In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, that's how I took it, and maybe that's why some public schools tried it out, but it's based on faulty assumptions built by fucking asshole administrators. Did you know some "advisers" in schools, high school and college, get paid by how many students they enter into the program and how many that graduate? God, what a conflict of interest.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
A local myth once talked of a man with a hook who escaped from a mental prison. Two teenagers decided to drive out to make-out point, and while they were there they heard a scratching on the door. At first they thought nothing of it and continued to kiss face, but then the girl had to pee and she opened the door and went. Once she returned, she saw a hook stabbed in the door. They left immediately. Ever since then, no one goes to make-out point.
Yeah, that's how I took it, and maybe that's why some public schools tried it out, but it's based on faulty assumptions built by fucking asshole administrators. Did you know some "advisers" in schools, high school and college, get paid by how many students they enter into the program and how many that graduate? God, what a conflict of interest.
Combine that fact with NCLB and suddenly, shitstorm, especially at the HS level. Both ideas sound good but they are rife with potential for abuse.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
A local myth once talked of a man with a hook who escaped from a mental prison. Two teenagers decided to drive out to make-out point, and while they were there they heard a scratching on the door. At first they thought nothing of it and continued to kiss face, but then the girl had to pee and she opened the door and went. Once she returned, she saw a hook stabbed in the door. They left immediately. Ever since then, no one goes to make-out point.
Obviously teenagers found a better place to make out, or at least one that's less likely to spoil the one precious summer they have in their entire lives to make out due to how busy teenagers are these days
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
I know! Why stop there? Why not segregate doctors and other medical personnel by gender too? Since that obviously helps the teamwork.
Seriously though, didn't your school stop to think that maybe making students learn to work in medical environments with all kinds of people - since they can't go picking when they're out there working - should be a priority? If I'd been a teacher I would have been worried by that the students seemed to be have trouble co-operating with people of the opposite gender and I would have tried to figure out some way to fix that, not go "hey whatever floats your boats, students! let's do segregation!". It just seems terribly short-sighted to me and I think it's odd that noone in the following classes protested.
@Namrok: Those studies show what the situation is for the average person in specific situations right now. They don't tell you about how much can be changed(on an individual and societal level) through learning , for example the kind of learning that takes place when working constructively towards a common goal with people of the opposite sex.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
I don't recall any studies suggesting that, really.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
I don't recall any studies suggesting that, really.
Even if there are, which I don't doubt, all it's proving is that people who've absorbed the current gender role templates exhibit behaviors in line with those roles to their detriment.
It's important to teach <subject>. It's also important to teach inclusiveness.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
A very good classmate in his fifties gave me this advice as we both went into senior design. To find at least one female partner because they "think differently" from men in a positive way, and are a boon to a team effort.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
A very good classmate in his fifties gave me this advice as we both went into senior design. To find at least one female partner because they "think differently" from men in a positive way, and are a boon to a team effort.
Yeah that's the same reason my dad always told me to partner with at least one person with red hair, there's just something inherent about them that's special and not anecdotal at all.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
A very good classmate in his fifties gave me this advice as we both went into senior design. To find at least one female partner because they "think differently" from men in a positive way, and are a boon to a team effort.
Ah, but do they think differently because of the biological differences, or are you merely taking advantage of the fact that society has trained them to think differently due to existing gender roles?
I'm only half trolling, pinky swear.
0
Options
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
I don't recall any studies suggesting that, really.
Even if there are, which I don't doubt, all it's proving is that people who've absorbed the current gender role templates exhibit behaviors in line with those roles to their detriment.
It's important to teach <subject>. It's also important to teach inclusiveness.
I've actually found that mixed sex classes do better group work, in my experience. There's seems to be less of a tendancy to dump work on a single person (me) then.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
A very good classmate in his fifties gave me this advice as we both went into senior design. To find at least one female partner because they "think differently" from men in a positive way, and are a boon to a team effort.
Ah, but do they think differently because of the biological differences, or are you merely taking advantage of the fact that society has trained them to think differently due to existing gender roles?
I'm only half trolling, pinky swear.
He went on to the websites of previous projects, plucked female names and googled them, showing that the females in particular moved on past their projects to become successful. It was weird, but interesting. I never got to find out for myself as I got stuck with riffraff. Only I and one other partner did all the work. One was dead weight and another *just* redeemed himself the final week.
3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
0
Options
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
It is, but public schools are trying it because they are desperate for results and the crazy reduced funding hasn't given them many options. In addition, parents and students pulling out of public schooling has further reduced public schooling's options. It's a shitpool because the public made it a shitpool.
Private school graduation rates are a different discussion than gender separation. Private schools will do anything to get their graduation numbers higher because they can and then use those dishonest numbers as a marketing point. Anything, which means lowering the bar or putting more pressure on teachers to "pass" students because, ya know, graduation rates. It's a totally different thing also because private schools have teachers by the balls and teachers will do anything the administration wants because they lack proper protection and want to keep their jobs (because private schools pay more than public schools; hence, financially, it makes more sense for teachers to stay in private schooling even if it dicks over the students).
In short, private schools shouldn't be tied to graduation rates and gender because there's other issues that contribute that aren't found in public schooling (thank god). In fact, I would leave private schools completely out of the discussion because they are such bullshit they don't deserve to be discussed.
Plus, private schools are not quite as good at improving over public institutions as private prisons, and have even less oversight. Generally speaking, private schools are obviously not the answer to the sex-based school achievement gap we are seeing.
