Bible Belt Is There When You Need It

[RB]

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

this a misconception, the information would be accurate only to fit what was "canadian" 30 years ago and further back

what i mean this information would not be true for certain groups or culture such as: chinese, asians, middle east folks etc. and thats the composition of the demographics now, the women you are referring to will tower of those groups

anyway there is an article by Gosh & Ray “Sexism in Education” that detail how boys and girls do not benefit equally from education.

they reinforce the notion that education is embedded in a structure to reflect mainstream societal practice - similar to Blackdog's post. materials for education are sexist to the benefit of boys

an example given, when home economics was introduced, a parallel trades shop was set up for boys.

these programs were incorporated into high school

one distinguishing fact that emerged in the high school programs was that while girls were pressured to finish their home economics programs in efforts to make them homepeople

the boys, on the other hand, could reconcile their options. the boys were always encouraged to choose differently if the path was university options . teachers spend longer time with boys in math and science. the reason given is that one does not need trade skill to enter into academia - yes they are streamlined for success

but this is the real reason for the separation for the boys and girls - it will perpetuate a male advantage for successful higher education and successful integration in the workplace

usually there were no contingencies for girls as in the example say if home economics were not their forte - yes what then. my take is that there is denial of education based on gender

and this society continue to produce hopelessness of perpetual defeat that has manifested itself the instinct of women.

look it, there was a research done where female becomes instinctively passive when faced with a computer malfunction

in contrast, the boys would troubleshoot the problem and hence become more computer savvy.

did you see demonstrated ready gap between the genders

Stalker & Prentice did some work that shows how women are discouraged from entering graduate school even when they performed better in the male dominant areas of math and science

separate the boys and girls then look at disparities in the genders especially in education.

then look at the victims all right - it is the girls.

[Black Dog]

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.

Yes it does, because it shows that gender has nothing to do with different learning abilities.

It's pretty simple: boys and girls learn differently: but boys also learn differently than other boys. In fact. there's a greater variance between how boys learn in relation to other boys, than how they learn versus girls.

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.

My point is that such thinking ignores differences in individual abilities in favour of false gender constructs like "girls and boys learn differently". To illustrate: what happens to the boys who respond better to what are considered more "female-oriented" teaching techniques when there classes are segregated?

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.

We seem to have some confusion as to what "socialization" means. From a sociology standpoint, it refers to how individuals acquire the habits, beliefs, and accumulated knowledge of society. For instance, women are considered "more emotional" than men. From a biological standpoint , this is false, but due to the prevelance of the belief and the basic need of humans to conform to social norms, it is accepted and perpetuated.

The idea that boys and girls learn differently is part of the social construct known as gender and has no biological basis in fact (as the affore-mentioned variances within genders shows).

The question is do we want a education system that reinforces the idea that boys and girls are more different form one another than they actually are (a notion that is the basis for widespread inequality and systematic sexism), or do we want one that actually takes the abilities of individuals into account?

[kimmy]

My point is that such thinking ignores differences in individual abilities in favour of false gender constructs like "girls and boys learn differently". To illustrate: what happens to the boys who respond better to what are considered more "female-oriented" teaching techniques when there classes are segregated?

Certainly each child is a unique snowflake. However, given the limitations of our educational system and its limited ability to monitor and mentor each child as an individual, isn't maximizing the benefit to the most students a worthy goal?

Dividing children up according to their academic ability is a somewhat difficult and arbitrary task... dividing children according to what teaching style they respond best to would be even more problematic for systems that have to deal with tens of thousands of children each year.

Gender, on the other hand, is an easy distinction to make, and the results mentioned in this article, and in similar experimients for both sexes, show it to be an effective distinction as well.

We seem to have some confusion as to what "socialization" means.

I mentioned other opportunities for "social interaction" because Syrup and Slavik44 argued that this policy would harm the students by preventing from interacting with the opposite gender. That's what I (and I believe August) was addressing.

The idea that boys and girls learn differently is part of the social construct known as gender and has no biological basis in fact (as the affore-mentioned variances within genders shows).

The "nature vs nurture" debate is far from settled... and the "nature" side has far more merit than you're giving credit for. Even experts are far from agreed on what has no biological basis in fact.

The question is do we want a education system that reinforces the idea that boys and girls are more different form one another than they actually are (a notion that is the basis for widespread inequality and systematic sexism), or do we want one that actually takes the abilities of individuals into account?

I appreciate the basis of what your saying. If you take a boy and a girl at random, you have no reason to assume one might be better at math (or any other subject) than the other. Take 20 boys and 20 girls (as the school district is doing) and you might have a large enough sample to make some assumptions about either group based on relevant statistical data, but you'd obviously be mistaken in applying that data to any one of those 40 kids. In a situation where you're comparing two kids, like for a job or university admission or whatever, then certainly you have to consider them as individuals.

But we're not talking about a situation where you're comparing individuals, we're talking about a situation where you're trying to maximize the effectiveness of a mass education system that has to cope with thousands of students, and almost by definition can't consider them as individuals.

The issue, as I see it, isn't of competition between genders. The theory is that boys and girls both learn math better when gender-dynamics are removed from the equation... I don't think that makes any comment at all on the relative ability of boys or girls at math.

