Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this

People who attend same-sex schools are less screwed up than ones attending multi-sexed schools??? That’s a ridiculous generalization. And because you became a millionaire means you’re not “screwed up?” Having millions of dollars doesn’t make you a better person or happier in life than someone who doesn’t have millions of dollars. My point is… being exposed to people who inherently think differently than you and approach problems differently than you, is important to learning how to deal with those people who are different from you later in life. I think when young girls are in small working groups with young boys, it teaches them to be more assertive, to approach tasks in a different way than they would in an all-girl group. I think it teaches boys how to deal with girls as well. Since we’re all mixed up in adult life and working with the other gender, having experience with that early on should be sacrificed so that we can improve math scores???

And this may be news to both Christopher and to public education administrators, but saying “I know someone who went to a same sex school and he did this or that…” is NOT real research! I personally was very attracted to my social studies teacher in middle school. He was really hot. I was distracted by how good looking he was. Did it prevent me from learning about social studies? Or did I try harder just to impress him? Should hot guys not be allowed to teach girls because it might distract them? How about pretty women? They can’t teach the boys classes? How far are you going to take this before you actually make administrators responsible for providing a good education and stop looking for excuses?

For example, CHIME is a public school in Woodland Hills, California is a fully integrated school where 20% of the students in EVERY classroom have mental or physical handicaps. Those students are not all herded into one special classroom to segregate them from the other students who learn normally. Overall, the students’ test scores at CHIME are 90% higher than the average test scores. Are they segregated by sex? No. Are they segregated by aptitude? No. The answer is not in labeling distractions and removing them. The answer is in how we teach students. And teaching students how to deal with all kinds of people– opposite sex, people with handicaps, etc. is a valuable skill to learn– as much as math and science.

January 26th, 2007

Christine the Lioness stated

I suppose if the only purpose women serve is to get you off in bed, then an all-girl school is fine. God forbid we should want girls to learn from boys and boys to learn from girls… we should just want girls to all be bisexual and kinky.

And I’m starting to believe Christopher’s little claim that he hadn’t slept with nearly as many people as I have is a bunch of bullshit. “Every girl” you’ve ever dated from an all-girl school? If count all the girls I know about, that leaves like only one or two to make up your grand total… so either there are way more girls, or there weren’t too many from all-girls schools used to base his conclusion.

The truth is, school should teach kids about real life. If not, then really… what is the point? You have a certain relationship with your parents and that is not the same relationship you develop with colleagues your own age. Being in social situations with members of the opposite sex help develop the social skills used later on since the sexes are all mixed up once you get to college.

But figures… none of you are taking this seriously. I shouldn’t have expected anything more.

The public education system in this country is in big trouble (in case any of you haven’t noticed). I hope I never hear Christopher bitch about how teachers aren’t taking accountability for the lack of educated kids graduating, because this is another example of teachers and administrators blaming someone besides themselves for no learning.

January 30th, 2007

Christine the Lioness penned this

I remember having this conversation with christopher when we read “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” and it pointed out that people learn absolutely nothing about managing money in school. Not unless they decide to take a finance class in college. That is partially to blame for why so many college students and now even high school students are in credit card debt. The majority of Americans are in credit card debt. That tells me there are things important to life after graduation that people are not being taught. Apparently, the parents aren’t sitting around with their kids at night teaching them how to invest, how to save, what a 401K is, how interest rates work. Since financial strain is a cause of divorce, suicide, bankruptcy, etc., it seems like maybe that info would have been more useful to the majority of us than say Calculus. I took Calculus. Haven’t used it yet. But finance-management, something I deal with all the time.

Learning how to approach problems, critical thinking, where to research and find answers when you need them– those are all things we should be teaching in school because they help students throughout their school years and beyond. Many schools succeed in teaching those as well as math, science, etc. But I don’t think we should leave those things up to chance as to whether they’re included in the curriculum or not.

My point is… there are a lot of things that could be taught in school that aren’t. We tend to stick to a traditional curriculum of math, english, and science because that’s how it’s always been done. That’s how our grandparents got smart, how our parents got smart, and now we’re going to keep doing it the same way for our kids. But the world has changed. When we were teaching that way forty years ago, our parents weren’t graduating high school without the ability to read. That is what is happening in some schools right now.

I applaud the schools that are trying to identify why this is happening and make a change for the better and give kids a better education, but I don’t agree with instituting changes that don’t have any proven results suggesting they will indeed benefit the students’ learning. There are lots of studies that have been done that show certain changes that will benefit. I don’t like to see schools wasting more time on solutions that won’t work just so they can avoid instituting ones that are a little more difficult or expensive to institute.

January 30th, 2007

Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this

I wanted to point out a few things from the article Ben2 linked to in his earlier comment.

