Afghanistan has been at war since the mid 1970s and literacy has suffered. Prior to that they had a high rate of literacy. Syria is headed in the same direction. Yemen is in the same shape even after 40 years of KSA pouring money into healthcare and education. Pakistan is so poor they have very little in the way of public school for boys or girls. Small madrassas fill in the gap for boys ages 7 to 12. They teach the basics and religion. In KSA 67% of university students are female. Wearing the veil and driving have nothing to do with education. Have you ever been anywhere in the ME?
No I haven't the closest I came was Crete. I have no desire to go anywhere in the middle east. Wearing the Burka, veil and driving has much to do with education as it promotes the idea that women are treated as not having any value other than as baby machines and this is where education comes in. When I married my wife she had been raised to believe she had to serve me and that her opinions did not matter. I changed that in her, I did not want a subservient wife I wanted an equal who will stand up to me if need be. I handle my share of the chores around here with cooking and cleaning and we have adult conversations where her opinion is valued. This is not done in most of the middle east, where women wait on the men hand and foot and man's word is law.
I've alteady told you that my stance is that students and parents should be allowed to pick schools for themselves. This means that if the parents of a boy and tbe boy himself want their son to go to an all-boys school, I am all for it. I am against all forms of compulsion and do not believe government should neither force pupils to segregate nor to integrate. As long as it is voluntary, I am fine with whatever. "Argument" also known as "OMG IT'S 2017!" Since when is segregation and exclusion the same thing?
Every country in the ME is different.. and in some women have considerable power and control of the money.. even wearing their traditional hijab. Then there is also petticoat politics. Driving is another matter. Traffic is hellish.
Read a geography book and then come back to me. And now you say a few decades ago! Women were not allowed to vote in western countries a few decades ago. Blacks were not allowed to sit at the front of a bus 40 years ago in your country. Your Pentagon had whites only rest rooms. You really should stop posting Anyway, this is not thread topic so I'll end there
In Sweden, you go to "fixed" classes meaning that you are always surrounded by the same class-mates. Also, we don't have school sports and therefore those kind of groupings don't happen here.
The problem is the issues are all tied together, and I don't have to stop posting I have just as much right to post my opinions as any other on here. Just because they don't coincide with yours or others do not make them any less valid.
http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr215.shtml This article and many more seem to indicate that a segregated school by gender is the way to go to educate children. There is more to life than education though, and once an adult, these kids will need to know how to act around, interact with, and generally work with the opposite sex. So should there be total segregation.....NO....BUT. I would not be opposed to having some classes (important ones) be segregated and others (elective type classes) integrated.
So you're saying that after thousands of years, now we have suddenly reached the point that sexual-distraction is preventing students from learning? And somehow, you conclude that the answer is to isolate the different genders? Okay, well that's not going to prevent access to internet Porn (spiking the urge). That's not going to advance sexual responsibility taught in sex-education. Because if it's denied, it's even more attractive, even more desirable, even more of a distraction. But if you allow boys to fight over girls and girls to compete for boys then you are preparing them for the real world of the work force. Otherwise we'll just end up with a bunch of rapist. They already have private schools for boys and girls, that's where all the rapist come from.
Since the time that private schools provide different opportunities (or should I say since God invented dirt).
Schools as we know them have been around perhaps 200 years and most of that time were fully segregated. For most of human existence people were married by the time they were high-school aged.
Private schools are private and can do whatever they want. This is a form of voluntary segregation and is therefore not to be confused with malevolent exclusion à la Jim Crow or "back in the days when women belonged in the kitchen." Personally, I have no problems with seperate classrooms and I do not really see any real benefits with compulsory mixing. But at the same time, there are no real cons either.
I would suggest we look at what people would pay for out of their own pockets as a guide to the efficacy of Co-ed v single sex schooling.
Well the Taliban would agree with you, I guess. However that was only true for High-schools. As far as colleges went, they were mostly exclusively male, with only a small number of female schools available. As a result women were generally limited to being house-wives (completely dependent and subservient to their husbands). And that was the the way it was until WWII, the first time women could do more than just work in the textile industries and be phone operators. Suddenly we had women in the medical industry, the schools were integrated to put every able body citizen in jobs to keep the Nation running while the men were overseas fighting. Women were becoming lawyers, plumbers, law enforcement officers, electricians, and taking over what was before considered all male dominated industries. And it didn't revert when the war ended. And over the decades that followed the skirts got shorter and the tops covered less, so lets not act like sexual distraction ceased to exists. In fact quite the opposite was true and that's why they called the following generation the "Baby Boomers." But we were already on top of it because in 1913, Chicago became the first major city to implement sex ed for high schools. It took rampant STDs during WWI to get the federal government involved in sex ed. In 1918, Congress passed The Chamberlain-Kahn Act, which allocated money to educate soldiers about syphilis and gonorrhea. During this time, Americans began to view sex ed as a public-health issue. The American Hygiene Association, founded in 1914 as part of the Progressive-era social purity movement, helped teach soldiers about sexual hygiene throughout the war. Instructors used a machine called the stereomotorgraph to show soldiers microscopic slides of syphilis and gonorrhea organisms, as well as symptoms of the diseases on the body of an actual soldier. A 1919 report from the U.S. Department of Labor's Children's Bureau likewise suggested that soldiers would have been better off if they had received sex instruction in school. "The worries and doubts and brooding imposed on boys and girls of the adolescent period as a result of lack of simple knowledge is a cruelty on the part of any society that is able to furnish that instruction," wrote the author of the report. The military's sex-ed programs inspired similar instruction in secondary schools. During the 1920s, schools began to integrate sex ed into their curriculum. So we've moved past the necessity of segregating the genders in schools and it would be devastating to all of us if women had to revert back to an era when they couldn't compete with men in the work-force. Every household depends on at least two incomes now, the textile industry has been shipping out to SE Asia and the communication support jobs have been replaced with computer-automated software. It is already competitive to get a good college education in the US even these days, segregating the colleges again would put opportunity for many female students out of reach, and the bottom-line is that the days that a husband can support a family on one paycheck are long gone. The US is one of the last modern societies in the world to accept females in combat roles in the military because of the exact same concerns that people have about integrating the school system. But the World has already shown us that those fears are not well founded.