I kinda wonder in the magnet schools and other public school models with a bit better success rate also happen to teach much more interesting classes and give students better material to work with? Anyone have any data on that?
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
A very good classmate in his fifties gave me this advice as we both went into senior design. To find at least one female partner because they "think differently" from men in a positive way, and are a boon to a team effort.
Ah, but do they think differently because of the biological differences, or are you merely taking advantage of the fact that society has trained them to think differently due to existing gender roles?
I'm only half trolling, pinky swear.
He went on to the websites of previous projects, plucked female names and googled them, showing that the females in particular moved on past their projects to become successful. It was weird, but interesting. I never got to find out for myself as I got stuck with riffraff. Only I and one other partner did all the work. One was dead weight and another *just* redeemed himself the final week.
I found most group work to be of this sort at every level of education. I gave a shit about my grade so I did the work, but because of that I excel in work projects despite being saddled with lazy stupid people still, so it wasn't totally worthless. I suppose if you aren't doing project work (engineering/software dev) that experience wouldn't be worth very much.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
Am I the only one who finds it horribly disturbing that there are apparently people who find it difficult to do groupwork with people of the other gender?
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
A very good classmate in his fifties gave me this advice as we both went into senior design. To find at least one female partner because they "think differently" from men in a positive way, and are a boon to a team effort.
Ah, but do they think differently because of the biological differences, or are you merely taking advantage of the fact that society has trained them to think differently due to existing gender roles?
I'm only half trolling, pinky swear.
He went on to the websites of previous projects, plucked female names and googled them, showing that the females in particular moved on past their projects to become successful. It was weird, but interesting. I never got to find out for myself as I got stuck with riffraff. Only I and one other partner did all the work. One was dead weight and another *just* redeemed himself the final week.
I found most group work to be of this sort at every level of education. I gave a shit about my grade so I did the work.
Not to mention I can recall times when normally studious boys AND girls would slack on a project because they knew someone else in the group was going to drive it forward. That's getting less into gender dynamics and more into group dynamics period, though, which honestly is where we WANT to be, heh.
(because private schools pay more than public schools; hence, financially, it makes more sense for teachers to stay in private schooling even if it dicks over the students).
I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you that private schools most certainly do not pay more than public schools. Absolutely not.
Really? That's interesting. Then what's the incentive for staying?
I ask because in the field I teach -- College, adjunct (read: whore)--private universities pay nearly double rates of what the local universities/community colleges do. The pay at the public level is rather insulting.
Really? That's interesting. Then what's the incentive for staying?
I ask because in the field I teach -- College, adjunct (read: whore)--private universities pay nearly double rates of what the local universities/community colleges do. The pay at the public level is rather insulting.
Getting to teach in a way you prefer? Not having to dick around with standardized tests maybe? Maybe it's a better work environment? I honestly I have no clue. Just guessing here.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
A local myth once talked of a man with a hook who escaped from a mental prison. Two teenagers decided to drive out to make-out point, and while they were there they heard a scratching on the door. At first they thought nothing of it and continued to kiss face, but then the girl had to pee and she opened the door and went. Once she returned, she saw a hook stabbed in the door. They left immediately. Ever since then, no one goes to make-out point.
Obviously teenagers found a better place to make out, or at least one that's less likely to spoil the one precious summer they have in their entire lives to make out due to how busy teenagers are these days
I imagine different work culture (more flexibility, religiously compatible, other things) makes up the difference.
That's the case in Taiwan, and I'd be surprised if it didn't happen occasionally in the US: public school teachers are paid better than private school ones, because they meet far more stringent requirements. Private schools have rather lose, flexible requirements from the government, and that extends to their teachers. I wouldn't necessarily say they're less qualified, but there's different emphasis (for example, finding Christian teachers) in mind.
Really? That's interesting. Then what's the incentive for staying?
Religion is one. Another is that private schools can hire anyone they want, not just certified teachers so you can get around all the education requirements (4-6 years of university). Or it could be that a teacher just really likes the culture of the school where they work.
Although these days the number one reason is probably the state of the job market for teachers. Things have been getting worse every year since I'd say 2004, so at this point many teachers I know feel fortunate to be employed at all, so people will be willing to work longer hours for less pay.
Incoming wall of text about single sex instruction (SSI).
Single sex instruction (SSI) for boys doesn’t seem to have any educational benefits over coeducation. The only benefits I’m finding from studies are that girls perform better academically because sexual harassment from boys is nonexistent. That’s another issue altogether and pretty fucking horrific, but SSI provides no gains to boys' learning; therefore, SSI is not the answer to the under-performance of boys. I can see why teachers would like it though: it makes instruction and planning easier (can rely on gender stereotypes and shortcuts).
From the Journal of Educational Research, 2008, the authors basically explain that coeducational students performed better on standardized tests, teachers think SSI is awesome while students think it’s stupid, and that SSI for boys provides no benefit.
The abstract with my emphasis
Abstract
The authors used mixed methods to evaluate over 2 years the effectiveness of single-sex instruction (SSI) on achievement outcomes, instructional practices, teacher efficacy, student behaviors, and classroom culture in an urban, at-risk high school primarily composed of individuals from disadvantaged populations. Students grouped according to sex in algebra and English classes were compared with coeducational students by assessment of course grades, standardized test scores, classroom observations, surveys, teacher interviews, and a focus group discussion. Achievement results associated with SSI were inconsistent, with gains shifting between groups. The authors observed gains in algebra achievement for SSI in Year 1 but not in Year 2. Differences in English achievement were not observed between SSI and coeducational groups. Standardized test results indicated superior performance for coeducational students. SSI provided a supportive environment for girls, inducing greater participation and academic risk-taking. Teachers believed that the SSI environment was conducive to learning, whereas students denounced both the social and the academic benefits of SSI.
