Bible Belt Is There When You Need It

[maplesyrup]

B.C. schools remove 'distractions' from boys' classes

ABBOTSFORD, B.C - Two schools in Abbotsford, B.C., are hoping to boost grades by separating the boys from the girls in math and English classes.

Provincial test results and statistics over the past few years suggest girls do significantly better than boys in school, and are more likely to graduate.

I always knew you could count on the Bible Belt when the chips are down. Let's all put our collective heads in the sand and hopefully the problem will go away. What a bunch of morons. Let's not teach sex education either, let's not teach our kids about birth control, condoms, preventing STDs, etc. Please spare us from this enlightened society.

[kimmy]

So, this business about higher grades and better learning is all fake, and it's actually a plot to bring Social Conservatism to Math Class?

-kimmy

[Black Dog]

So, this business about higher grades and better learning is all fake, and it's actually a plot to bring Social Conservatism to Math Class?

Well there's the whiff of sexism about tailoring an education program to advance boys' education. Are they also segregating girls in subjects they "traditionally" do less well in? The message is that boys' educations are more valuable.

Furthermore, I question the values of dividing calsses based on genetalia, given that there's a wider range of learning abilities within the sexes than between them.

Finally, if a boy is so easily distracted by girls that it compromises his education, shouldn't that be a problem for his parents to address?

[kimmy]

So, this business about higher grades and better learning is all fake, and it's actually a plot to bring Social Conservatism to Math Class?

Well there's the whiff of sexism about tailoring an education program to advance boys' education. Are they also segregating girls in subjects they "traditionally" do less well in? The message is that boys' educations are more valuable.

When I saw the article, the first thing that came to miind for me was a study a while back that gender-segregated math-classes are highly beneficial ...for girls.

Reasons cited were that girls are deferential in class... less likely to raise their hands to ask for help or participate in discussion, and as a result teachers focus more on the boys.

I believe that the Edmonton Public School Board had a trial project where girls at some schools were offered the choice to attend all-girls classes; I don't know any details, however.

Furthermore, I question the values of dividing calsses based on genetalia, given that there's a wider range of learning abilities within the sexes than between them.

Dividing students into "smart kid" and "dumb kid" classes might have some merit (but would probably be difficult...)

It might already happen to some degree as some students pursue university matriculation track courses while others don't.

However, the idea that another idea might have merit doesn't mean that this one doesn't.

Finally, if a boy is so easily distracted by girls that it compromises his education, shouldn't that be a problem for his parents to address?

I'm not sure... are parents attending classes with their children in BC now?

-kimmy

[Black Dog]

When I saw the article, the first thing that came to miind for me was a study a while back that gender-segregated math-classes are highly beneficial ...for girls.

Reasons cited were that girls are deferential in class... less likely to raise their hands to ask for help or participate in discussion, and as a result teachers focus more on the boys.

Girls' submissiveness and male dominance are social traits. Wouldn't it make more sense to do something to encourage girls to speak up and boys to be a little more respectful, rather than just surrendering to the social constructs that hamper kids' education?

I'm not sure... are parents attending classes with their children in BC now

Don't be obtuse. You've never heard of parent/teacher conferences? Report cards?

(and for Pete's sake: you don't need to sign all your posts)

[kimmy]

Girls' submissiveness and male dominance are social traits. Wouldn't it make more sense to do something to encourage girls to speak up and boys to be a little more respectful, rather than just surrendering to the social constructs that hamper kids' education?

Do you honestly feel that "social constructs" and adolescent psyches and human interaction are this easily changed?

I'm not sure... are parents attending classes with their children in BC now

Don't be obtuse. You've never heard of parent/teacher conferences? Report cards?

Mrs. Jefferson: "Mrs. Jones, I'm concerned about Timmy's math grades. Is there some kind of problem?"

Mrs. Jones: "Mrs. Jefferson, I'm concerned that Timmy is not paying attention in math class. I think he might be distracted by the girls."

later...

Mrs. Jefferson: "Timmy, I want you to pay more attention in math class, and stop being distracted by the girls."

Timmy: "Ok, mom."

Problem solved! Or is it?

Don't you think that social dynamics in teenagers, even in a supposedly regulated setting, are a little more complicated, a little more difficult to control, than you're giving credit for?

(and for Pete's sake: you don't need to sign all your posts)

Of course I don't need to. There's need to get touchy about it...

