<p>I think we can safely judge success of education systems by more than whether people end up in key positions or as CEOs. Reaching personal potential and having a secure sense of your talents as valuable are also important. Making a student feel that they are broken or damaged or insufficient simply by skewing the classroom dynamic to favor one set of behaviors is not good practice. It wasn’t good for boys to dominate the classroom and it isn’t any better for girls to. I work in a small public school and the beauty of the size is that we know each student very well. We know who is capable of what, what mom/dad are thinking, and whether their kid has issues or if s/he’s just a pain who needs a timeout. </p>
<p>We haven’t mentioned state standards. Creative teaching and creative learning takes more time, and more input, and more teachers. States are not supportive, in general, of that. They want bigger classes, fewer teachers, more tests, and more standardization of curriculum (one size fits all). But I live in PA, and our state doesn’t support education at all so ymmv :)</p>
<p>Okay, the last post seems to be going off of what the hippies (which, umfortunately are the people in charge) at my school tend to say. So if you are an affiliate of hogh tech high, let me ask you this in spite; how’s the math program going? Secondly, how can uou say that education shouldnt be mwasured in future success, do you expect students to say that four years of friendship is more important than their future financial security? Look, the bottom line is the educational system is broken, reducing competition is not the way to fix it~its a way to make room for slackers! If you really think that learning how to learn is more important than actually learning, how can you honestly expect them to survive in college woth no background knowledge in their major. This type of an educational system should be implemented at the elementary and middle school level. NOT at the high school level. The truth is the educational system is broken; deminishing knowledge and creating friendship is not the way to fix it~as that merely creates slackers. Competition is the only way to fix it. In the hunt for employment, college, etc. people will be seen as better for acting a certain way, for standing out from the crowd, and for being knowledgeable~should we not create an environment in high schools that allows students to prosper and compete while getting used to acting a certain way. Think about that the next challenge day, the next advisory, or whatever other absurd forced friendship building and waste of time equivalent that your school happens to have and youll realize that some.of your students are wasting their potential. ~hello, from fearless Jerald (assuming your from my school ;P)</p>
<p>"Why does it matter if I can draw a scene??? "
-Why does it matter if I can read/write/do math/apply physics/chemistry???
I definitely does not matter what happened when few hundreds years ago because nobody is seeing the historical reference as very valuable in making every day decision making while it is very very valuable. Well, in the end, nothing is matter, your drwing skills are included in this nothing. We just born, live, go under ground eventually and nothing is really matter.</p>
<p>Go MizzBee, go! (I’m actually with you 100% on this-my previous post about not having to do what we don’t like and are not naturally good at was totally tongue-in-cheek.)</p>
<p>I was actually disheartened to see the ACLU fighting against single-sex classrooms in public schools. I know that a single-sex environment doesn’t work for everyone, but most programs are voluntary. I know that I cherish my time in a women’s college, and with DS choosing to brave an all-male school, he will experience a unique intellectial environment. If we are able to argue that boys learn differently, isn’t this a solution that works for some?</p>
<p>Despite the strides girls have made, it was disheartening how the proportion of girls in the most advanced math classes fell off steadily as D2012 advanced through middle and high school. Her 12th grade math class was a dual-enrolled distance calculus class (for those who had completed AP Calculus BC as juniors). It had 8 boys and 2 girls.</p>
<p>On the flip side, my mom wanted me to go to a women-only HS (Spence) and then college (Smith), because she said men dominated classes at co-ed institutions. She actually still wants my D, her grand-D, to consider same.</p>
<p>I would hope those who want a single-sex education would have access to it. I would NOT have done well in a girls-only class or school. I could never support a mandatory single-sex classroom where a co-ed classroom wasn’t available. Co-ed should be the default with an option for single-sex if chosen.</p>
<p>My experience is similar to weatherga’s D. Most of my high school AP math and science were male dominated and the AP social science and English classes were female dominated.</p>
<p>Maybe schools that are racially desegregated could be the default with whites-only an option for those who would prefer it?</p>
<p>I’m being extreme but that is part of the ACLU argument. Not sure I see gender as exactly the same as race here, but I do see similarities. </p>
<p>Of course single-gender private schools exist and they have a place, but should public school systems have to accommodate a preference for single sex and coed when it seems there is no scientific evidence that single sex classes improve education, as that Science article linked above says? Seems like their hands are pretty full already.</p>
<p>so why shouldn’t public schools be able t change adn adapt based on teh wishes of he taxpayers? the alternative is a voucher program, and in my state that has proven to be no place for secular education. I am not advocating that it be single-sex for all, but for the freedom to offer public alternatives to the status quo.</p>
<p>The 77% (or 81%) stat that you see get posted around is worthless as it simply takes the median of all male full time workers and all female full time workers, but there is indeed a wage gap, though much smaller than 23%. It varies by occupation quite a bit but in many occupations, even when you control for the number of hours worked for men and women (men work slightly longer hours on average than women), women earn less than men, and more frequently than the other way around. Overall a better statistic is something like 94% or 95%. If you google it I’m sure you’ll find the study I’m think about. I remember seeing several occupations broken down. The range was something like 107% (Women out earning Men by 7%) to 85% (Women under earning men by 15%) if I recall correctly.</p>
<p>On the subject of gender segregated classes, I think segregation gets a bad reputation in general from the past when it wasn’t used for the benefit of each group, but for the benefit of one and the detriment of another. While I wouldn’t say it’s been proven that gender segregated classes in elementary school are beneficial to both groups, I’d say it is potentially, even likely, true. And if nothing else, surely the goal is not to harm students of either gender. That wasn’t the case with racially segregated schools in the past. From a legal standpoint is it appropriate? I don’t know. But from an educational, moral, or sensible standpoint is it? Of 'course it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone in Engineering, I’ve heard more than a few people’s views on the gender imbalance. Personally, I don’t think it’s necessarily a problem. If women are for some reason being pushed away from STEM fields, that’s a problem, that should change. It if happens that women in general are simply less interested in STEM fields, that’s not a problem. I’m inclined to believe the latter is more true than the former. Conversely, I’d say the same for men in Humanities and Social Science fields.</p>