“Proponents of single-sex schools say class sizes are typically smaller, thus making it easier for teachers to give individual attention to those who need it. In addition, school days are longer by at least two hours, and children are required to wear uniforms to class.”

Hrmm… so I guess it has less to do with gender mixing, and more to do with class size (something public school teachers have been complaining about for years– typical class size in California is 32 per classroom. When I was in school, it was 24.); longer school days so more teaching time; and uniforms that help students blend in, eliminating stigma associated with an inability to afford certain brands of clothes.

“This is something that the parents and the students want. The demand is there,” Many girls have told her that they are happy to have a “voice” and relationships with teachers they didn’t have before, she said.

Again, I see a problem. If girls felt they weren’t being heard in gender mixed classrooms, and didn’t have a voice or could form a relationship with their teachers, that tells me something about how poorly the teachers were handling the classroom. Are the teachers allowing the boys to shout out answers over the girls who are raising their hands? Seriously… let’s take some responsibility here. And while I’ve said all along that boys do tend to be more aggressive, I don’t think it helps prepare girls who feel like they have “a voice” in an all-girl class when they are eventually mixed with boys again. The boys don’t change. They will always be aggressive. So now that the girl has no experience in dealign with that, nor has she ever had to “fight” for her voice to be heard, she’ll somehow suddenly, and magically, have that skill?

Let’s face it. This is still a man’s world so to speak. It’s good for girls to learn early on that the world isn’t a bunch of soft-spoken people who want everyone to feel good about their contributions and listen intently when others speak. That’s simply not reality. I’ve been in meetings with all guys where sitting there all demure and listening, and not wanting to put down anyone else’s idea, wouldn’t have served me well in my profession. As a matter of fact, I feel I’ve reached the level I’m at and have earned some respect because I do speak up and say what I think and tell someone else when I don’t think they’re right about something. And personally, I think, looking back, I learned that more from hanging out with boys than I did from hanging out with girls. Competing with boys is what helped me develop ambition. When I was given the lead in my play in first grade– a part that was a male role– and hearing the boys complain that a boy should have got that role, made me tougher.

Maybe it’s true boys don’t get much from being around girls, but I think exposure to people unlike yourself only helps develop understanding, tolerance, and diversity. And I think those qualities only help someone succeed in life with the way the world is today.

January 30th, 2007

Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this

There are lots of components to being smart… there is IQ, book knowledge, emotional intelligence in knowing how to deal with people, learned skills like how to assert yourself and be heard are part of “being smart.” If it were just about being smart, there’d be no PE classes, no intramural sports, etc. Just like being on an intramural team helps you learn something about working with other people, relyiing on teammates, etc.– that’s all part of “being smart.”

Those things help you just as much in life as being able to look at a math proof and logically figure out how to solve it, or reading a book and understanding the references to Shakespeare.

January 30th, 2007

Christine the Lioness quibbed this

I disagree. First of all, IQ is something you’re born with, so if we’re failing at it, it means there are just a lot of dumb children being born. Second, since all we are focusing on is book knowledge (math, science, english) and we aren’t having classes that help teach us how to deal with people, etc., then that’s pretty sad because our system isn’t even doing what they set out to do. And I think emotional intelligence is just as important for success in life as book knowledge. For example, kids who play on a little league team… how many are truly going to need to know how to hit a baseball in life? Not as many as will utilize the skill of being a team player, which is part of what sports teaches you. And that’s extracurricular– not even a part of the school day.

To say same sex schools are better because they have lower class sizes, the kids wear uniforms, and there is more instruction time tells me that the better schools have those attributes (all of which HAVE been proven by studies I might add), and has nothing to do with gender mixing or segregation.

It’s like the famous study that decided people who co-habitate are more likely to end up divorced, therefore cohabitation is bad. Looking at it deeper, they realized the real reason couples were divorcing so much (at that time) was due to finances. And couples who felt they had to cohabitate because money was tight were already part of the group who had financial stressors that reduced their chances of staying married.

The same follows here. Maybe the real factors in a good education has nothing to do with same-sex classrooms, but instead it has to do with instruction time, uniforms, and smaller class sizes. But again… dividing up the kids based on sex is a very easy thing for teachers and admin to do… increasing class time means teachers working longer hours, less children in a classroom means more classrooms which equate to more expense and hiring more teachers, uniforms means the school would need to provide or supplement uniforms for kids who couldn’t afford them– again, appropriating tax money differently. Those are tougher to implement, but doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be.

January 30th, 2007

Christine the Lioness uttered

Maybe if the administration took this issue as seriously as all you guys do, we wouldn’t have the problems we do in public schools… I’m glad to see that having our youth grow up with the best possible education is important to you all. *sigh*

January 31st, 2007

Christine the Lioness got all philosophical

After all the work I’ve done trying to teach Christopher the difference between “your” and “you’re,” he’s still messing it up every time he uses them… I’ve decided it has nothing to do with girls distracting him in a classroom considering the practice worksheet I made for him, he did all by himself. I’m starting to think that boys are simply incapable of learning simple things regardless of what kind of setting they’re in.