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

This idea that the segregation of boys and girls, creating a false world, will somehow overall improve their situation is another one of the many, in a long line of many failed experiments. Haven't we learned anything? It reminds a bit of how we treat alcohol. We would be much better to let children gradually have a bit of wine with their meals as they are going up, rather than this prohibition until, what is it now, 18 years of age, when all hell breaks loose, at least for those that held off until then. Of course most kids have already breen drinking by the time it is legal for them to do so.

[kimmy]

This idea that segregating of boys and girls, creating a false world, will somehow overall improve their situation is another one of the many, in a long line of many failed experiments.

Failed experiment? The early results mentioned in the article seem to indicate that it's a very successful experiment.

Haven't we learned anything? It reminds a bit of how we treat alcohol. We would be much better to let children gradually have a bit of wine with their meals as they are going up, rather than this prohibition until, what is it now, 18 years of age, when all hell breaks loose, at least for those that held off until then.  Of course most kids have already breen drinking by the time it is legal for them to do so.

Ok, but what does alcohol have to do with teaching math?

-kimmy

[August1991]

(and for Pete's sake: you don't need to sign all your posts)

Of course I don't need to. There's need to get touchy about it...

-kimmy

Touchy? Huh?

This idea that the segregation of boys and girls, creating a false world, will somehow overall improve their situation is another one of the many, in a long line of many failed experiments.

MS's beloved Trudeau studied in a segregated school and sent his three sons to a segregated school. In fact, Quebec is filled with segregated secondary schools. (And we're not talking just math here...)

First, I would leave this choice up to parents and students.

Second, I have no strong feelings either way. I can see the benefit of a mixed education but I can also see the benefit of segregation. Maybe it depends on the student.

Third, I have a suspicion that we don't know enough about how to organize mass education. The kind of education students now receive in Canada seems to date from the 1960s. IMV, the jury is still out on how best to do this. Let Abbotsford (and Carbonear) try different methods.

[Black Dog]

Do you honestly feel that "social constructs" and adolescent psyches and human interaction are this easily changed?

No, but you gotta start somewhere.

Don't you think that social dynamics in teenagers, even in a supposedly regulated setting, are a little more complicated, a little more difficult to control, than you're giving credit for?

Certianly, which is why I think blaming girls for boys' poor performance is faulty.

My big problem is with the framing of this issue. For instance, earlier you pointed out that girls do worse is some subjects when they demure to boys. However, no one blamesthe boys for "distracting" or intimidating the girls. In the Abbotsford case, why is the blame, as it were, being placed on the girls for being distractions and not on the boys for not paying enough attention. It

See what I'm getting at? We tend to accept a certain bianary view of gender dynamics that doesn't always hold up under scrutiny. That's why I think that even if sex-based segregation actually works (in the sense of bringing grades up), it's not a real solution.

Of course I don't need to. There's need to get touchy about it...

So why do you?

[Argus]

B.C. schools remove 'distractions' from boys' classes

ABBOTSFORD, B.C - Two schools in Abbotsford, B.C., are hoping to boost grades by separating the boys from the girls in math and English classes.

I always knew you could count on the Bible Belt when the chips are down. Let's all put our collective heads in the sand and hopefully the problem will go away. What a bunch of morons.

I think your post reveals more about your contempt for westerners and conservatives than anything else. Well, and your habit of knee jerk responses on issues you don't know anything about, of course.

This concept of seperating boys and girls doesn't come from conservatives, it comes from "progressives". Any number of studies have found that girls perform better on their own, without the pressure of acting properly around boys. Interestingly, studies also find boys perform better on their own. Boys and girls learn differently, and both are affected by the others' presence in class, being very wary of doing or saying anything which might make them look bad in front of the opposite sex. There are innumerable segregated schools for boys and schools enthusiastically endorsed by their "progressive" parents, not to mention post secondary institutions for females only, especially in the US, which are much beloved by feminists.

[maplesyrup]

Argus....you gotta get a life. Girls are now playing high school football with the boys - get used to it!

[Black Dog]

Any number of studies have found that girls perform better on their own, without the pressure of acting properly around boys. Interestingly, studies also find boys perform better on their own. Boys and girls learn differently, and both are affected by the others' presence in class, being very wary of doing or saying anything which might make them look bad in front of the opposite sex

The same studies also show there are more variations within sexes than between sexes.

Perhaps we should be teaching the individuals, not the gender.