This second source deals exactly with the issue we find ourselves presently: educators are reaching for ways to help young boys and are introducing SSI as the “fix”. This article from Education Review, 2011, provides a historical perspective on a school that implemented SSI instruction for exactly the same reason we are talking about it now: to help boys. What we find, though, is rather alarming. Boys end up worse off in SSI. Here are some choice quotations from the text,
...Unexpectedly for the educators at Flintridge Elementary, educating boys separately seemed to increase aggressive behaviour among the boys. Emma, for example, recalls the experiment ending because “we had the feeling that the boys were too aggressive … they figured that they could settle everything with their fists.”...
Educators also grew concerned that boys were developing a misogynist attitude, as one administrator put it: “boys in the all-male class have very strong feelings against girls … and this could present difficulties when the boys are returned to mixed class” (Hull 1967). This point confirms current research that has shown all-boy classrooms have long been identified as “breeding grounds” for “virulent sexism” (Weaver-Hightower 2003, 487).
The success of the Flintridge Elementary girls also reveals an obvious dilemma for educators. The Flintridge Elementary girls, no longer exposed to the boisterous, noisy, and naughty behaviour of some boys, seemed to have done exceedingly well academically. This fact was not lost on the girls themselves. In fact, James remembers administering a survey to the girls and found that they enjoyed being in an all-girls class because they could learn without distraction along with being free from the harassment of the boys. It is interesting to note that recent research has also shown there exists a “qualitative difference” in single sex environments which leads “many girls to prefer it to co-educational classes as girls feel safer and free from harassment by boys” (Lingard, Martino and Mills 2009, 89). Yet, despite the concerns expressed by the girls about issues of masculinity and how these negatively shaped their experience at school, educators at Flintridge Elementary appeared to give little consideration as to how best to resolve this dilemma in such a way as to bring about a more equitable solution for the girls.
In short, SSI seems like it will only fail our young boys more. As I keep reading these studies I’m also growing pretty pissed off that each one has the constant thread of “girls perform better because they aren’t sexually harassed”. That’s disgusting (the harassing part, not the performing better part).
"...Results of this study led to the conclusions that same-gender grouping did not produce significant differences in student science academic achievement and same-gender classes did not create a more positive classroom climate. For this middle school, policy recommendations include limiting same-gender grouping until further research indicates that this structure is effective in countering gender-stereotypes and improving achievement and attitudes toward science."
Here’s an interesting study from Child Study Journal, 2004, that attempts to cover the social implications of SSI. All the previous studies have dealt with academic success, so this one studies the social interactions and progression (or regression) of children in SSI classrooms.
First we’ll start off with the initial assessment,
The change in classroom gender composition was associated with changes in mutual friendship nominations, and some peer behavior nominations (overt aggression, relational aggression, victimization, and rejection behaviors). The change to same-sex classrooms resulted in an increase in proportion of mutual same-sex friendships for boys but not for girls. The change to same-sex classrooms resulted in a higher proportion of peer nominations for overt aggression, relational aggression, victimization, and rejection behaviors for girls and not for boys. In this initial assessment self measures, friendship quality, and group evaluation sociometric measures were not affected, although friendship relationships and peer behavior nominations appeared to be influenced by gender composition.^ These analyses indicated an initial benefit of same-sex classroom gender composition for fifth-grade boys, in terms of forming a larger proportion of mutual friendships. Girls experienced a somewhat negative change in a number of social behaviors. We now turn our attention to children's peer relations assessed after children continued in same-sex sixth grade classrooms, following a full year in same-sex classrooms.
And then the final assessment another year later,
At the beginning of the second year in same-sex classrooms (Grade 6 classrooms), the impact of classroom gender composition remained evident. As with the initial transition into same-sex classrooms, boys showed another significant increase in number of mutual friendship nominations following the beginning of their second year in same-sex classrooms. Although girls did not experience an increase in mutual friendships, the proportion of nominations for a number of negative behaviors some of which had increased in fifth-grade, was reduced in sixth-grade. Specifically, girls received a significandy lower proportion of nominations for victimization and passive/ withdrawn behaviors, and a nonstatistically significant reduction in proportion of overt and relational aggression behavior nominations. In addition, boys showed an increase in peer behavior nominations for overt aggression and relational aggression. Interestingly, self measures, friendship quality, and group sociometric evaluations continued to show no influence of classroom gender composition.
Apparently, SSI increases the amount of same-sex friendships with boys but not necessarily for girls. In contrast, or perhaps a different type of aggression, the girls in this study displayed an increase in aggression towards each other. That aggression, however, lowered after another year in SSI instruction (so perhaps just the initial resentment for that kind of instruction?).
I've spoiler'd below how the study defined "friendship nominations" and "behavior nominations"; the only two things to change through grades 4, 5, and 6.
Friendship nominations
Friendship nominations. Each child was provided a classroom roster and asked to
circle the names of all children whom they considered to be their friends. Children
were allowed to circle as many names as they wished. Mutual friendships were
determined by reciprocal nominations.
