Free-Thinking, independent and happy conservative woman.
Miserable, Man-hating, baby-killing liberal feminazi.
Posted on 08/11/2006 8:19:46 PM PDT by Coleus
Some parents want their kids taught in single-sex classrooms. They believe that the presence of the other sex causes distractions that get in the way of education. Other parents disagree. They want their sons and daughters to study together. They think it breeds healthy social interaction and doesn’t impede, and can even enhance, education. Who is right? They both are: Some kids will do better in a single-sex environment and others will thrive in coeducation. The good news is that we don’t have to agree about the superiority of one educational method over another. Parents, who presumably know their children best, can make that determination based on their children’s specific needs.
Single-sex educational options have always existed. Private schools often cater exclusively to one sex or offer “brother” and “sister” schools that intermingle the sexes for some activities, but not for others. But sending kids to private school — and paying private-school tuitions — is not a choice that every family can afford to make. That’s why some states and localities are allowing public-school systems to offer single-sex options. Increasingly, policymakers and the public believe that all parents deserve to have more control and options for where their children are taught.
Michigan recently moved in the direction of allowing single-sex education. In late June, the Michigan House of Representatives and Senate passed bills that would permit single-sex programs in public schools. No child would be required to attend a single-sex classroom, but Michigan parents may have new options to consider. One might assume that women’s organizations, like the National Organization for Women (NOW), would cheer for the mothers in Michigan who stand to gain more control over their children’s education. After all, these groups work closely with prestigious women’s colleges, like Smith and Wellesley, so surely they recognize how single-sex educational environments can benefit some students. That assumption would be wrong. NOW’s reaction to Michigan’s legislation reveals the absurd lengths to which the feminist gender warriors will go to paint women as victims and preemptively cry discrimination. NOW president Kim Gandy warned of the dire consequences of allowing single-sex options to exist:
We strongly oppose these bills because the separation of boys and girls, and the underlying (and false) assumption that girls and boys are so different that they shouldn't even be educated together, introduces harmful gender stereotypes into public education. This could lead to, among other possible outcomes, emphasizing math and science for boys, and for girls, less rigorous course work.
Can Gandy seriously believe that Michigan public-school systems are going to develop male-only advanced math and science courses while shuffling girls into woman-only home-ec classes? There has been significant coverage recently of how girls are outperforming boys at all levels of education. Many high-school honors classes are already practically single-sex: They are overwhelmingly female. Gandy also willfully ignores the voluntary nature of this program. She dramatically proclaims: “It is inconceivable today that we must fight for our daughters — including my own daughters — to be able to sit next to, and be educated alongside boys.” Of course, Gandy doesn’t have to fight for her daughters to be educated alongside boys. She is fighting to keep me and all other parents from having single-sex options available in public schools.
So much for supporting choice. When it comes to education, the feminist movement consistently opposes empowering parents. They have firm beliefs about how and what should be taught in schools, from the content of sex-education classes to the gender makeup of classrooms. And they want to force their preferences on everyone else. Luckily, the tide is turning against these gender warriors and the others who support one-size-fits-all, government-run schools. Support for school choice is growing among Republican and Democratic policymakers alike as well as the public. It makes sense: Parents might not agree on how it is best to raise their kids, but they can agree that everyone deserves to make their own choices. — Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.
If the right to freedom of association meant public school students, many wouldn't be in school at all.
I must have missed something. Are people PREVENTING Gandy's daughters, or anyone else's daughters, from being educated alongside boys?
Or is Gandy - Ms. Choice in everything except that which she doesn't like - PREVENTING others from CHOOSING a single-sex school?
You remember that word, Ms. Gandy - CHOICE - it's the word you live and die by......unless someone picks a choice that doesn't happen to be yours.
But they MUST be in co-ed classes because it's "Better".
Uh-huh.
Brown vs Board doesn't apply to gender. Sorry.
Brown doesn't apply to any particular differential. The logic was that separate is inherently unequal. If classrooms are inherently unequal because they're segregated on the basis of race, how are they NOT inherently unequal if they're segregated on the basis of gender?
"The logic was that separate is inherently unequal."
Brown V Board ruled on RACE issues, NOT on gender issues. Other subsequent rulings have killed most all-male public schools, notably VMI. If you're gonna cite a court case, Brown isn't the proper citation.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April05/Single.sex.schools.html
We separate all the time. WE separate according to geographic location, according to academic achievement, according to age, and according to luck of the draw. Under the absurd limit of your logic we must have every student in one place, experiencing the same things. Obviously, that is impossible.
No, the Board logic applies only to schools segretated on the bases of race, and decisions since that time have restricted that theory to issues of race.
I'm guessing this really has something to do with the large Muslim population in MI.
Ya gotta keep em seperated.
"Ya gotta keep em seperated."
No doubt many Muslims would like single-sex classes.
However, as a graduate of all-male Wabash College (still all male), I can assure you that education can be enhanced when the gender distractions are removed.
+
well...I know that in high school, being boy crazy, I didn't pay very close attention in class because I was mooning over some boy or flirting or writing notes.
If I had been in a co-ed school but in a single gendered class I KNOW I would have done better. Iwould have cared less about my clothes, hair, make-up.....which was what took up at least 50% of my attention.
Then they should homeschool, because unless their children are fraternal twins, it's unlikely they'd ever be in the same class in an age-segregated school.
(Ba-dum-bump).
no. They are not demanding that boys and girls in the Mich. public school sysytem learn separately. However, some students learn better when they are in single sex classrooms, so they are giving the Michigan parents the "choice" of giving their children a single sex education.
Of COURSE we separate all the time. Of COURSE we draw distinctions based on any number of factors. WE live in a real world, not the ivory tower the activist Supreme Court occupies.
"The logic was that separate is inherently unequal."
Brown V Board ruled on RACE issues, NOT on gender issues.
Where do you see any reference in that quote to RACE? The problem with precedent is that it tends to expand into other areas, doctrinally equal to the original. Yes, Brown ruled on race, but the same legal principle can be -- and has been -- applied to any other "discriminatory" practice, including those based on gender.
Other subsequent rulings have killed most all-male public schools, notably VMI.
And what was at the root of those "other subsequent rulings?" The legal principle that separate is inherently unequal!
Under the absurd limit of your logic we must have every student in one place, experiencing the same things. Obviously, that is impossible.
"My" logic? Are you daft? The Supreme Court promulgated that nonsense, not me! I'm pointing out its fatuity.
No, the Board logic applies only to schools segretated on the bases of race
No, it doesn't. No legal principle applies solely to the context in which it originated. The definition can always be expanded, and usually is.
Is someone actually advocating classes and facilities segregated on the basis of gender?
I don't think parents should have to ask the government for the right to educate their children in same-sex classes. If they want to segregate by gender, then they should go ahead and do it, and to hell with the PC crowd. Failing that, they should withdraw their kids from the public circus and put them into schools that actually work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.