she was bringing back the days when girls were confined to home economics classes.

Michael Meyers, who heads the New York Civil Rights Coalition, which challenged the legality of the Young Women's Leadership in 1996, said he would gladly file a lawsuit today on behalf of any boy denied access to a girls school or any girl denied access to a boys school.

Meyers said the schools are founded on the erroneous notion that girls need protection from "oversexed minority boys."

The National Organization for Women also is generally opposed to the schools. Sonia Ossorio, of the New York NOW chapter, called them a "slippery slope" that could compromise a struggle that allowed women to attend Harvard and Yale.

But she hedged her opposition, saying in a city of troubled urban schools, it was hard not to be excited about a girl-centric school like Young Women's Leadership, which boasts a 100% graduation rate. "If I had kids and I lived there and saw this school with small class sizes and dedicated teachers ... it would be really difficult not be attracted to that and not to try to get my child in there," she said.

Still, critics wonder what would happen if half the girls at the school were suddenly replaced by boys. Would it be just as successful?

Supporters say that's the wrong question.

"In a system like New York, we want to create a variety of choices," said Bob Hughes, of New Visions for Public Schools. "As long as they meet a minimum threshold of performance, they're addressing the needs of parents and families who have a preference for that type of education. One size doesn't fit all in a system like this."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Same-sex school proposal in House

Detroit district, which loses 10,000 students a year, supports the plan; ACLU calls it a form of segregation.

Christina Stolarz / The Detroit News
DETROIT -- Lawmakers this week will take up legislation that would allow same-sex public schools in the city of Detroit -- a step that school officials say could help keep students in the struggling district.

The House Education Committee scheduled a Wednesday hearing on a proposal that would change state law to allow single-sex public schools in Detroit. The Senate Education Committee has endorsed a broader plan, despite the threat of a lawsuit if the proposal were to become law.

Advocates, including the ailing Detroit district that loses about 10,000 students a year, say same-sex schools would offer another educational option, improve classroom discipline and create a better learning environment for boys and girls.

"Same-sex classrooms and same-sex schools for those who would like that particular (choice) … is absolutely outstanding," said Jimmy Womack, Detroit Public Schools' board president.

The district's student population is 129,000 -- and shrinking. The district shuttered 29 buildings last year, leaving 235. Parents are upset because seven more schools will be closed this year.

But critics like the American Civil Liberties Union say the plan, sponsored by state Rep. LaMar Lemmons, D-Detroit, would violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"It's segregation -- segregation based on gender rather than race," said Shelli Weisberg of the Michigan ACLU.

DPS backed away from a similar plan last fall because it couldn't afford a court battle with the ACLU, district spokesman Lekan Oguntoyinbo said.

"There's no discrimination," he said. "There's tremendous support for this. Children who are steered to single-sex academies … are more likely to go on to college."

Detroit parent Shari Lemonious thinks an all-boys school could help her 10-year-old son, Dominick, a student at Ludington Middle School, succeed. "It takes away a level of distraction," Lemonious said. "Boys definitely (wouldn't be) competing to get the girls and vice versa.

"They can focus on academics."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This is TOO long to post, with too many links to individual studies, so, Lunar, just please check it out:

http://www.singlesexschools.org/evidence.html

[opebo]

Not to be sarcastic here, but what's your point, and why are they all Oriental?

Oh, sorry, I forgot my point whilst gathering images.  They're all Thai.

I'm against same sex schools in general, and certainly against them being sponsored by the State.  However I can report that girls are better behaved than boys.

OK, but why the pictures, and why Thai (most were labeled Thai in there URL, but I didn't want to call them all Thai in case they weren't, and then accidentally insult a Thai).

Well, just to show that one nice side-effect of girl's schools is a huge amount of cuteness.  Also I'm living in Thailand.

[dazzleman]

One of the big problems with public education today is that it has been politicized, and has been saddled with a 'one-size fits all' mentality in which people make blanket statements about what is supposed to work better for every child.

The reality of course is that what works well for one child may not work so well for another.  Inner city black children who have academic prospect and are interested in education are the greatest victims and casualties of this mentality, and this inappropriate politicization.  These children are in the weakest position to overcome the disadvantages with which they are faced, and are trapped by the politicization of mostly elitist liberals into educational situations that don't work for them.

