Single gender in Arizona
http://www.tucsonsoul.com/articles/huachuca-city-teacher-sees-success-single-gender-classes
Friday, September 30, 2011
Single gender classes in California. Note that supplied results show that students in SG do not score worse.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_18998437
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_18998437
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Number of Students in Single Gender School in UK Increasing
The article notes that there is an overall increase in the number of students being sent to single-gender schools in the UK. It also notes that the rise in boys is greater than the rise in girls.
Survey on why students pursue STEM with gendered ideas
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/09/28/survey-stem-engagement-begins-early
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/09/28/survey-stem-engagement-begins-early
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The medical community can talk about gender, why not educators
The medical community can benefit from discussions about gender differences. Why can't educators?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Single gender in New Jersey (data and differ)
http://galloway.patch.com/articles/smithville-elementary-school-pilot-program-separates-the-boys-from-the-girls
http://galloway.patch.com/articles/smithville-elementary-school-pilot-program-separates-the-boys-from-the-girls
PBS' recent take on gender differences
http://www.pbs.org/parents/experts/archive/2011/09/boy-and-girl-brains-whats-the.html
http://www.pbs.org/parents/experts/archive/2011/09/boy-and-girl-brains-whats-the.html
Monday, September 26, 2011
Renewed Debate About Single Gender Education
Many of you may have seen an article run around education and news websites last Friday. The official article is, "The Pseudoscience of Single-S** Schooling" and it appeared in the journal Science (23 September 2011, Vol. 333, pages 1706-1707.)
News outlets (ABC, NY Times, Education Week - http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2011/09/researchers_blast_psuedoscienc.html Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/study-single-sex-education-may-do-more-harm-than-good/2011/09/22/gIQABAQOoK_story.html?hpid=z4, SmartBrief - http://www.smartbrief.com/news/ascd/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=D96DEE95-EED8-46E5-8A86-81EFB2F5D50A©id=09E2187A-20AD-4ECE-AED9-6909674DCDB7&brief=ASCD&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss, and even the Spartanburg Herald Journal - http://www.goupstate.com/article/20110922/ZNYT02/109223015?p=1&tc=pg) ran the story with headings like, "Study assails merits of single-sex education".
I encourage you all to read the actual article from Science magazine and at least one of the news reports so you can see how single-gender education is being discussed in wider circles.
But here is a brief synopsis and a bit of commentary on this current swirl.
1. The article itself is NOT a study. The authors are making a policy statement arguing against single-gender education and the current authorization to allow it under federal regulations of 2006. A study was not conducted by the authors. As such, the hype that this is a study is NOT the case. It is a policy argument.
2. There are four major headings: Little Evidence of Academic Advantages, No Evidence from Brain Research, Negative Impacts of Highlighting Gender, and Institutional Sexism Disguised as Choice. Again, you need to read the article (only two pages) to see their arguments for each.
2a. Little Evidence of Academic Advantages. COMMENT First, single-gender education does not have to be better than coeducation. It shouldn't be worse though. This is why schools should conduct reviews of their programs. In South Carolina we provide the opportunity to conduct surveys of parents, students, and teachers. Second, while they claim that there isn't any hard data supporting single-gender, there isn't any hard data against it either. Further, there is some good information from surveys over the last three years that something positive is happening for parents, students, and teachers within single-gender classrooms. In news articles across the country, schools provide their own anecdotal information about the positive impact upon their own children. Third, we can NEVER say that single-gender is the actual effect for any success or failure of a child since there are many aspects within a classroom and there is ALWAYS the issue of CHOICE. This is the nature of single-gender education in public schools. To have a randomize assignment of students without the option of choice is a clear violation of federal law. Fourth, the federal government itself does not require the REPORTING of data and with budget cuts it is increasingly difficult to get reports that are not mandated by law.
2b. No Evidence from Brain Research. COMMENT This will always be argued by researchers. There are books and research reports that say that there are differences and then there are books and research that say their aren't differences. Either way, looking at international, national, and state data, there isn't equality in the performance of many subgroups - including boys and girls. As such, how we teach students is not being received in the same way by subgroups, including boys and girls. This isn't brain research, this is performance and discipline data. From this, we can look at reasons why and possibilities to affect our instructional practices to better reach all students and subgroups, including boys and girls. Understanding the potential of different tendencies for subgroups, including boys and girls, regardless of where they come from, can help inform teachers about how to best reach students. It is a way to continue to differentiate our instruction in any classroom. Single-gender education should NEVER be based upon the idea that boys and girls learn differently. And, teachers in single-gender classrooms, need to be particularly careful with the line between meeting the needs of students and stereotyping.