-kimmy

[August1991]

Yes it does, because it shows that gender has nothing to do with different learning abilities.

No, you are wrong BD. Gender does apparently have something to do with learning.

An average refers to precisely that: an average. Variance is something else again.

I have no idea what is being measured in the case of learning. So I'll stay with something more familiar: height.

On average, women are shorter than men. The variance of heights means that some women are taller than some men.

This is exactly what you say:

It's pretty simple: boys and girls learn differently: but boys also learn differently than other boys. In fact. there's a greater variance between how boys learn in relation to other boys, than how they learn versus girls.

Gender affects the way people learn, and affects their height.

The idea that boys and girls learn differently is part of the social construct known as gender and has no biological basis in fact (as the affore-mentioned variances within genders shows).

This viewpoint is common on the American Left and seems to have its root in the civil rights movement.

I have never been too concerned whether differences arise through biology or as a "social construct". (Differences in skin colour are partly biological but given sun tans, partly personal choice.)

Individuals are manifestly different. Sometimes these differences are less marked within certain groups. For example, women share things in common making them different from men. Japanese shares things in common making them different from Indians.

These differences are obvious and in fact make the world an interesting place. Individuals are not equal in the sense that we are not the same. And discrimination is a natural consequence of our differences.

We discriminate constantly using a vast series of criteria and indicators to select people for a vast series of objectives. People are often self-selected.

The question is do we want a education system that reinforces the idea that boys and girls are more different form one another than they actually are (a notion that is the basis for widespread inequality and systematic sexism), or do we want one that actually takes the abilities of individuals into account?

In Canada, education is a provincial jurisdiction which kind of answers your question. Kids in Quebec are segregated from kids in Manitoba. They two groups don't even learn the same material.

[Black Dog]

Certainly each child is a unique snowflake. However, given the limitations of our educational system and its limited ability to monitor and mentor each child as an individual, isn't maximizing the benefit to the most students a worthy goal?

And the devil take the hindmost? It's not a matter of specialized, individualized teaching for each student: it could simply be a matter of zeroing in on students who's performance is lagging and trying differnt methods to get them up to par.

Gender, on the other hand, is an easy distinction to make, and the results mentioned in this article, and in similar experimients for both sexes, show it to be an effective distinction as well.

It's a band-aid solution of dubious merit. Sure, average test scores might increase, which is great if that were the be-all and end-all goal of the education system.

The theory is that boys and girls both learn math better when gender-dynamics are removed from the equation... I don't think that makes any comment at all on the relative ability of boys or girls at math.

If we accept that both boys and girls do better in a gender-homogenous environment, shouldn't we ask why? For instance, girls will often "dumb down" in class, avoid speaking up and generally under perform so as to be seen as demure and not pushy know-it-alls. Boys will often not seek help because they don't wish to betray weakness. These are socialized behaviors. These are the thingswe should be targeting. And if the education system doesn't have the resources to ensure students can get the most out of school (not to mention the added bonus of busting some pervasive gender myths), then getting those resources should be a priority.

[Guest eureka]

It has been knowledge since the first days of segregation that segregation of the sexes produced better educational standards. The only nthing that I find strange is that we have not gone back to segregation in schools before now. It is, I believe, only thr obsession with "socialization" that has kept schools segregated. Both boys and girls did better when segregation was by school not merely classes.

I am not at all sure that segregation did not also produce better socialized citizens, too. Boys learn better to be men and girls to be women on their own. I suggest that is better than this society where, it seems, male and female are not to be distinct but to be competitors deprived of natural instincts other than the sexual one that they have been facilitated in giving rein to at an age of irresponsibility.

[August1991]

For instance, girls will often "dumb down" in class, avoid speaking up and generally under perform so as to be seen as demure and not pushy know-it-alls. Boys will often not seek help because they don't wish to betray weakness. These are socialized behaviors. These are the things we should be targeting.

This was my fear, BD. You in fact have an agenda. You want to mould children and create somehow a new human being. You believe in the "perfectibility" of people by design.

My only possible answer to your "agenda" is to quote Boris Pasternak (translated) in Doctor Zhivago. The quote deserves reflection. Its context in the novel is heart-breaking.

“Reshaping life!  People who can say that have never understood a thing about life - they have never felt its breath, its heartbeat - however much they have seen or done.  They look on it as a lump of raw material that needs to be processed by them, to be ennobled by their touch.  But life is never a material, a substance to be molded.  If you want to know, life is the principle of self-renewal, it is constantly renewing and remaking and changing and transfiguring itself, it is infinitely beyond you or your obtuse theories about it.”

[Black Dog]

This was my fear, BD. You in fact have an agenda. You want to mould children and create somehow a new human being. You believe in the "perfectibility" of people by design.

Balls. My "agenda" is to overcome the artifical notions of gender that perpetuate inequality and to prevent individuals from acheiving their full potential.

To the good Dr. I say: life is a material to be molded. We are shaped and molded from birth buy social factors beyond our control or often our comprehension. The ability to transcend or defeat these factors is closer to what the human spirit is about: humans are not prefabricated to a specific set of specifications, constrained and limited by their initial shaping. That's why we need to encourage individuals, especially young ones, to think beyond the boundaries society has drawn for them.