Every f'ing issue in education is not a constitional one.  Though I agree with the Brown vs. Board of Ed ruling, one of the most unfortunate side effects of it is this mentality that you can't take a c&$p in a school building without it being a constitutional issue.  Evil organizations like the ACLU that have pernicious agendae use this mentality to stymie any efforts to actually improve education, and the elitist liberals who run these organizations couldn't care less since their kids are tucked away, for the most part, in expensive private schools of their choice.

Public education will not improve until we smash the pernicious liberal monopoly that has misgoverned it for so long, and start looking at things from a non-ideological perspective, and are more concerned about whether they work in improving education, rather than whether they advance a usually highly dubious preconceived political agenda.

Single sex schools should be a choice for some students because they will perform better in them, for a variety of reasons.  There's no reason this shouldn't be allowed under the constitution if it is a free choice.

[Lunar]

This is TOO long to post, with too many links to individual studies, so, Lunar, just please check it out:

http://www.singlesexschools.org/evidence.html

Your first link concluded that there was no evidence but just liked to use one example of a particularly well-funded and what seems to be a well-managed school as a shining beacon for all schools.  Hell, if I had a daughter I'd be tempted to send her there too.  This is because the teachers are getting training and the media focus on the school encourages it to do its job well.  Two more key reasons (don't forget the other two) this school could be doing better than average are:
-Girls perform better in high school than boys, overall.  Your own links argue this is true here and there.
-Parents that move their kids to a different school district than the normal are the parents who are more likely to take an active role in their child's education.

Your second link, particularly the bold part, seems like it's just making stuff up.  It's a common practice of politicians to just say out-of-the-blue statements like "multisex schools are less prone to violence" or "same sex schools better equip kids for college."  I further maintain that if a kid is easily enough distracted that a pair of breasts would cause a decrease in his test scores, removing the breasts is just going to cause him to be distracted by something else.

Ok, that handles the two editorials.  Now, onto the ACLU's perhaps more biased opposite:

Your link seemed to like to summarize studies in their own words, but at the cost of the facts, like so many organizations tend to do.  It pretends to be objective by providing a BBC snippet, a link that didn't work, and the 160 page pdf file.  I actually read the report (ok, parts of it dealing with same-sex education).  It seems that the Cambridge study conducted a four-pronged study on changing pedagogic, individual, organizational, and socio-cultural aspects of the British learning system and is not, in fact, a study devoted to proving that single-sex schools are amazing.  The study concluded merely that "interventionist" strategies at raising boy's test schools were nifty.

-Quote from one of the links:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-From your mega pdf file, on page 16:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

    This means that your own evidence disproves the idea of "boy-specific" or "girl-specific" teaching methods.
- The study, according to the summary on your link, seems to indicate that smaller schools (~180 per class year) do the best.  I imagine that most single-sex schools are smaller, confusing the results.
-The part of the study that briefly dealt with same-sex schools was carried out by TELPEPHONE surveys in a couple dozen primary schools and admits that there is, despite this recent study, a "marked lack of evidence about the advantages of such schooling or teaching for boys."  Yet this is the main link that your organization is pimping, haha.
-Another quote from the Cambridge study:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Again, for the schools that were more coherent, all THREE of them including control groups (weird that Singlesexschools.org doesn't mention this before arguing that it's a nation-wide study proving their facts), I do not know if the same-sex schools were an optional choice.  I imagine they must have been, at least to a reasonable degree.  In this case, you're going to have certain types of parents choosing to send their kids there, meaning overprotective ones or ones concerned about their child.  This would naturally skew the results.
-Another quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

  Oops
-I imagine that any schools which go through the shift of transormation is going to be "shooken up" and show results immediately.  This more responds to the other evidence presented on your link, but I'm tired and am probably not going to go on to the other links.