Behavior nominations
Behavior nominations. Peer social behaviors were assessed using behavior nominations
procedures of the Revised Class Play measure (Masten et al., 1985). As
director of a pretend play, children were told to cast members of their classroom for
certain roles. Children could nominate as many classmates as they wished, but could
not nominate themselves. There were 3 rejection behavior items, 4 passive/
withdrawn behavior items, 12 sociability/leadership behavior items, and 3 overt
aggression behavior items. Five aggression items, derived from Dodge and Coie
(1987) also were included, along with 7 victimization items from Perry, Kusel, and
Perry (1988). Five items from Crick and Grotpeter (1995) were used to assess relational
aggression.
I find that result interesting because it suggests that the inclusion of boys and girls in the classroom makes everyone less aggressive with each other. So while girls succeed academically in SSI, socially they seem to also move slightly towards undesirable socialization. Of course, this may be completely neutralized with further SSI instruction.
I was unable to locate a pdf version of the only study in the article that implies boys perform better in academics in SSI classroom: Riordan, C. (1985). Public and Catholic Schooling: The effects of gender context policy. American Journal ofEducation, 93, 514-540. If someone has access to that, I would be much obliged.
TL;DR Single sex instruction does not help boys in academics. Period.
Lilnoobs on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
In short, SSI seems like it will only fail our young boys more. As I keep reading these studies I’m also growing pretty pissed off that each one has the constant thread of “girls perform better because they aren’t sexually harassed”. That’s disgusting (the harassing part, not the performing better part).
It's ridiculous all the way around.
1. Boys absent girls devolve into some sort of Lord of the Flies environment
2. When girls are present boys are somewhat less worse
3. But when girls are present they don't feel comfortable around the boys and suffer because of it
4. So the only way to prevent even worse sexism is to expose girls to sexism!
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
A local myth once talked of a man with a hook who escaped from a mental prison. Two teenagers decided to drive out to make-out point, and while they were there they heard a scratching on the door. At first they thought nothing of it and continued to kiss face, but then the girl had to pee and she opened the door and went. Once she returned, she saw a hook stabbed in the door. They left immediately. Ever since then, no one goes to make-out point.
Obviously teenagers found a better place to make out, or at least one that's less likely to spoil the one precious summer they have in their entire lives to make out due to how busy teenagers are these days
I was a bit snarky with that reply. I apologize.
what, I liked it
also these people are like 23-25 and have all finished their undergrad education. I don't know about the reasons involved, maybe because people are uncomfortable talking about dead penis and vagina in the presence of the opposite sex, but everyone in the later year was too busy or worried about their grades to care. Gender segregation helps the environment, you say? Sure, whatever, long as it helps me pass.
when I was in elementary school my total interaction with girls was they'd throw ketchup packets at me during lunch and there was one who really liked to fart but I can't remember much else. There was this group of girls who tried to lead people on - lik pretend to be their girlfriend and then dump them - and they must have learned it from some after school special cause they tried to do the whole cycle with me in the span of about 10 minutes before class. The whole thing was very puzzling and I had no idea what was happening, though I did get what they were trying to do when they thought about it and did the same thing (acting as a proxy to a nonexistent girl) much more successfully to a guy that broke my pencil. It was the meanest thing I ever did and I felt guilty afterwards.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In short, SSI seems like it will only fail our young boys more. As I keep reading these studies I’m also growing pretty pissed off that each one has the constant thread of “girls perform better because they aren’t sexually harassed”. That’s disgusting (the harassing part, not the performing better part).
It's ridiculous all the way around.
1. Boys absent girls devolve into some sort of Lord of the Flies environment
2. When girls are present boys are somewhat less worse
3. But when girls are present they don't feel comfortable around the boys and suffer because of it
4. So the only way to prevent even worse sexism is to expose girls to sexism!
Yeah. Really, I think boys are reflecting the culture at large and mimicking that, resulting in the sexual harassment. I don't know how educators are supposed to handle the issue when it seems like it is learned elsewhere and brought to the classroom. Obviously it's an issue that should be monitored and taken more severely at every grade level. That's a start.
I'm hesitant to entertain the biological explanation.
In my local anatomy class, students were divided into groups randomly and assigned to cadavers. Two years ago, the random number generator accidentally segregated the class by gender ( 2 groups per cadaver that had classes at 2 different times, so there was a girls class and boys class). Post course feedback from that class liked the segregation - people thought it facilitated groupwork made difficult by a rushed schedule - and so it became default the next year. After learning about the origin of the policy, nobody in that second class cared enough to comment.
A local myth once talked of a man with a hook who escaped from a mental prison. Two teenagers decided to drive out to make-out point, and while they were there they heard a scratching on the door. At first they thought nothing of it and continued to kiss face, but then the girl had to pee and she opened the door and went. Once she returned, she saw a hook stabbed in the door. They left immediately. Ever since then, no one goes to make-out point.
Obviously teenagers found a better place to make out, or at least one that's less likely to spoil the one precious summer they have in their entire lives to make out due to how busy teenagers are these days
Hmm, sounds like coed is the way to go, flaws and all.
The whole lord of the flies scenario that the data showed and mrt144 mentioned doesn't surprise me in the least. I was on the bad side of the bullies in my elementary school for years and not only did it get worse over time, more and more people got involved in the process. Some of them got involved due to being or slowly becoming shitheels, but the majority of them got involved due to peer pressure of the 'oh thank god it isn't me this is happening to' kind of way.
