Letters to the Editor
LeCastor
Published Letters: 1916 Editor's Choice: 86
-
what are the benefits for boys and girls from single-sex education in elementary, middle and high schools?
[Read the article: Turning back the clock on single-sex education]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Poor arguments
"If we want to change the current system, we would be better served by actually testing individual children for behavioral problems and different learning styles and separating them on that basis."
That wouldn't really be a change to the current system. Special Ed classes have been around for years, as have classes for gifted students, as have schools for children with more severe behavioral problems. You point is beside the point.
Absolutely. So maybe the current system is okay already. I went to two high schools, and both had many levels of each subject (regular, honors, AP) to cater to different learning styles and speeds. In elementary and middle school (and one of the high schools), the school had a gifted program, and special ed. What is it we are trying to achieve with single-sex education that cannot be achieved with these programs?
"Also, i think there is some nostalgia in single-gender classes. The same people who pine for the mythical land of the 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" are the ones who think that "back when we had single sex education, things were better, and all these social problems didn't exist" without any solid data."
This is ridiculous. You might have a difficult time in grasping the state of our educational system in 2006, but the rest of us are way past the 50's.
I went to public elementary school, middle school and high school, and not too long ago. So i can grasp the state of our education system pretty well.
Yet when a program is proposed that has documented success in improving the education of a large percentage of both boys and girls, somehow their right to that better education is deemed irrelevant, even harmful.
Can you provide a link to support your claims?
"(Don't believe me? Some people are seriously arguing that boys are doing less well *because* they're being forced to read books where the POV is a woman!)"
Can you believe it! Why, they're using the same "serious" argument that feminists have made for years in getting schools and textbook companies to better engage girls.
Well, the argument was that if we have 50/50 male/female POVs then boys and girls will have equal exposure to POVs of both genders. What does it mean that boys are doing "less well" because of exposure to female POVs? The people who claim this are usually also screaming about the "boy crisis." Now, if doing "less well" means that boys are less aggressive (some people would see this as not as "confident"), that they are acting less like "traditional boys" meaning super physically competitive, getting into fights, teasing and harassing girls, putting girls down, then GOOD! Some people will, of course, lament the decline of traditional gender roles and expectations, and these boys that have to read "touchy feely" books about women may be ridiculed at home by their traditionalist parents and in National Review by their traditionalist commentators, but i think it's a good thing if we no longer condone or promote and glorify violence and sexims.
Bottom line: what are the benefits for boys and girls from single-sex education in elementary, middle and high schools?
-
It really depends
[Read the article: I like a certain gentleman at work, but is he gay?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]on where this is happening. I know quite a few guys who are quite straight, but who many people would think are quite gay. This is in NYC. The men in question are of European extraction, or Americans who have been steeped in bi-coastal culture or European culture. Anywhere outside of a few select cities, they would be pegged as gay immediately, for their interests in poetry, ceviche, visual arts, and Boateng. But they're straight.
As for the gay roommate, again, in NYC, housing is so tight that people will room with anyone as long as that person will pay the rent and isn't too weird, so.
He could be straight.
-
LOL Aguilar
[Read the article: I like a certain gentleman at work, but is he gay?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I love how brushing your hair makes you gay :)
-
Parson Jim
[Read the article: When Big Brother tackles domestic violence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Looking forward to the marriage rate plummeting in India just as it has in the US, as false accusation rates increase and financial incentives for women to make such accusations start catching on.
So you honestly think
1) the marriage rate has plummeted?
2) because of laws that give restraining orders for verbal abuse?
hahaha.
-
Sara b.,
[Read the article: Turning back the clock on single-sex education]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aren't feminists supposed to be pro-choice?
Anything that empowers parents and local education officials to decide what is best for their children's education - as opposed to those decisions lying with some white guy in DC - is a good thing. Furthermore, this policy change allows parents of children in public schools to take advantage of some the benefits that children in wealthy families have enjoyed for years - IF they choose to do so. Since when is choice a bad thing?
That's also a great argument for segregating schools by race. Shouldn't parents have the choice, instead of some white guy in washington? Rich people have been able to send their children to de facto white-only private schools for decades, shouldn't middle class parents have the same choice? Right?
By the way, single-sex education involves a great deal more than segregating students by gender. No, it's not for everybody. But since a cornerstone of feminism is the belief that individual choice is priceless, I don't understand the knee-jerk opposition to those who choose single-sex education for themselves or their children.
-- Sara B
Yes, the cornerstone of feminism is choice, but how much choice should each school district have? There are some things that we don't get to choose. A town cannot vote to kick all the black people or all the gay people out. A school district cannot vote to not teach anyone who wasn't born in the US. You could make an even better argument that children whose first language isn't english (whether or not they're now fluent in english) don't learn the same way as native-born children, so we should have separate but equal schools for native-born and foreign-born.
And if you're against it, you're against choice. :)