I'm not a statician.  Hell, it's been a over a year since I've even taken a math course.  I can only cast doubt on second-hand reporting by looking at the source myself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm wary about the rhetoric of "choice" to describe everything as well.  As you know, opponents of abortion like to change the subject from abortion to the much more positive idea of choice.  I don't feel that it's a Constitutional issue. Hell, I don't even care about the studies that "prove it's more effectve" (it needs to be in quotes from the study I read), now that I've thought about it and developed an opinion on the subject.  I feel that multi-sex education better equips students for the real world and it is not worth costing the tax-payers extra money to set up a single-sex infrastructure in order to give them a choice to underequip their students.

[7,052,770]

They should have some classes separated by sex, but certainly not entire schools.

[dazzleman]

I'm wary about the rhetoric of "choice" to describe everything as well.  As you know, opponents of abortion like to change the subject from abortion to the much more positive idea of choice.  I don't feel that it's a Constitutional issue. Hell, I don't even care about the studies that "prove it's more effectve" (it needs to be in quotes from the study I read), now that I've thought about it and developed an opinion on the subject.  I feel that multi-sex education better equips students for the real world and it is not worth costing the tax-payers extra money to set up a single-sex infrastructure in order to give them a choice to underequip their students.

Well, this is where we disagree.  To set up an option for single sex education in certain places would probably not cost any more money than we're currently spending.  So the extra money argument is basically a red herring.

You may believe that co-ed education is always superior, but for some children, single-sex education can produce a better result.  Why should you decided that, rather than their parents?

For the suburban kid from the nice two-parent home, co-ed education will work best for the vast majority.  But for boys from matriarchal segments of society who lack any type of male guidance, single-sex education with a preponderance of male teachers as positive role models can make the difference between these kids being motivated enough to continue their education, and dropping out.  And these kids have an abundance of contact with women -- probably too much, relative to the limited contact they have with adult men as positive role models.  So for them, single sex education can be the thing that corrects the imbalance in their lives to some degree, and equips them better to deal with the real world.

[Lunar]

I'm wary about the rhetoric of "choice" to describe everything as well.  As you know, opponents of abortion like to change the subject from abortion to the much more positive idea of choice.  I don't feel that it's a Constitutional issue. Hell, I don't even care about the studies that "prove it's more effectve" (it needs to be in quotes from the study I read), now that I've thought about it and developed an opinion on the subject.  I feel that multi-sex education better equips students for the real world and it is not worth costing the tax-payers extra money to set up a single-sex infrastructure in order to give them a choice to underequip their students.

Well, this is where we disagree.  To set up an option for single sex education in certain places would probably not cost any more money than we're currently spending.  So the extra money argument is basically a red herring.

It's possible that I'm biased because the county where I come from has only a single public school that services the entire county.  My town has 3,000 people.  Nevertheless, I maintain that setting up the school infrastructure and the "choice" infrastructure will cost some amount of money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some parents think all kinds of things would be superior for their children.  I don't really care if a percentage of parents want high schools that offer naptime to be an option.  If you think it's critical for your child's succes, then go for a private school.  If you're too poor, apply for a scholarship.  I'm not opposed to vouchers either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if the real world works like a plus/negative scale regarding contact witih women.  I'm just speculating, but I don't think you can send your child to an all boy's same-sex school and then, after a certain age, send them to the same amount of years in an all-girls school (pretending like he could get admitted) and expect him to turn out the same as if he had gone through the same years in a multi-sex school!.  Furthermore, the same argument could be made with anything - notably race.  Should we provide single-race schools for children who have't had enough role models that they can relate to of their own race?  I maintain that public schools need to teach communication in a "real world" environment.  Even if you don't agree with me that learning cross-sex communication is an important tool for the real world, it's still my belief that it would greatly assist them for multi-sex colleges (the majority of them).  In the University of California, Berkeley, for example, almost all bathrooms are coed. 

[Nym90]

One of the big problems with public education today is that it has been politicized, and has been saddled with a 'one-size fits all' mentality in which people make blanket statements about what is supposed to work better for every child.

The reality of course is that what works well for one child may not work so well for another.  Inner city black children who have academic prospect and are interested in education are the greatest victims and casualties of this mentality, and this inappropriate politicization.  These children are in the weakest position to overcome the disadvantages with which they are faced, and are trapped by the politicization of mostly elitist liberals into educational situations that don't work for them.