Edit: Removed irrelevant bit, sorry for any goosery
Raekreu on
0
Options
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2012
I can vouch for Lord Of The Flies descent phenomenon, since my brothers and I would act that out outside of school and we all started out very loving towards each other. My take without bullies even needed - it's all fun horseplay until someone gets hurt - then begins a cycle of violence that simply gets worse with each reprisal. Not sure how girls help with that, but I suspect that it is due to the fact that teachers (adults, in general even) tend to pay more attention and intervene more quickly when there is mixed sex violence compared to same-sex violence.
I like that this thread mostly uses "sex" instead of "gender" to discuss male and female people, since that's actually the correct term.
So, just to recap the thread thus far, aside from lame tangents -
We've debunked the Internet and gaming for the cause of boys lagging in education and debunked same-sex education as a panacea.
We generally agree that school itself is an environment that girls are better able to succeed in now that the vast majority are not being actively discouraged from academic success by everyone they've ever known and now that society at large encourages them to succeed. The cause of this may also be due to some shifts in educational procedures with far less hands-on learning in most schools than in the past, and it may be that smaller class sizes benefit boys more than girls although all children do better with smaller class sizes. Teaching with an emphasis on repetition for succeeding on standardized test may also discourage boys more than girls. Although that is hard to know without more evidence, but anecdotal evidence suggests that girls seem better able to plow through boredom to success than boys.
We have also made a very large note that whereas girls are encouraged to be successful in education no matter what, generally speaking only the most exceptional boys receive any sort of encouragement, and even that typically comes only from relatives and friends, not society at large, which increasingly frames the modern American male as some kind of awkward idiot man-child.
Personally, I think that we could help boys make up the gap by changing the following in our education system:
1. Smaller class sizes, which would hopefully involve a higher percentage of male teachers than are currently in the primary education system, so that boys have alphas they can use as role-models, who will also be more capable of channeling boys energy into worthwhile pursuits instead of sexual harassment, and stupid behavior easily confused with ADHD. Kids (well, humans in general) learn by imitation after all.
2. Active encouragement of even mediocre boys and not merely the best of the best by society at large. It seems obvious to me that boys need positive role-models and portrayals in the media just as girls do.
3. Removal of all standardized testing K-12, because it is a waste of time and money and worsens every child's education.
4. Much more flexible pacing of education so that those who are capable of excelling are not discouraged by boredom and so those who need more time to learn get said time.
5. Much more physical play in the form of additional recess and P.E., because running and walking have been proven to increase blood flow to the memory centers of the brain and improve most mental functions. plus it helps kids be better behaved in class.
6. Additional art and music education, because those 2 activities have been shown to improve performance in all other academic subjects
The great thing is that the above recommendations should also help girls make big improvements in educational success and put us, as a country, back into a world leadership role in education and educational success.
I can vouch for Lord Of The Flies descent phenomenon, since my brothers and I would act that out outside of school and we all started out very loving towards each other. My take without bullies even needed - it's all fun horseplay until someone gets hurt - then begins a cycle of violence that simply gets worse with each reprisal. Not sure how girls help with that, but I suspect that it is due to the fact that teachers (adults, in general even) tend to pay more attention and intervene more quickly when there is mixed sex violence compared to same-sex violence.
I like that this thread mostly uses "sex" instead of "gender" to discuss male and female people, since that's actually the correct term.
So, just to recap the thread thus far, aside from lame tangents -
We've debunked the Internet and gaming for the cause of boys lagging in education and debunked same-sex education as a panacea.
We generally agree that school itself is an environment that girls are better able to succeed in now that the vast majority are not being actively discouraged from academic success by everyone they've ever known and now that society at large encourages them to succeed. The cause of this may also be due to some shifts in educational procedures with far less hands-on learning in most schools than in the past, and it may be that smaller class sizes benefit boys more than girls although all children do better with smaller class sizes. Teaching with an emphasis on repetition for succeeding on standardized test may also discourage boys more than girls. Although that is hard to know without more evidence, but anecdotal evidence suggests that girls seem better able to plow through boredom to success than boys.
We have also made a very large note that whereas girls are encouraged to be successful in education no matter what, generally speaking only the most exceptional boys receive any sort of encouragement, and even that typically comes only from relatives and friends, not society at large, which increasingly frames the modern American male as some kind of awkward idiot man-child.
Personally, I think that we could help boys make up the gap by changing the following in our education system:
1. Smaller class sizes, which would hopefully involve a higher percentage of male teachers than are currently in the primary education system, so that boys have alphas they can use as role-models, who will also be more capable of channeling boys energy into worthwhile pursuits instead of sexual harassment, and stupid behavior easily confused with ADHD. Kids (well, humans in general) learn by imitation after all.
2. Active encouragement of even mediocre boys and not merely the best of the best by society at large. It seems obvious to me that boys need positive role-models and portrayals in the media just as girls do.
3. Removal of all standardized testing K-12, because it is a waste of time and money and worsens every child's education.
4. Much more flexible pacing of education so that those who are capable of excelling are not discouraged by boredom and so those who need more time to learn get said time.
5. Much more physical play in the form of additional recess and P.E., because running and walking have been proven to increase blood flow to the memory centers of the brain and improve most mental functions. plus it helps kids be better behaved in class.
6. Additional art and music education, because those 2 activities have been shown to improve performance in all other academic subjects
The great thing is that the above recommendations should also help girls make big improvements in educational success and put us, as a country, back into a world leadership role in education and educational success.
