Boys and girls

Quick and the Ed’s Elena Silva is dubious about Michigan’s flirtation with single-sex classes, arguing there’s no evidence children learn more in single-sex classes. Our history of separate-but-equal should make us cautious about segregating students by gender, Silva writes.

I’m willing to give it a try, but I agree the evidence of effectiveness is anecdotal.

This Week has more on the “problem with boys,” including a warning about boomerang boys.

Parents are paying the price for boys’ failure to achieve. The Census Bureau reports that almost 14 percent of 25- to 34-year-old American men still live with their parents. (Only 8 percent of women in that age group live at home.) The trend holds for all races, ethnic groups, and economic classes, and has become so widespread that it has entered the popular culture. The recent film Failure to Launch centers on a 35-year-old man who still lives with his exasperated mom and dad. A similar premise underlies a new Fox sitcom, Free Ride.

Boys take longer to mature than girls, but this is ridiculous.

About Joanne

Comments

  1. A few questions: there are still all-women’s colleges in the U.S., correct? (Any all-men’s colleges left any more?) And there are definitely girls’ and boys’ private schools in K-12. So there’s obviously a demand for this sort of education.

    As long as it’s voluntary, I don’t see the problem. I would never have gone for an all-female class for anything other than sex ed or P.E., but that’s me.

  2. Tim from Texas says:

    Become a man, but what does that mean? Too many obstacles. Be sensitive and all that bologna, Be good. Folow that and see where it gets you. Nice guys finish last. A young man has a dificut time figurng out an ever changing and confusing virtually non existent code of behavior.Thus more and more rogue males, and it will get much worse.

  3. The ACLU and others have argued that single gender schools are unconstitutional. This argument makes little sense. In the 1950s, Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separate is inherently unequal. I think today’s court would find that separate is not always inherently unequal. Children would never be forced to attend single gender schools and I don’t think there’s a conspiracy in America to subjugate either boys or girls. Consequently, it’s likely that single gender schools would offer equal, if not better educations than their single gender counterparts and co-ed schools.

    Andrew Pass
    http://www.Pass-Ed.com/blogger.html

  4. Indigo Warrior says:

    The Census Bureau reports that almost 14 percent of 25- to 34-year-old American men still live with their parents. (Only 8 percent of women in that age group live at home.)

    When modern youth loses its ambition, but when society permits (and even encourages) women but not men to be gold-diggers, you can expect disparites such as the above.

  5. Indigo Warrior says:

    Tim from texas:
    Become a man, but what does that mean? Too many obstacles. Be sensitive and all that bologna, Be good. Folow that and see where it gets you. Nice guys finish last. A young man has a dificut time figurng out an ever changing and confusing virtually non existent code of behavior.Thus more and more rogue males, and it will get much worse.

    Society, the media, and public education still push the old Christian based virtues, but never reward anyone for following them. Thus the hypocritical social minefield of “be nice” and “nice guys finish last”. This is not a new thing either, hypocrisy has always bred success – but the younger generations have less tolerance for hypocrisy. Hence the “rogue males”, snapping, suicides, extremist cults, and the like.

  6. Twill00 says:

    A few trends are apparent across all outcomes.

    The preponderance of studies in areas such as academic accomplishment (both concurrent and long term) and adaptation or socioemotional development (both concurrent and long term) yields results lending support to SS schooling.

    A limited number of studies throughout the review provide evidence favoring CE schooling.

    It is more common to come across studies that report no differences between SS and CE schooling than to find outcomes with support for the superiority of CE.

    In terms of outcomes that may be of most interest to the primary stakeholders (students and their parents), such as academic achievement test scores, self-concept, and long-term indicators of success, there is a degree of support for SS schooling.

    This was all smushed together in one paragraph, but if you read the sentences one at a time, it provides a picture of a “preponderance” of evidence in favor of single sex education, rather than a shrug and a toss-up.

    When you look deeper, you find that the only subject that the Pro-CE side got even 33% of the results on is “self-esteem”. Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing.

    The pro-SS side got 67% in all-subject achievement scores, 100% in social studies achievement scores, 100% in career aspirations, and a few others in the 50-70% range.

  7. Mr. Davis says:

    All male colleges: Hampden Sydney, Morehouse, and Wabash. Deep Springs (2 years).

    Note the discussion is about single-sex classes in co-ed schools taught by the same faculty. If it’s by student/parent choice, it’s going to be hard to argue it’s a separate but equal issue. If they can’t do this, can they track?

  8. It’s still nonsense–and that article is just a regurgitation of the old arguments. Nothing new there.

    Again, if boys are such underachievers, how come high school graduate males make more than college graduate females? Why are so many jobs dominated by male high school graduates pay much better than all jobs dominated by female college graduates. And finally, if girls are such great achievers, how come all non-selective schools are predominantly female low-achievers?