Every f'ing issue in education is not a constitional one.  Though I agree with the Brown vs. Board of Ed ruling, one of the most unfortunate side effects of it is this mentality that you can't take a c&$p in a school building without it being a constitutional issue.  Evil organizations like the ACLU that have pernicious agendae use this mentality to stymie any efforts to actually improve education, and the elitist liberals who run these organizations couldn't care less since their kids are tucked away, for the most part, in expensive private schools of their choice.

Public education will not improve until we smash the pernicious liberal monopoly that has misgoverned it for so long, and start looking at things from a non-ideological perspective, and are more concerned about whether they work in improving education, rather than whether they advance a usually highly dubious preconceived political agenda.

Single sex schools should be a choice for some students because they will perform better in them, for a variety of reasons.  There's no reason this shouldn't be allowed under the constitution if it is a free choice.

I would be interested in seeing statistics if they are available, but I find it hard to believe that children who attend private schools come mostly from liberal families. I would think they tend to be at least as conservative as the nation as a whole, if not much more so.

I agree that "one-size fits all" definitely is not a good thing in public schools, but at the same time we have to consider how to best meet the needs of the vast majority of students without catering to a very few. I do believe that the vast majority of students will learn better in a coed environment than a single sex one, overall. Obviously for some people this won't be true, and if the school has some sort of a mechanism in place to identify these students and offer the option of single sex classes, that would be fine by me.

In a large school, it would not be at all cost prohibitive to offer same sex classes, but in a small school system it would be nearly impossible without greatly increased funding. I'd be more than willing to support the extra funding for this if it was shown to be effective, but most backers of same sex schools probably wouldn't be willing to.

I agree that those who send their children to private schools do weaken public education, primarily because funding for public education is reduced from the loss of the student. I realize that many large city schools may be very inefficient with their funding, but overall higher salaries for teachers would encourage more people to go into teaching rather than other more lucrative professions, and this would definitely increase the quality of education in public schools. There's also the factor of large class sizes making it very hard for students to learn effectively and for teachers to give them the attention that they need.

And of course, it ultimately comes to the parents to raise their children to value education, which requires the parents themselves to be educated. It's a very long process that would take at least a generation to truly fix, but I think it can be done if we spend money wisely and efficiently and put it into reducing class sizes and increasing teacher pay.

[dazzleman]

One of the big problems with public education today is that it has been politicized, and has been saddled with a 'one-size fits all' mentality in which people make blanket statements about what is supposed to work better for every child.

The reality of course is that what works well for one child may not work so well for another.  Inner city black children who have academic prospect and are interested in education are the greatest victims and casualties of this mentality, and this inappropriate politicization.  These children are in the weakest position to overcome the disadvantages with which they are faced, and are trapped by the politicization of mostly elitist liberals into educational situations that don't work for them.

Every f'ing issue in education is not a constitional one.  Though I agree with the Brown vs. Board of Ed ruling, one of the most unfortunate side effects of it is this mentality that you can't take a c&$p in a school building without it being a constitutional issue.  Evil organizations like the ACLU that have pernicious agendae use this mentality to stymie any efforts to actually improve education, and the elitist liberals who run these organizations couldn't care less since their kids are tucked away, for the most part, in expensive private schools of their choice.

Public education will not improve until we smash the pernicious liberal monopoly that has misgoverned it for so long, and start looking at things from a non-ideological perspective, and are more concerned about whether they work in improving education, rather than whether they advance a usually highly dubious preconceived political agenda.

Single sex schools should be a choice for some students because they will perform better in them, for a variety of reasons.  There's no reason this shouldn't be allowed under the constitution if it is a free choice.

I would be interested in seeing statistics if they are available, but I find it hard to believe that children who attend private schools come mostly from liberal families. I would think they tend to be at least as conservative as the nation as a whole, if not much more so.

I agree that "one-size fits all" definitely is not a good thing in public schools, but at the same time we have to consider how to best meet the needs of the vast majority of students without catering to a very few. I do believe that the vast majority of students will learn better in a coed environment than a single sex one, overall. Obviously for some people this won't be true, and if the school has some sort of a mechanism in place to identify these students and offer the option of single sex classes, that would be fine by me.