February 1st, 2007

Christine the Lioness spake, and sayeth

I am tits. Don’t forget it.

February 5th, 2007

Christine the Lioness added

Damn you’re funny, Trouble. And Trea, thanks.

November 14th, 2007

Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this

Well, the whole concept of having single-sex classrooms to avoid distractions is like saying that we need to clear the roads when we drive because we might get distracted by other cars.

I know many boys and girls who graduated from 13 years worth of schooling in co-ed classrooms and they turned out just fine (quite well actually). Some teachers like the idea of single-sex classrooms because they want to blame their own failures with students on something besides their own teaching abilities. If you’re an engaging teacher presenting engaging lessons, students are still going to learn. Period.

February 6th, 2008

Christine the Lioness stated

They do have that choice if they want to go to private school. But it’s interesting that you feel it’s okay to segregate males from females, when the country in the 60s was up in arms about segregating whites from blacks.

I don’t understand the concept of needing to teach children separately and then expecting them to go out into a co-ed world having never had experience excelling in a co-ed environment. It seems… counter-intuitive to me. Part of what teaches women how to deal with the inherent differences they’ll encounter with men, is having experience dealing with them. Same goes for males.

I’ve certainly noticed differences in men who grew up with all brothers compared to those who had at least one sister. Being around boys helps a girl toughen up and puts her in a position to be ready to compete with boys. Being around girls helps a boy understand girls a little better and that they view the world differently– if they bother to pay attention.

I am interested though, Mara, to know what you mean by “different.” (with respect to the education at a women’s college)

I can tell you that for myself, being in a male dominated industry, it definitely helped me to be in college with men. The things I learned there just by being around men and having to work in small groups with them, etc., have helped me better deal with the men I work with now. I didn’t grow up with any brothers or male cousins or what not so had I gone to an all-girl school, I never would’ve had that experience of working with men until I got out of college. I think the experience of being around them helped me learn to deal with people in general much better. I think it was valuable.

February 6th, 2008

Christine the Lioness said this

I didn’t say a woman must be educated in a co-ed setting to learn how to deal with men. But having constant exposure by doing all the things you do in school– work in small groups, give presentations, etc., it certainly provides an experience that an all-boy or all-girl school can’t.

You can learn to cook by memorizing recipes, but someone with experience in a kitchen is going to be better at cooking than someone who hasn’t had any experience.

I agree that for women who would be too intimidated to speak out in a co-ed classroom, an all-female classroom might entice them to speak out. But does it teach them to speak out when they’re with men who are inherently less nurturing in those situations than women? Possibly. Perhaps the confidence they gain in practicing speaking out at all can transfer into daily life whereas if they were never given the opportunity to try, the skill would never be developed.

With regards to my own situation, yes, I don’t know how I would’ve ended up having gone to an all-female college because I didn’t. That’s for sure. But it doesn’t take too much insight to be able to look back and see where and when you developed certain skills you have now. For me, those skills that have helped me most (being competitive, having a tough skin, understanding how to make arguments that will men will be able to relate to) all came from my experience with men. Not a single one of those came from being with my mother, my sister, my girlfriends, or my female teachers. I’m not saying I didn’t get a lot from them as well, but they were simply incapable of giving me those experiences to learn from.

My point about sex discrimination and equality in schools was more to suggest that it creates a situation where female students could get a lesser education than boys. I’ll give you an example. I went to a co-ed high school. As a junior, in P.E., the classes were co-ed but when we actually played sports games, we were obviously divided at that age into a girls game and a boys game. The PE teacher, who was male, always ref’d the boys game (I’m assuming because he was also the coach at the high school and felt he could use the extra time molding his players) while the girls game was always handed off to his T.A. (who was also in high school) and had little interest or experience in teaching. Needless to say, the girls didn’t have the opportunity to learn much and the boys did. You could say that it was because it was a co-ed environment that that situation happened at all and in an all-girl school, the girls would have gotten a better education because the teacher wasn’t forced to choose between the boys and the girls. And that, too, is quite possible, and makes the argument for same-gender schools.

But…

I think our society inherently doesn’t push girls to be competitive and “tough” the way it does boys and I think those are two very valuable skills that everyone should develop.

I can see where single-sex environments could indeed help people come out of their shells, but in choosing one over the other, we obviously sacrifice some things and gain others.

February 6th, 2008

Christine the Lioness uttered

Before they get to that debate part in school, I think they should rework the curriculum and teach the difference between reliable, credible resources… and this blog.

Otherwise, the “way of the future” will be hiring Ronald McDonald as an expert witness on nutrition. Lord help us.

March 12th, 2008