Good work with the summary here and good work with the suggestions. My only gripe would be that these things should not be limited to one country or to just countries similar to the USA. It needs to be considered an inalienable right of all persons in all countries to receive the best education possible. To lift yourself does little for your happiness until you lift those around you as well.
I doubt you meant to limit the ideas of positive educational outcomes to only one country, but I felt it needed spelled out for the discussion at large.
1. Smaller class sizes, which would hopefully involve a higher percentage of male teachers than are currently in the primary education system, so that boys have alphas they can use as role-models, who will also be more capable of channeling boys energy into worthwhile pursuits instead of sexual harassment, and stupid behavior easily confused with ADHD. Kids (well, humans in general) learn by imitation after all.
I thought your list was pretty good(though I think it's unfair to say that everything that wasn't in your summary has been "lame tangents"), so I'll go ahead and use it for further discussion if you don't mind. Assuming we're talking about the US, what should be done to get more male teachers? Should your main focus be to attract more young men to the teacher education or should it be to attract more professionals from other areas, such as the chemistry industry, to take up teaching(and should the strategy be different short/long-term?)? What means can be used to target males specifically without resorting to what would be seen as discrimination?
On another note, I'd like to link this article about the Finnish school system. It brings up a number of important issues and it gives plenty of possible leads to follow if you want to learn more. I think it's funny how this part:
"Researchers from Europe, Asia, and Latin America were very alarmed by the current “reform” movement in the United States, fearful that the same trends — the same overemphasis of standardized testing, the same push for privatization and markets, and the same pressure to lower standards for entry into teaching — might come to their own countries."
describes EXACTLY what is happening in Sweden right now.
Also, I should mention that the writer makes one mistake in the article; she says that the demography of Finland is the same as that of Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Denmark. I don't know that much about Switzerland's demographics but Finland's immigration rates are waaaaaay lower than those of the other Scandinavian countries listed and I do think that since immigrants generally have a harder time in school (due to SOCIAL difficulties, I'm not making a super dumb eugenics argument here) Finland has a smaller educational challenge. But I agree with the writer that the Finns really do have a much better educational system due to their constant work with improving it, the lower immigration rate is only one (perhaps very minor) part of the explanation.
Posts
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A local myth once talked of a man with a hook who escaped from a mental prison. Two teenagers decided to drive out to make-out point, and while they were there they heard a scratching on the door. At first they thought nothing of it and continued to kiss face, but then the girl had to pee and she opened the door and went. Once she returned, she saw a hook stabbed in the door. They left immediately. Ever since then, no one goes to make-out point.
Combine that fact with NCLB and suddenly, shitstorm, especially at the HS level. Both ideas sound good but they are rife with potential for abuse.
Obviously teenagers found a better place to make out, or at least one that's less likely to spoil the one precious summer they have in their entire lives to make out due to how busy teenagers are these days
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And I study engineering.
I do recall various studies about that. People just default to gender roles, whatever they may be, in the presence of the opposite sex. Not all people all the time, always. But you know, a lot of people, to various degrees.
I know! Why stop there? Why not segregate doctors and other medical personnel by gender too? Since that obviously helps the teamwork.
Seriously though, didn't your school stop to think that maybe making students learn to work in medical environments with all kinds of people - since they can't go picking when they're out there working - should be a priority? If I'd been a teacher I would have been worried by that the students seemed to be have trouble co-operating with people of the opposite gender and I would have tried to figure out some way to fix that, not go "hey whatever floats your boats, students! let's do segregation!". It just seems terribly short-sighted to me and I think it's odd that noone in the following classes protested.
@Namrok: Those studies show what the situation is for the average person in specific situations right now. They don't tell you about how much can be changed(on an individual and societal level) through learning , for example the kind of learning that takes place when working constructively towards a common goal with people of the opposite sex.
I don't recall any studies suggesting that, really.
Even if there are, which I don't doubt, all it's proving is that people who've absorbed the current gender role templates exhibit behaviors in line with those roles to their detriment.
It's important to teach <subject>. It's also important to teach inclusiveness.
A very good classmate in his fifties gave me this advice as we both went into senior design. To find at least one female partner because they "think differently" from men in a positive way, and are a boon to a team effort.
Yeah that's the same reason my dad always told me to partner with at least one person with red hair, there's just something inherent about them that's special and not anecdotal at all.
Ah, but do they think differently because of the biological differences, or are you merely taking advantage of the fact that society has trained them to think differently due to existing gender roles?
I'm only half trolling, pinky swear.
try this
He went on to the websites of previous projects, plucked female names and googled them, showing that the females in particular moved on past their projects to become successful. It was weird, but interesting. I never got to find out for myself as I got stuck with riffraff. Only I and one other partner did all the work. One was dead weight and another *just* redeemed himself the final week.
I kinda wonder in the magnet schools and other public school models with a bit better success rate also happen to teach much more interesting classes and give students better material to work with? Anyone have any data on that?
try this
try this
Not to mention I can recall times when normally studious boys AND girls would slack on a project because they knew someone else in the group was going to drive it forward. That's getting less into gender dynamics and more into group dynamics period, though, which honestly is where we WANT to be, heh.
I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you that private schools most certainly do not pay more than public schools. Absolutely not.
I ask because in the field I teach -- College, adjunct (read: whore)--private universities pay nearly double rates of what the local universities/community colleges do. The pay at the public level is rather insulting.
Getting to teach in a way you prefer? Not having to dick around with standardized tests maybe? Maybe it's a better work environment? I honestly I have no clue. Just guessing here.
I was a bit snarky with that reply. I apologize.