In a large school, it would not be at all cost prohibitive to offer same sex classes, but in a small school system it would be nearly impossible without greatly increased funding. I'd be more than willing to support the extra funding for this if it was shown to be effective, but most backers of same sex schools probably wouldn't be willing to.

I agree that those who send their children to private schools do weaken public education, primarily because funding for public education is reduced from the loss of the student. I realize that many large city schools may be very inefficient with their funding, but overall higher salaries for teachers would encourage more people to go into teaching rather than other more lucrative professions, and this would definitely increase the quality of education in public schools. There's also the factor of large class sizes making it very hard for students to learn effectively and for teachers to give them the attention that they need.

And of course, it ultimately comes to the parents to raise their children to value education, which requires the parents themselves to be educated. It's a very long process that would take at least a generation to truly fix, but I think it can be done if we spend money wisely and efficiently and put it into reducing class sizes and increasing teacher pay.

Eric, I think the availability of single sex programs should be based on perceived need, and should not necessarily be universal.  I think that in inner city areas, the need for single programs goes far beyond a small group, and this is where it should be considered most.

When it comes to reducing class size and increasing teacher pay, you're simply mouthing NEA propaganda.  We've spent a ton of money on these two objectives with little to no positive impact on results.

[TeePee4Prez]

No/Yes/No.  Having been to a single sex school the concept is a bad idea.  I'll be the first to admit it was a huge adjustment going to a co-ed secular university after that. 

So, since I believe your the only one with an inside opinion, what were the pros and cons of same-sex school?

Will do:

Pros-

Don't have to worry much about what you look like

A little bit easier to participate in class

You lower you physical dating standards

Cons-

Daily interaction with the opposite sex is only with an occassional teacher and it was nonexistant when my dad went to the same HS.

You become incredibly horny and get a little too excited for your own good when you're around the opposite sex.

You eventually have to go to college and the workplace and interaction with females is a must.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Not to be sarcastic here, but what's your point, and why are they all Oriental?

Oh, sorry, I forgot my point whilst gathering images.  They're all Thai.

I'm against same sex schools in general, and certainly against them being sponsored by the State.  However I can report that girls are better behaved than boys.

OK, but why the pictures, and why Thai (most were labeled Thai in there URL, but I didn't want to call them all Thai in case they weren't, and then accidentally insult a Thai).

Well, just to show that one nice side-effect of girl's schools is a huge amount of cuteness.  Also I'm living in Thailand.

So, was there really any point at all (this is a serious ?)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Evil organizations like the ACLU that have pernicious agendae use this mentality to stymie any efforts to actually improve education, and the elitist liberals who run these organizations couldn't care less since their kids are tucked away, for the most part, in expensive private schools of their choice.

But why does the ACLU even care at all?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

They should have some classes separated by sex, but certainly not entire schools.

Like what classes?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some parents think all kinds of things would be superior for their children.  I don't really care if a percentage of parents want high schools that offer naptime to be an option.  If you think it's critical for your child's succes, then go for a private school.  If you're too poor, apply for a scholarship.  I'm not opposed to vouchers either.

But this is most of the parents.  I'll work on gettins some #s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if the real world works like a plus/negative scale regarding contact witih women.  I'm just speculating, but I don't think you can send your child to an all boy's same-sex school and then, after a certain age, send them to the same amount of years in an all-girls school (pretending like he could get admitted) and expect him to turn out the same as if he had gone through the same years in a multi-sex school!.  Furthermore, the same argument could be made with anything - notably race.  Should we provide single-race schools for children who have't had enough role models that they can relate to of their own race?  I maintain that public schools need to teach communication in a "real world" environment.  Even if you don't agree with me that learning cross-sex communication is an important tool for the real world, it's still my belief that it would greatly assist them for multi-sex colleges (the majority of them).  In the University of California, Berkeley, for example, almost all bathrooms are coed.

[/quote]

And if we did that in raging-hormone high schools, you'd have people doing it in the bathrooms.

