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 doesnt 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 dont 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 childrens 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. Thats 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 womens organizations, like the National Organization for Women (NOW), would cheer for the mothers in Michigan who stand to gain more control over their childrens education. After all, these groups work closely with prestigious womens colleges, like Smith and Wellesley, so surely they recognize how single-sex educational environments can benefit some students. That assumption would be wrong. NOWs reaction to Michigans 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 doesnt 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 Womens Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.
I was planning to cite Title IX if this debate went on much longer ... Thanks for the pre-emptive strike.
In what way?
Ok, I see what you are in favor of. However, It seems that the Feminazi/liberals are actually for stifling same sex education for a ridiculous fear that boys will get better math and science classes and girls will only learn to be Mrs. Cleaver. Keep in mind, this is not the only instance feminazis have fought such options. In fact, when a same sex voucher school like NYC's Harlem Girls School opened and showed promise for the community, the NAGS stomped in to close that down, because of discrimination issues.
While not about homeschooling, this article about all-girl and all-boy classes may be of interest...
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Michigan? As in Detroit? As in.... Do I detect other cultural influences on the desire to separate boys and girls? If it were any other city.....
The Brown case didn't take away the right to "free association." Americans can associate freely; but, if it's a gov't-funded "association" (such as a "public school"), then it can't exclude people based on what is an unalterable characteristic - your "race".
However, I agree the case has led to bad programs such as bussing kids to schools all over the place in some kind of crazy social experiment.
Brown served as a springboard for a the revision of most common law traditions regarding public accommodation. Prior to its ridiculous ruling, shopkeepers, landlords, and private citizens could refuse to do business with any individual simply because they chose to. Brown changed all that. Because of its overarching -- and inevitably expanded -- umbra, a Christian landlord can now be FORCED to rent a house or apartment to homosexuals. Pharmacies can be forced to sell abortifactants. Football teams can be forced to allow women in their locker rooms. Heck, they can be forced to allow women on the TEAMS.
These regulations are not applied only to governmental associations, but to any entity that is nominally accessible to the public at large. Brown had the effect of making state "tolerance" a public requirement, despite its conflicts with personal value. The individual lost; the collective won. It DESTROYED free association as an inherent right. And all on the most specious of "logic," an argument that a second-grader could defeat.
Sorry. I had put sarcasm in brackets after that comment.
Brown was only about government-run schools and "race". I disagree with you that it was a "ridiculous ruling."
Brown didn't affect private business at all. It was about "public" schools funded by the government. It was a ruling that made sense. The way I see it, if the gov't doesn't have a racial restriction on tax collecting, then its facilities (purchased with tax income) shouldn't have a racial restriction, either.
(For the record, I don't think there should be government-run schools, period, but I digress...)
It's the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that you probably disagree with. I have read opinions that it was overreaching. But I wouldn't blame it on "Brown".
For the record, I am old enough to remember how, as a child in the late 60's and 70's, bars and restaurants in our town here in the northeast would refuse to serve people. There were "white" bars and "black" bars, for example. But, my grandfather owned a tavern, and he served everyone. It was a very popular place, I might add, among everyone in town. The business is still going strong today, btw, long after my grandfather passed on, and long after those segregated places went out of business, and it's still owned and operated in the family line.
So, I do think private property owners should decide whom their businesses will serve, though I don't think it makes good business sense to put a limit on the number of customers.
About that comment on pharmacies, it's my understanding that the owner of a pharmacy doesn't have to sell pills that he doesn't want to sell. But, state laws permit employees to deny selling pills, even if the owner is willing to sell them.
By "ridiculous ruling," I simply meant the principle that separate is inherently unequal, an argument that is unsound legally and logically.
Of course, this wouldn't be an issue at all if the gov't weren't in the education business. The NEA should be booted out, and education should be bought by parents on the free market.
The differences cannot be merely arbitrary. They have to carry some demonstrable weight. Yes, you can say that Estes Kefauver High is in a three-story building at the top of a hill, while Dean Rusk High is a rambling single-story complex in a valley, but since that has no effect on the quality of the education, those factors are irrelevant.
Teachers may not be the same at each facility, but as long as their academic credentials are roughly equal, for legal purposes, they are the same.
You are citing distinctions that make no difference.
There is no reason to assume that facilities segregated along any line would INHERENTLY be unequal! That is like saying that 2 + 3 can't equal the same thing as 4 + 1. The two facilities may not be the SAME, but that doesn't mean they aren't EQUAL.
Logically and legally, Brown was built on quicksand.
Two teachers could have identical credentials but not offer the same quality of teaching. No one is equal.
Location is relevant because it's relevant for the kid who has to travel the distance to school. The distances from the house to each school won't be equal.
Here's another way to look at it: Compare segregated public schools to forced bussing later where kids were being bussed out of their neighborhoods to schools farther away, this time in the name of "integration". I'm sure you'd agree that that was a bad idea. Why be forced to attend school farther away, based on your skin color, when there's a school closer to your home in your neighborhood.
Well, both "segregation" and "integration" are the same issue - with both, kids were being bussed all over the place in some kind of crazy social experiment.
The real issue is that the state is running schools for children. Otherwise, there would be no discussion, and we each could just send our kids where we wanted to send them or homeschool them.
You've got your own agenda in this thread -- to push for an end to the failed government school monopoly. It's a move I support wholeheartedly. But that's another issue -- maybe an overriding one, but one that's not the focus of my posts.
The result: It was a nightmare! There wasn't a single classroom problem, nor were there any negative effects to student performance... nor did it last long enough to track any potential improvements. The parents were just appallingly problematic. I abandoned the idea (by transferring a grand total of 5 students from one class and 6 from the other) within weeks.
I agree. England did it that way for a long time. And Smith and Vassar outclass coed ivy league and have for a long time.
Maybe I should just ask: Are you in favor of racially segregated public schools?
I am in favor of intellectual honesty. If the Supreme Court was determined to end segregation, then it should have found a logically sound reason for doing so. If it was determined to simply re-engineer our society according to some egalitarian dream, it should have just said so. Instead, it conjured up a feeble, invalid "moral" justification for its meddling, then proceeded to elevate that gibberish to the stature of law.
I don't favor segregation, but I think there is certainly an arguable case in its favor. Law is not about what I think, or about what a bunch of judicial activists think. Law is supposed to rise above petty prejudices and dispassionately serve the People through Reason.
I can't honestly say that the nominally desegregated schools that came out of Brown are any improvement over the segregated schools that came before that era. The statistics on dropout rates, illiteracy, and academic performance would seem to buttress that perception.
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.