That's the case in Taiwan, and I'd be surprised if it didn't happen occasionally in the US: public school teachers are paid better than private school ones, because they meet far more stringent requirements. Private schools have rather lose, flexible requirements from the government, and that extends to their teachers. I wouldn't necessarily say they're less qualified, but there's different emphasis (for example, finding Christian teachers) in mind.
Although these days the number one reason is probably the state of the job market for teachers. Things have been getting worse every year since I'd say 2004, so at this point many teachers I know feel fortunate to be employed at all, so people will be willing to work longer hours for less pay.
Single sex instruction (SSI) for boys doesn’t seem to have any educational benefits over coeducation. The only benefits I’m finding from studies are that girls perform better academically because sexual harassment from boys is nonexistent. That’s another issue altogether and pretty fucking horrific, but SSI provides no gains to boys' learning; therefore, SSI is not the answer to the under-performance of boys. I can see why teachers would like it though: it makes instruction and planning easier (can rely on gender stereotypes and shortcuts).
From the Journal of Educational Research, 2008, the authors basically explain that coeducational students performed better on standardized tests, teachers think SSI is awesome while students think it’s stupid, and that SSI for boys provides no benefit.
The abstract with my emphasis
The authors used mixed methods to evaluate over 2 years the effectiveness of single-sex instruction (SSI) on achievement outcomes, instructional practices, teacher efficacy, student behaviors, and classroom culture in an urban, at-risk high school primarily composed of individuals from disadvantaged populations. Students grouped according to sex in algebra and English classes were compared with coeducational students by assessment of course grades, standardized test scores, classroom observations, surveys, teacher interviews, and a focus group discussion. Achievement results associated with SSI were inconsistent, with gains shifting between groups. The authors observed gains in algebra achievement for SSI in Year 1 but not in Year 2. Differences in English achievement were not observed between SSI and coeducational groups. Standardized test results indicated superior performance for coeducational students. SSI provided a supportive environment for girls, inducing greater participation and academic risk-taking. Teachers believed that the SSI environment was conducive to learning, whereas students denounced both the social and the academic benefits of SSI.
This second source deals exactly with the issue we find ourselves presently: educators are reaching for ways to help young boys and are introducing SSI as the “fix”. This article from Education Review, 2011, provides a historical perspective on a school that implemented SSI instruction for exactly the same reason we are talking about it now: to help boys. What we find, though, is rather alarming. Boys end up worse off in SSI. Here are some choice quotations from the text,
In short, SSI seems like it will only fail our young boys more. As I keep reading these studies I’m also growing pretty pissed off that each one has the constant thread of “girls perform better because they aren’t sexually harassed”. That’s disgusting (the harassing part, not the performing better part).
Here’s another that compares SSI instruction in the 8th grade science classrooms. Again, same result:
Here’s an interesting study from Child Study Journal, 2004, that attempts to cover the social implications of SSI. All the previous studies have dealt with academic success, so this one studies the social interactions and progression (or regression) of children in SSI classrooms.
First we’ll start off with the initial assessment,
And then the final assessment another year later,
Apparently, SSI increases the amount of same-sex friendships with boys but not necessarily for girls. In contrast, or perhaps a different type of aggression, the girls in this study displayed an increase in aggression towards each other. That aggression, however, lowered after another year in SSI instruction (so perhaps just the initial resentment for that kind of instruction?).
I've spoiler'd below how the study defined "friendship nominations" and "behavior nominations"; the only two things to change through grades 4, 5, and 6.
Friendship nominations
circle the names of all children whom they considered to be their friends. Children
were allowed to circle as many names as they wished. Mutual friendships were
determined by reciprocal nominations.
Behavior nominations
procedures of the Revised Class Play measure (Masten et al., 1985). As
director of a pretend play, children were told to cast members of their classroom for
certain roles. Children could nominate as many classmates as they wished, but could
not nominate themselves. There were 3 rejection behavior items, 4 passive/
withdrawn behavior items, 12 sociability/leadership behavior items, and 3 overt
aggression behavior items. Five aggression items, derived from Dodge and Coie
(1987) also were included, along with 7 victimization items from Perry, Kusel, and
Perry (1988). Five items from Crick and Grotpeter (1995) were used to assess relational
aggression.
I find that result interesting because it suggests that the inclusion of boys and girls in the classroom makes everyone less aggressive with each other. So while girls succeed academically in SSI, socially they seem to also move slightly towards undesirable socialization. Of course, this may be completely neutralized with further SSI instruction.
I was unable to locate a pdf version of the only study in the article that implies boys perform better in academics in SSI classroom: Riordan, C. (1985). Public and Catholic Schooling: The effects of gender context policy. American Journal ofEducation, 93, 514-540. If someone has access to that, I would be much obliged.
TL;DR
Single sex instruction does not help boys in academics. Period.
It's ridiculous all the way around.