[Slavik44]

B.C. schools remove 'distractions' from boys' classes

ABBOTSFORD, B.C - Two schools in Abbotsford, B.C., are hoping to boost grades by separating the boys from the girls in math and English classes.

Provincial test results and statistics over the past few years suggest girls do significantly better than boys in school, and are more likely to graduate.

I always knew you could count on the Bible Belt when the chips are down. Let's all put our collective heads in the sand and hopefully the problem will go away. What a bunch of morons. Let's not teach sex education either, let's not teach our kids about birth control, condoms, preventing STDs, etc. Please spare us from this enlightened society.

I don't know if this is a bible belt thing, I have ntoicted scattered through my psychology texts the reccomendation of segregating schools based on sex, because it will increase grades of all parties involved. As Boy learn differently then girls and Girls then boy, and then they claim there is this distraction thing. Unfortuantley MS,this is two opposite groups working together. However blacks learn differently then whites, and whites differently then Asians, Males differntly then Females, Introverts differently then extroverts..how far do we want to segragate these schools even if it may indicate a slightly higher understanding of subject matieral. Eventually we will end up with the Gay, extroverted, Black, Male school. Is it really worth 2%?

But MS don't thing this is some religous nut case thing, This is a science started thing, that a few overly up tight people have decided to adopt.

[maplesyrup]

Trust me, if it's an Abbotsford thingie, it a Bible thingie.

[Slavik44]

Trust me, if it's an Abbotsford thingie, it a Bible thingie.

But thats just it, MS, It is not an Abottsford thingy it is a scientific/psychology thingy.

[maplesyrup]

Regardless, it is the dumbing down approach. There is another very significant aspect to life, that is the socialization process, which is also a very important part of the school process. Just because some "psychologist" says it is so, does not make it so. Do you remember the nutbar professor psychologist at U. of Western Ontario, I think it was, that said he was able to prove that blacks were inferior, etc.? :angry:

[August1991]

This thread exists on rabble.ca too. Frankly, I find the discussion here more wide-open and weird and to the point. It is as well informed.

In addition, the discussion here admirably lacks the intolerant school marm edge. (This forum's editing and quoting functions are much better too.)

Compare. Am I wrong?

[Slavik44]

Regardless, it is the dumbing down approach. There is another very significant aspect to life, that is the socialization process, which is also a very important part of the school process. Just because some "psychologist" says it is so, does not make it so. Do you remember the nutbar professor psychologist at U. of Western Ontario, I think it was, that said he was able to prove that blacks were inferior, etc.? :angry:

totaly, social interactions are an integral part of the school environment which is why I disagree with aforementioned actions. however your anti-religion anti-capitalist hysteria is pathetic, and in this case completley un-warrented.

that being said, you mentioned that a nutbar proffesor prooved blacks were inferrior; which is true many people have done that, but do you know how? In doing what he did he prooved that Blacks not only learn differently then whites but they have different conotations for words. In otherwords people of different backgrounds respond differently to the same circumstances. Which is why people want to split schools up so people do not get inferior learning tactics. that man simply prooved that a guy fromt he ghetto will not do as well on tests with multi-syllibac words, as an upperclass person who has used them since childhood. Likewise Women were assumed to be inferrior to men until people realised tests were biased towards men. When tests are biased towards Women Men our found inferior to women.

What is there but to conclude other then if you fix the bias you fix the problem, that is what the Idea behidn splitting schools up is about. However I simply think that the gains will be outwieghed by the losses.

[kimmy]

There is another very significant aspect to life, that is the socialization process, which is also a very important part of the school process.

...

totaly, social interactions are an integral part of the school environment which is why I disagree with aforementioned actions.

What in the blue hell are you two talking about?

Did I read the article wrong? I thought they were doing gender-segregated math classes and english classes. They didn't say gender segregated schools... they didn't say gender segregated hallways or lunch hours... they didn't even say gender-segregated Social Studies or Art or Science or Drama classes... they just said gender-segregated Math and English classes.

Kids aren't SUPPOSED to learn "social interaction" in math class. They are supposed to sit down, shut up, and do math. You could, I suppose, make the case that English class is a litdifferent, since discussion portions of the class could benefit from different viewpoints. However, I would still claim that English class is not there for learning social interaction either.

I just find it baffling. Some people here are reacting as if the school district had ordered separate schools. Or proposed burqas for female students. I know that some people try to find a conservative conspiracy hiding under every rock or lurking behind every tree. But seriously guys, if this was some kind of sinister plot to keep boys and girls from hooking up... uh, isn't MATH CLASS probably the last place to start?