[kimmy]

Certainly each child is a unique snowflake. However, given the limitations of our educational system and its limited ability to monitor and mentor each child as an individual, isn't maximizing the benefit to the most students a worthy goal?

And the devil take the hindmost? It's not a matter of specialized, individualized teaching for each student: it could simply be a matter of zeroing in on students who's performance is lagging and trying differnt methods to get them up to par.

If a school board can help the average student raise his grade by 10% but chooses not to, they're failing their students. Identifying the students who are struggling can certainly be dealt with on an individual basis just as easily.

It's a band-aid solution of dubious merit. Sure, average test scores might increase, which is great if that were the be-all and end-all goal of the education system.

It's the best tool by which schools can measure their success in their primary mission.

Are higher test scores the goal? Not exactly... the goal is education. Whether you agree with testing as a means of measuring student achievement or not, I would suggest that testing is a pretty good means of measuring the school's effectiveness. I submit that there has to be some means of evaluating the effectiveness of schools and teaching, and given the sheer number of students involved, test scores are the most practical (and probably the only) means of doing so.

The theory is that boys and girls both learn math better when gender-dynamics are removed from the equation... I don't think that makes any comment at all on the relative ability of boys or girls at math.

If we accept that both boys and girls do better in a gender-homogenous environment, shouldn't we ask why? For instance, girls will often "dumb down" in class, avoid speaking up and generally under perform so as to be seen as demure and not pushy know-it-alls. Boys will often not seek help because they don't wish to betray weakness. These are socialized behaviors. These are the thingswe should be targeting.

As you've pointed out, these kids have been shaped almost from birth by a zillion factors. Even if each child arrives in this world as a blank slate (a highly contentious issue to start with) the children are certainly not blank slates by Grade 9. To think that a school board can somehow re-engineer the students' behaviors seems ...wildly optimistic.

I don't think you can tell boys to stop being afraid of looking dumb in front of the girl they have a crush on (well, I guess you could... but I don't think it's going to work.) I don't think you can tell girls to stop being afraid of being pushy knowitalls. I don't think you can tell boys to be less aggressive or girls to be less demure. I don't think you can prevent teenage pregnancies just by telling teenagers to not get pregnant.

You're in favor of understanding students as individuals... can you at least agree that gender has played a large role in the individual that the student has become?

And if the education system doesn't have the resources to ensure students can get the most out of school (not to mention the added bonus of busting some pervasive gender myths), then getting those resources should be a priority.

They have to get the most out of the resources they have, and the gender-separated math classes seem to be one way of doing so. Spending their resources trying to re-engineer the gender-identities of its students, on the other hand, seems well outside their mandate.

I also think the only myth being perpetuated by the gender-separated classes is that gender-dynamics are a big factor in the lives of teenagers. I don't think it's a myth, and I don't think it's unreasonable for the school-board to take it into account.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

do something to encourage ... boys to be a little more respectful,

Beat them, I suppose?

[msz19]

I happened to find these forums, and coming from the abbotsford school system all my life, and never having attended a single church/jesus thing in my life, as well as being an athiest, I can say I think (from a first-hand perspective) that this is a good move, and I applaud it. Stop your communist/liberal complaining the people who don't like it, and if you don't, i hear china and cuba are open for business.

[caesar]

happened to find these forums, and coming from the abbotsford school system all my life, and never having attended a single church/jesus thing in my life, as well as being an athiest, I can say I think (from a first-hand perspective) that this is a good move, and I applaud it. Stop your communist/liberal complaining the people who don't like it, and if you don't, i hear china and cuba are open for business

Your post is garbled. If this is the grammar you learnt there; perhaps some changes are needed,.

[caesar]

I think separating boys and girls is counterproductive. It is an attempt to pigeon hole girls and boys as completley different. Not all boys are the same nor are the girls.

They have to learn to deal with both sexes in life and school relationships both male and female form part of the necessary learning.

It is a step back into the dark ages. Separate classes for fast learners and slow learners would be more productive. Making intelligent students sit around listening to the same lessons over and over is boring and turns them off.

[msz19]

I am sorry caesar if i don't try to e-spell or e-grammar, or maybe you can call the e-police up for me

[maplesyrup]

I happened to find these forums, and coming from the abbotsford school system all my life, and never having attended a single church/jesus thing in my life, as well as being an athiest, I can say I think (from a first-hand perspective) that this is a good move, and I applaud it. Stop your communist/liberal complaining the people who don't like it, and if you don't, i hear china and cuba are open for business.

WTF???

[Cartman]

Stop your communist/liberal complaining the people who don't like it, and if you don't, i hear china and cuba are open for business.

If the state makes a decision you do not like, then do not criticize, just leave? Now that sounds like true communist logic to me.

p.s. I called the e-police.

[caesar]

I am sorry caesar if i don't try to e-spell or e-grammar, or maybe you can call the e-police up for me

Just try to make your idea understandable. I have no idea what you are talking about. I am sorry the school system failed you.