1. Boys absent girls devolve into some sort of Lord of the Flies environment
2. When girls are present boys are somewhat less worse
3. But when girls are present they don't feel comfortable around the boys and suffer because of it
4. So the only way to prevent even worse sexism is to expose girls to sexism!
what, I liked it
also these people are like 23-25 and have all finished their undergrad education. I don't know about the reasons involved, maybe because people are uncomfortable talking about dead penis and vagina in the presence of the opposite sex, but everyone in the later year was too busy or worried about their grades to care. Gender segregation helps the environment, you say? Sure, whatever, long as it helps me pass.
when I was in elementary school my total interaction with girls was they'd throw ketchup packets at me during lunch and there was one who really liked to fart but I can't remember much else. There was this group of girls who tried to lead people on - lik pretend to be their girlfriend and then dump them - and they must have learned it from some after school special cause they tried to do the whole cycle with me in the span of about 10 minutes before class. The whole thing was very puzzling and I had no idea what was happening, though I did get what they were trying to do when they thought about it and did the same thing (acting as a proxy to a nonexistent girl) much more successfully to a guy that broke my pencil. It was the meanest thing I ever did and I felt guilty afterwards.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah. Really, I think boys are reflecting the culture at large and mimicking that, resulting in the sexual harassment. I don't know how educators are supposed to handle the issue when it seems like it is learned elsewhere and brought to the classroom. Obviously it's an issue that should be monitored and taken more severely at every grade level. That's a start.
I'm hesitant to entertain the biological explanation.
Oh, okay. I rescind my apology then!
The whole lord of the flies scenario that the data showed and mrt144 mentioned doesn't surprise me in the least. I was on the bad side of the bullies in my elementary school for years and not only did it get worse over time, more and more people got involved in the process. Some of them got involved due to being or slowly becoming shitheels, but the majority of them got involved due to peer pressure of the 'oh thank god it isn't me this is happening to' kind of way.
Edit: Removed irrelevant bit, sorry for any goosery
I like that this thread mostly uses "sex" instead of "gender" to discuss male and female people, since that's actually the correct term.
So, just to recap the thread thus far, aside from lame tangents -
We've debunked the Internet and gaming for the cause of boys lagging in education and debunked same-sex education as a panacea.
We generally agree that school itself is an environment that girls are better able to succeed in now that the vast majority are not being actively discouraged from academic success by everyone they've ever known and now that society at large encourages them to succeed. The cause of this may also be due to some shifts in educational procedures with far less hands-on learning in most schools than in the past, and it may be that smaller class sizes benefit boys more than girls although all children do better with smaller class sizes. Teaching with an emphasis on repetition for succeeding on standardized test may also discourage boys more than girls. Although that is hard to know without more evidence, but anecdotal evidence suggests that girls seem better able to plow through boredom to success than boys.
We have also made a very large note that whereas girls are encouraged to be successful in education no matter what, generally speaking only the most exceptional boys receive any sort of encouragement, and even that typically comes only from relatives and friends, not society at large, which increasingly frames the modern American male as some kind of awkward idiot man-child.
Personally, I think that we could help boys make up the gap by changing the following in our education system:
1. Smaller class sizes, which would hopefully involve a higher percentage of male teachers than are currently in the primary education system, so that boys have alphas they can use as role-models, who will also be more capable of channeling boys energy into worthwhile pursuits instead of sexual harassment, and stupid behavior easily confused with ADHD. Kids (well, humans in general) learn by imitation after all.
2. Active encouragement of even mediocre boys and not merely the best of the best by society at large. It seems obvious to me that boys need positive role-models and portrayals in the media just as girls do.
3. Removal of all standardized testing K-12, because it is a waste of time and money and worsens every child's education.
4. Much more flexible pacing of education so that those who are capable of excelling are not discouraged by boredom and so those who need more time to learn get said time.
5. Much more physical play in the form of additional recess and P.E., because running and walking have been proven to increase blood flow to the memory centers of the brain and improve most mental functions. plus it helps kids be better behaved in class.
6. Additional art and music education, because those 2 activities have been shown to improve performance in all other academic subjects
The great thing is that the above recommendations should also help girls make big improvements in educational success and put us, as a country, back into a world leadership role in education and educational success.
try this
Good work with the summary here and good work with the suggestions. My only gripe would be that these things should not be limited to one country or to just countries similar to the USA. It needs to be considered an inalienable right of all persons in all countries to receive the best education possible. To lift yourself does little for your happiness until you lift those around you as well.
I doubt you meant to limit the ideas of positive educational outcomes to only one country, but I felt it needed spelled out for the discussion at large.
I thought your list was pretty good(though I think it's unfair to say that everything that wasn't in your summary has been "lame tangents"), so I'll go ahead and use it for further discussion if you don't mind. Assuming we're talking about the US, what should be done to get more male teachers? Should your main focus be to attract more young men to the teacher education or should it be to attract more professionals from other areas, such as the chemistry industry, to take up teaching(and should the strategy be different short/long-term?)? What means can be used to target males specifically without resorting to what would be seen as discrimination?
On another note, I'd like to link this article about the Finnish school system. It brings up a number of important issues and it gives plenty of possible leads to follow if you want to learn more. I think it's funny how this part:
"Researchers from Europe, Asia, and Latin America were very alarmed by the current “reform” movement in the United States, fearful that the same trends — the same overemphasis of standardized testing, the same push for privatization and markets, and the same pressure to lower standards for entry into teaching — might come to their own countries."
describes EXACTLY what is happening in Sweden right now.
Also, I should mention that the writer makes one mistake in the article; she says that the demography of Finland is the same as that of Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Denmark. I don't know that much about Switzerland's demographics but Finland's immigration rates are waaaaaay lower than those of the other Scandinavian countries listed and I do think that since immigrants generally have a harder time in school (due to SOCIAL difficulties, I'm not making a super dumb eugenics argument here) Finland has a smaller educational challenge. But I agree with the writer that the Finns really do have a much better educational system due to their constant work with improving it, the lower immigration rate is only one (perhaps very minor) part of the explanation.