-kimmy

[kimmy]

The same studies also show there are more variations within sexes than between sexes.

Perhaps we should be teaching the individuals, not the gender.

The claim is that the learning experience of both sexes in some subjects is improved in gender-separated classes. Why does it matter that the variations within each sex are larger than the variations between them? It seems like a non-sequitur.

Don't you think that social dynamics in teenagers, even in a supposedly regulated setting, are a little more complicated, a little more difficult to control, than you're giving credit for?

Certianly, which is why I think blaming girls for boys' poor performance is faulty.

My big problem is with the framing of this issue. For instance, earlier you pointed out that girls do worse is some subjects when they demure to boys. However, no one blamesthe boys for "distracting" or intimidating the girls. In the Abbotsford case, why is the blame, as it were, being placed on the girls for being distractions and not on the boys for not paying enough attention. It

I didn't get a sense that girls were being accused of anything from reading the article.

If anything, the quotes from the school board superintendant place the blame on teenaged testosterone.

See what I'm getting at? We tend to accept a certain bianary view of gender dynamics that doesn't always hold up under scrutiny. That's why I think that even if sex-based segregation actually works (in the sense of bringing grades up), it's not a real solution.

I guess the question is, solution to what problem?

If the problem is to find a way to teach math more effectively, the results so far sound pretty positive.

If the problem is something other than teaching math more effectively, could you put it into words?

Of course I don't need to. There's need to get touchy about it...

So why do you?

Well, up until now, I'd never thought much about it. But as of now, I do it because you made an issue of it.

-kimmy

[caesar]

I don't think it has anything to do with either sex being distracted by the other. Boys have always matured later than girls. Girls were always better students in the lower grades and junior high ; then the boys start catching up in senior high. It would be more peer pressure from other boys too be more macho and sports minded; being smart just has never been "cool" for boys. Boys interest in sports is probably a bigger distraction than are girls

[Black Dog]

The claim is that the learning experience of both sexes in some subjects is improved in gender-separated classes. Why does it matter that the variations within each sex are larger than the variations between them? It seems like a non-sequitur.

The point is that the range of variation within the sexes shows that boys and girls don't learn differently based on gender. In other words, the canard that "boys do better in some subjects than girls", while supported by evidence such a test scores, is not the result of gender differences. So, separating them is, as I've said, a stopgap measure that fails to address issues of how socialized gender behavior impacts education.

Well, up until now, I'd never thought much about it. But as of now, I do it because you made an issue of it.

In other words: just to be a jerk. Nice.

[kimmy]

The point is that the range of variation within the sexes shows that boys and girls don't learn differently based on gender.

It *doesn't* show that. Differences within genders don't discount differences between genders.

In other words, the canard that "boys do better in some subjects than girls", while supported by evidence such a test scores, is not the result of gender differences. So, separating them is, as I've said, a stopgap measure that fails to address issues of how socialized gender behavior impacts education.

What causes differences within genders? It would be interesting to know, for sure. Genetics? Role of parents? Role of siblings? TV and other influences? Early childhood experiences? Nutrition? Perhaps all of those things and more... but it still wouldn't disprove that boys and girls respond better to different techniques.

And even that isn't exactly the point... which is simply to teach.

In other words: just to be a jerk. Nice.

I thought a jerk was somebody who does something rude or inconsiderate.

-kimmy

[August1991]

The point is that the range of variation within the sexes shows that boys and girls don't learn differently based on gender.

That's not what it means.

On average, men are taller/bigger than women. But the variations in heights/weights mean that some women are taller/heavier than men.

It is impossible to take this difference into account when designing car seats (unless the car is to be marketed for a specific gender).

But in designing washrooms, should the average be taken into account?

In designing clothes, the issue is moot because different sizes are possible.

-----

In the case of schools, in the absence of a better identifier, sex could serve to segregate and presumably improve learning. (This is the washroom example above.)

OTOH, this gain in learning comes at the cost of socialization.

Kimmy makes the valid point that math class is for learning math and other venues (hallways, cafeteria, Mr. Jones' incredibly boring biology class) are for socialization.

Only Mr. Jones? In my memory, from about age 12-15, kids learn basically nothing. From about 16 on, some kids learn but many just want to get out of prison.

In world history, this system where we take everyone from age 5 to about 17, put them into large rooms and teach them the world's collected wisdom is entirely new.