With race--you aren't pre-ocupied with your classmate b/c they're hispanic.  Most people don't concentrate on Hispanics all class, but when you have Joe Smith looking at Betty Jones you ahve a problem

[Nym90]

One of the big problems with public education today is that it has been politicized, and has been saddled with a 'one-size fits all' mentality in which people make blanket statements about what is supposed to work better for every child.

The reality of course is that what works well for one child may not work so well for another.  Inner city black children who have academic prospect and are interested in education are the greatest victims and casualties of this mentality, and this inappropriate politicization.  These children are in the weakest position to overcome the disadvantages with which they are faced, and are trapped by the politicization of mostly elitist liberals into educational situations that don't work for them.

Every f'ing issue in education is not a constitional one.  Though I agree with the Brown vs. Board of Ed ruling, one of the most unfortunate side effects of it is this mentality that you can't take a c&$p in a school building without it being a constitutional issue.  Evil organizations like the ACLU that have pernicious agendae use this mentality to stymie any efforts to actually improve education, and the elitist liberals who run these organizations couldn't care less since their kids are tucked away, for the most part, in expensive private schools of their choice.

Public education will not improve until we smash the pernicious liberal monopoly that has misgoverned it for so long, and start looking at things from a non-ideological perspective, and are more concerned about whether they work in improving education, rather than whether they advance a usually highly dubious preconceived political agenda.

Single sex schools should be a choice for some students because they will perform better in them, for a variety of reasons.  There's no reason this shouldn't be allowed under the constitution if it is a free choice.

I would be interested in seeing statistics if they are available, but I find it hard to believe that children who attend private schools come mostly from liberal families. I would think they tend to be at least as conservative as the nation as a whole, if not much more so.

I agree that "one-size fits all" definitely is not a good thing in public schools, but at the same time we have to consider how to best meet the needs of the vast majority of students without catering to a very few. I do believe that the vast majority of students will learn better in a coed environment than a single sex one, overall. Obviously for some people this won't be true, and if the school has some sort of a mechanism in place to identify these students and offer the option of single sex classes, that would be fine by me.

In a large school, it would not be at all cost prohibitive to offer same sex classes, but in a small school system it would be nearly impossible without greatly increased funding. I'd be more than willing to support the extra funding for this if it was shown to be effective, but most backers of same sex schools probably wouldn't be willing to.

I agree that those who send their children to private schools do weaken public education, primarily because funding for public education is reduced from the loss of the student. I realize that many large city schools may be very inefficient with their funding, but overall higher salaries for teachers would encourage more people to go into teaching rather than other more lucrative professions, and this would definitely increase the quality of education in public schools. There's also the factor of large class sizes making it very hard for students to learn effectively and for teachers to give them the attention that they need.

And of course, it ultimately comes to the parents to raise their children to value education, which requires the parents themselves to be educated. It's a very long process that would take at least a generation to truly fix, but I think it can be done if we spend money wisely and efficiently and put it into reducing class sizes and increasing teacher pay.

Eric, I think the availability of single sex programs should be based on perceived need, and should not necessarily be universal.  I think that in inner city areas, the need for single programs goes far beyond a small group, and this is where it should be considered most.

When it comes to reducing class size and increasing teacher pay, you're simply mouthing NEA propaganda.  We've spent a ton of money on these two objectives with little to no positive impact on results.

Well I do agree that the money needs to be spent more effectively. I have no argument with that at all. However, I would argue that neither of these objectives of higher pay and lower class sizes have been met, and I don't see why they wouldn't work if they are met. As for how to meet them, that is definitely a legitimate debate to have.

But I don't think it's particularly disputable that teachers on the whole do make quite a bit less than most other professions for which a bachelor's degree is required. One can argue whether this is or is not fair pay for fair work (I would argue generally no, but then I probably have a biased perspective on the issue), but it does tend to discourage talented individuals from going into teaching, and I think we can all agree that having high quality teachers needs to be a top priority for any school, public or private. In any profession, you have to be willing to pay for top quality people. Government, unlike business, has a hard time raising the money to pay for top quality employees because it is much harder to convince the taxpayers and voters of the need for this and of the relationship between higher pay and higher quality than it is to convince a board of directors or a CEO.
 