2c. Negative Impacts of Highlighting Gender. COMMENT The article asserts that "The strongest argument against SS education is that it reduces boys' and girls' opportunities to work together in a supervised, purposeful environment." This essentially is the real-world argument. It is important to remember that school is NOT the real world, but preparation for the real world. Educators group students according to age and focus on specific content areas for specified times often regulated by bells. This format isn't the real world either. But, we do it in order to prepare students as best we can for being successful in the real world. Remember our survey data regarding confidence, participation, effort, independence, etc. Student, parent, and teacher responses over the last four years have been very positive. Again, something positive seems to be happening in our single-gender classrooms where students are developing positive personal characteristics in order to be successful in the real world.
2d. Institutional Sexism Disguised as Choice. COMMENT Here the authors say that there is no data for the students who would best served by single-gender, that it is a "scheduling nightmare", and that training funds could be spent elsewhere. Each school determines, through looking at their data, about the specific areas of need or as a response to parent choice. That is one of the benefits of single-gender is that it can be utilized by schools in ways that they need specifically. It is true that scheduling can become difficult, but that isn't a reason to not try to accomplish something if there is a need and a desire at the school. Teaching children isn't easy. As for funds, there are ways to deliver training for all teachers in low cost/high impact ways, especially utilizing the web. Further, providing improved instructional services for students is everyone's business and not just for single-gender classroom.
I welcome your thoughts about this current debate. Maybe it will blow by your school or maybe it will become a major issue. Either way, you need to consider the issue yourself and determine your own thoughts about the arguments for and against single-gender education.
Thank you for all you do for your students every day! They are the ones that matter in this conversation.
News outlets (ABC, NY Times, Education Week - http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2011/09/researchers_blast_psuedoscienc.html Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/study-single-sex-education-may-do-more-harm-than-good/2011/09/22/gIQABAQOoK_story.html?hpid=z4, SmartBrief - http://www.smartbrief.com/news/ascd/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=D96DEE95-EED8-46E5-8A86-81EFB2F5D50A©id=09E2187A-20AD-4ECE-AED9-6909674DCDB7&brief=ASCD&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss, and even the Spartanburg Herald Journal - http://www.goupstate.com/article/20110922/ZNYT02/109223015?p=1&tc=pg) ran the story with headings like, "Study assails merits of single-sex education".
I encourage you all to read the actual article from Science magazine and at least one of the news reports so you can see how single-gender education is being discussed in wider circles.
But here is a brief synopsis and a bit of commentary on this current swirl.
1. The article itself is NOT a study. The authors are making a policy statement arguing against single-gender education and the current authorization to allow it under federal regulations of 2006. A study was not conducted by the authors. As such, the hype that this is a study is NOT the case. It is a policy argument.
2. There are four major headings: Little Evidence of Academic Advantages, No Evidence from Brain Research, Negative Impacts of Highlighting Gender, and Institutional Sexism Disguised as Choice. Again, you need to read the article (only two pages) to see their arguments for each.
2a. Little Evidence of Academic Advantages. COMMENT First, single-gender education does not have to be better than coeducation. It shouldn't be worse though. This is why schools should conduct reviews of their programs. In South Carolina we provide the opportunity to conduct surveys of parents, students, and teachers. Second, while they claim that there isn't any hard data supporting single-gender, there isn't any hard data against it either. Further, there is some good information from surveys over the last three years that something positive is happening for parents, students, and teachers within single-gender classrooms. In news articles across the country, schools provide their own anecdotal information about the positive impact upon their own children. Third, we can NEVER say that single-gender is the actual effect for any success or failure of a child since there are many aspects within a classroom and there is ALWAYS the issue of CHOICE. This is the nature of single-gender education in public schools. To have a randomize assignment of students without the option of choice is a clear violation of federal law. Fourth, the federal government itself does not require the REPORTING of data and with budget cuts it is increasingly difficult to get reports that are not mandated by law.
2b. No Evidence from Brain Research. COMMENT This will always be argued by researchers. There are books and research reports that say that there are differences and then there are books and research that say their aren't differences. Either way, looking at international, national, and state data, there isn't equality in the performance of many subgroups - including boys and girls. As such, how we teach students is not being received in the same way by subgroups, including boys and girls. This isn't brain research, this is performance and discipline data. From this, we can look at reasons why and possibilities to affect our instructional practices to better reach all students and subgroups, including boys and girls. Understanding the potential of different tendencies for subgroups, including boys and girls, regardless of where they come from, can help inform teachers about how to best reach students. It is a way to continue to differentiate our instruction in any classroom. Single-gender education should NEVER be based upon the idea that boys and girls learn differently. And, teachers in single-gender classrooms, need to be particularly careful with the line between meeting the needs of students and stereotyping.