    There is clearly a problem with missing Hispanic and black boys–but since no one mentions prison as a possible location, it’s tough to believe anyone is paying more than lip service to the idea.

    I know I’ve written this post fifty times before, but it’s just absurd to see people buy off on it without question and then start arguing about the details. So not only isn’t there a problem, but now everyone’s arguing about fixing te non-problem with a “solution” that doesn’t even work. Arrrggggh.

  9. I don’t know. I have two girls and a boy. My boy is WAY, WAY, WAY different than the girls.

    I can’t help thinking there is SOMETHING (i.e., in the environment) that is affecting boys more than girls.

    And I grew up with six brothers, so it’s not like they are an unknown species to me.

  10. I think that single sex classes could work well in the middle grades, when the hormones are raging. I leave this Saturday for a move 5 hours away, to a school district where the high school has implemented same sex classrooms for 9th grade Algebra I. They say it works well to bring scores up, and passing rates have gotten better. No opposite genders to keep them from concentrating on math. I’ll see it in action and report back…

    From the Texas home front…

    Jill

  11. “Again, if boys are such underachievers, how come high school graduate males make more than college graduate females?”

    I don’t understand this comment. What does pay inequity have to do with academic achievement?

  12. From what I remember of Jr. High, the presence of girls didn’t have much to do with the boys’ behavior. Given the same teachers I had then, an all-boy classroom would have just overwhelmed them earlier in the day.

  13. I’ll second Barry’s comment and add to it.

    Cal, maybe you could provide a link to the source of all your assertions? I find it difficult to believe that male high school graduates makes more money then female college graduates. Same for most of the rest of the assertions squeezed into that paragraph: wence cometh this information?

    To get back to the thread.

    The warning about “separate but equal” is neither helpful nor accurate. Brown v Topeka was decided as it was because the purpose of “separate” was inequality and that inequality was ensured by the power of government. The decision is not applicable when “separate” is a freely made choice equally available to all citizens.

    As I’ve posted before, these agonizing discussions about which particular educational technique, approach, methodology or strategy is superior to which other is entirely secondary. The primary issue is who makes the decisions. Mandatory attendence takes the very first decision out of the hands of the parents and things go downhill from there.

  14. tsiroth says:

    Cal: Because men are more likely to have jobs which are dangerous. Dangerous, unpleasant jobs (like road construction work) pay well because they are dangerous and unpleasant. Most of us would not quit our white collar jobs in order to work construction, even if it would pay more. This is likely a lot of the reason why poorly educated men might still make more money than better educated women. There are other non-sexist reasons for pay inequities between the sexes, which I won’t explain here, but this one most directly addresses your comment.

  15. This might be cultural as well. It is very common in immigrant families for unmarried kids to stay home until they find a spouse. I see this especially in Asian and Hispanic families. But those “kids” usually do work and support their parents. Young women are more likely to want to leave because more is required of them in terms of domestic help and their parents restrict their activity more than they restrict their brothers.

  16. Okay, so one of you demands a cite, and one of you accepts it but offers a reason for it.

    Cite: Figure 26 I don’t usually provide cites for something that anyone should know. It’s common knowledge. As are the rest of the cites you demand, so perhaps you should do a little reading up.

    Reason: “Dirty” and “dangerous”? Any number of skilled craftsmen jobs pays better than being a secretary or a kindergarten teacher. As indeed it should, since both the latter jobs are a case of education inflation.

    “What does pay inequity have to do with academic achievement?”

    Who said anything about pay inequity? I certainly didn’t. The pay reflects a reasonable distinction. There’s no great academic achievement involved in the college degree a secretary earns, and she’s certainly not getting paid more than a carpenter.

    Girls are more likely to go to college. But they’re not any smarter, and the college isn’t getting them any more money. So it’s hardly a huge problem, in and of itself.

  17. Oh I AM sorry, Cal. Geez, I should have known what you were talking about. When I read “Again, if boys are such underachievers, how come high school graduate males make more than college graduate females?” I thought you were making the point that clearly boys are NOT underachievers as evidenced by this pay differential which I mistakenly called pay inequity. My mistake.

  18. Getting a mite peckish because the Nobel Prize committee hasn’t called, Cal? Or are us swine insufficiently grateful for the pearls you cast before us?

    Whatever it is you’re clearly laboring under the handicap of being surrounded by your intellectual inferiors. We’ve all got our little crosses to bear, hey?

  19. rouxdsla says:

    The junior high(grades 6-8) in Denham Springs La. is going to try separate sex classes this year. Ofcourse the ACLU has just filed a suit to stop it.

    I think it’s a good idea the boys and girls will still see each other during the day but not in the same classes. It has worked great at some other schools in the area.