Likewise, with class sizes, I don't think many can argue with the idea that it would be a more effective learning environment for students to receive more attention from the teacher and not have as many distractions from a large class.

I agree that in many places money is being spent and not going to these things, and I agree that has to change.

But ultimately, it comes down to the parents, who have far more influence on education than the teachers do. However, having quality parents requires those parents to have been well educated and gotten the skills they need to acquire a decent paying job. So it really comes full circle in that respect.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some parents think all kinds of things would be superior for their children.  I don't really care if a percentage of parents want high schools that offer naptime to be an option.  If you think it's critical for your child's succes, then go for a private school.  If you're too poor, apply for a scholarship.  I'm not opposed to vouchers either.

But this is most of the parents.  I'll work on gettins some #s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if the real world works like a plus/negative scale regarding contact witih women.  I'm just speculating, but I don't think you can send your child to an all boy's same-sex school and then, after a certain age, send them to the same amount of years in an all-girls school (pretending like he could get admitted) and expect him to turn out the same as if he had gone through the same years in a multi-sex school!.  Furthermore, the same argument could be made with anything - notably race.  Should we provide single-race schools for children who have't had enough role models that they can relate to of their own race?  I maintain that public schools need to teach communication in a "real world" environment.  Even if you don't agree with me that learning cross-sex communication is an important tool for the real world, it's still my belief that it would greatly assist them for multi-sex colleges (the majority of them).  In the University of California, Berkeley, for example, almost all bathrooms are coed.

And if we did that in raging-hormone high schools, you'd have people doing it in the bathrooms.

With race--you aren't pre-ocupied with your classmate b/c they're hispanic.  Most people don't concentrate on Hispanics all class, but when you have Joe Smith looking at Betty Jones you ahve a problem
[/quote]

Well, not like high school bathrooms.  I meant the showers for the dorms.  Trust me that hormones don't go away when you're eighteen and nineteen years old.  At some level you just have to deal with them and learn how to manage your schoolwork simultaneously.

You're taking one thing I say and making it another.  Dazzleman was talking about using same-sex education to provide role models.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

However, having quality parents requires those parents to have been well educated and gotten the skills they need to acquire a decent paying job. So it really comes full circle in that respect.

How?  The best parents are the ones who come up from nothing, and do everything to give their child much more than what they had as a kid.  I don't think you need a smart-as-a-child parent to be agood parent.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some parents think all kinds of things would be superior for their children.  I don't really care if a percentage of parents want high schools that offer naptime to be an option.  If you think it's critical for your child's succes, then go for a private school.  If you're too poor, apply for a scholarship.  I'm not opposed to vouchers either.

But this is most of the parents.  I'll work on gettins some #s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if the real world works like a plus/negative scale regarding contact witih women.  I'm just speculating, but I don't think you can send your child to an all boy's same-sex school and then, after a certain age, send them to the same amount of years in an all-girls school (pretending like he could get admitted) and expect him to turn out the same as if he had gone through the same years in a multi-sex school!.  Furthermore, the same argument could be made with anything - notably race.  Should we provide single-race schools for children who have't had enough role models that they can relate to of their own race?  I maintain that public schools need to teach communication in a "real world" environment.  Even if you don't agree with me that learning cross-sex communication is an important tool for the real world, it's still my belief that it would greatly assist them for multi-sex colleges (the majority of them).  In the University of California, Berkeley, for example, almost all bathrooms are coed.

And if we did that in raging-hormone high schools, you'd have people doing it in the bathrooms.

With race--you aren't pre-ocupied with your classmate b/c they're hispanic.  Most people don't concentrate on Hispanics all class, but when you have Joe Smith looking at Betty Jones you ahve a problem

Well, not like high school bathrooms.  I meant the showers for the dorms.  Trust me that hormones don't go away when you're eighteen and nineteen years old.  At some level you just have to deal with them and learn how to manage your schoolwork simultaneously.

You're taking one thing I say and making it another.  Dazzleman was talking about using same-sex education to provide role models.

[/quote]

OK, I see now--no sex in the bathrooms, just in the hot steamy dorm showers--well, that makes it just perfect then.