2c. Negative Impacts of Highlighting Gender. COMMENT The article asserts that "The strongest argument against SS education is that it reduces boys' and girls' opportunities to work together in a supervised, purposeful environment." This essentially is the real-world argument. It is important to remember that school is NOT the real world, but preparation for the real world. Educators group students according to age and focus on specific content areas for specified times often regulated by bells. This format isn't the real world either. But, we do it in order to prepare students as best we can for being successful in the real world. Remember our survey data regarding confidence, participation, effort, independence, etc. Student, parent, and teacher responses over the last four years have been very positive. Again, something positive seems to be happening in our single-gender classrooms where students are developing positive personal characteristics in order to be successful in the real world.
2d. Institutional Sexism Disguised as Choice. COMMENT Here the authors say that there is no data for the students who would best served by single-gender, that it is a "scheduling nightmare", and that training funds could be spent elsewhere. Each school determines, through looking at their data, about the specific areas of need or as a response to parent choice. That is one of the benefits of single-gender is that it can be utilized by schools in ways that they need specifically. It is true that scheduling can become difficult, but that isn't a reason to not try to accomplish something if there is a need and a desire at the school. Teaching children isn't easy. As for funds, there are ways to deliver training for all teachers in low cost/high impact ways, especially utilizing the web. Further, providing improved instructional services for students is everyone's business and not just for single-gender classroom.
I welcome your thoughts about this current debate. Maybe it will blow by your school or maybe it will become a major issue. Either way, you need to consider the issue yourself and determine your own thoughts about the arguments for and against single-gender education.
Thank you for all you do for your students every day! They are the ones that matter in this conversation.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Single gender academies in North Carolina
http://triad.news14.com/content/local_news/647099/wake-to-create-separate-schools-for-boys--girls
http://triad.news14.com/content/local_news/647099/wake-to-create-separate-schools-for-boys--girls
Monday, September 19, 2011
Single gender classes in Maine
http://www.pressherald.com/news/where-boy-doesnt-meet-girl_2011-09-19.html
http://www.pressherald.com/news/where-boy-doesnt-meet-girl_2011-09-19.html
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Single gender classes in Florida
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2011/09/15/bunnell-elementary-adds-single-gender-classes.html
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2011/09/15/bunnell-elementary-adds-single-gender-classes.html
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Single-Gender Education Update from Washington Times
Article in Washington Times on status of single-gender, includes mention of South Carolina. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/1/boys-in-one-class-girls-in-another-at-more-schools/
More on Washington State
A balanced opinion on the issues in Washington State.
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/opinion/2011/09/06/put-single-sex-education-in-principals-tool-box/
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/opinion/2011/09/06/put-single-sex-education-in-principals-tool-box/
Spatial abilities affected by nurturing
A report with a title of Nurture Affects Spatial Abilities. Article requires payment. I am trying to get access.
http://m.pnas.org/content/108/36/14786.full
http://m.pnas.org/content/108/36/14786.full
Closure of Single-Gender Options in Washington State
From Washington State: their department of education is shutting down single gender programs. Apparently, they are against their state constitution. Those following single-gender education will be interested in this development.
http://kuow.org/program.php?id=24495
http://kuow.org/program.php?id=24495
Hormones Impact Memory - Study
A study on how hormones from birth control pills affect memory in women. One of the interesting parts is that Larry Cahill is quoted. He has done much work in the areas of sex-differences and is often referenced by both pro and anti sex-difference groups as having a thorough and balanced position.
http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/News/2011/09/Birth-Control-Pills-Affect-Memory/
http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/News/2011/09/Birth-Control-Pills-Affect-Memory/
Girls Doing Better Than Boys with Language
Stressing biological influences, this article from Education Review looks at the issues related to boys and girls with language.
http://www.educationreview.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=Breaking+News&idArticle=22051
http://www.educationreview.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=Breaking+News&idArticle=22051
Study from Columbia and Sweden on Competitiveness and Risk Tasking
A study that finds some differences in competitiveness and competition in some areas and not in others.
http://poliecon.com/2011/09/09/gender-differences-in-competitiveness-and-risk-taking-comparing-children-in-colombia-and-sweden-2/
http://poliecon.com/2011/09/09/gender-differences-in-competitiveness-and-risk-taking-comparing-children-in-colombia-and-sweden-2/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)