Schools cannot do "whatever they want" just because they are private. Schools are limited in their capacity based on the funding that is available to them. The number one "public" high school in the US (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology) is located in my backyard. Even though it is under the banner of "public" it actually operates as if it is "private" with high tuition-costs and stiff requirements for enrollment. It boosts of it's high graduation-rate, but the truth is that any student that fails to maintain a minimum standard of excellence gets the boot regardless of their ability to cover tuition. This is how the school is able to hold its title of excellence. And again, that's a public school. Education costs money, and a quality education cost even more money. So now you say that a school that just teaches one gender can compete for funding that a school that has it's doors open to all genders somehow are on the same level in quality? Do you think schools with female basketball teams generate more revenues than schools with male basketball teams? What about foot-ball? Schools have always depended on their ability to compete in sports as their back-bone of revenue. There are no female sports that garner more attention and revenue then their male counter-part. So even if you are seeking a law or medical degree, or even computer-science degree, you will receive the best education at a school with a strong athletics program. Well maybe not so much for a law degree because they're just memorizing books and being taught how to debate. But science degrees require equipment, and that equipment isn't cheap.
T. Jefferson HS may be the best. But if it's a public school - supported by taxes, likely property taxes in the US - then it doesn't depend ... on their ability to compete in sports as their back-bone of revenue. They are subsidized by the state, & mostly by local property taxes. If we're talking colleges & universities, you may have a point about the football & basketball teams raising money for the athletic department. However, what I recall of that is that the money so raised typically goes into athletic scholarships or salaries & perks for the Athletic Dept. staffs, or improving the Athletic Dept. infrastructure - stadium, parking, surface road network, etc. Very little of that money brought in - & it can be eyebrow-raising amounts - goes into the general fund to help pay for actual education, or general scholarships, or operating costs of the college or university. Offhand, I think it's a bad deal for education to mistake a football or basketball team for the school itself. But certainly the Athletic Depts. across our Show Biz Nation aren't about to disabuse anybody who goes along with the program. & now for a word from our sponsor ...
Athletics department milk students for every bit of their abilities (despite health risks) and those students are (despite intelligence) rewarded greatly. Don't think for a second that the school is rewarding these student for being neanderthals and the school itself is getting nothing in return. But the best schools for science don't have the best athletes, yet they also won't drop their athletics departments. You're not going to find too many endurance athletes willing to seek a career that involves putting on a suit and sitting in an office all day. Those individuals have to be physically-active, constantly. But science related careers require individuals that are mentally-active. Sure, you have doctors and lawyers that hit the gym, just as you have stock-traders that live in the gym, but they're doing it to maintain that mental-competitive edge. Most of them aren't pumping iron or playing professional sports because those (in our backwards society) are profitable careers in their own right. Arnold Schwarzenegger went from weightlifting, to film-entertainment, to politics. Dwayne Johnson (the rock) went from football, to wrestling, to film-entertainment. Nothing in the science industry. Female athletes never excel past their athletic careers into anything else. Yet today females are competing with their male-counterparts in every industry. That never existed before gender integration.
I find children with opposite sex siblings generally are able to relate better to the opposite sex, not so much whether they went to an all boys or all girls school. My children's friends who are "only" children or has same sex siblings generally can't relate very well to my daughter (if they're boys) or my son (if they are girls), interactions are often awkward and even at times fuelled with frustration. My daughter hated my son's best friend for a long time before he learnt how to deal with her, they get on well now (I think he learned there's no point in being rude to her... being nice is far less painful ) As far as schools go, just had a conversation with my daughter 10 minutes ago about a boy in her class that keeps following her around and touches her (not inappropriately though) She's in tears, she has spoken to the teacher but the boy just doesn't seem to give up or understand that he's crowding her. She is part of a group of girls but is also friends with another boy who trades pokemon with her, so the problem with the other boy is clearly a crowding issue not gender and the fact he keeps touching or poking her to get her attention. I don't think schools should be segregated, however do believe boys and girls learn differently and school is geared to benefit girls more than boys. Boys tend to have a deeper comprehension of processes (particularly in things like circuit boards etc) but girls the better memory.
With respect, that isn't relevant, the Taliban have their views based on suppressing women. It has been proven that in western society girls perform better at single sex schools, and especially in "male oriented" subjects such as science and maths. The "sexism" argument in entirely specious as co-ed schools operate to practically suppress women. I am afraid in this circumstance, you are the one arguing to suppress women and diminish their earnings capacity. (although I appreciate totally not your intent!) That was always a pretty dumb argument from the military old guard, but mainly because we are talking about adults there, but we are talking about children in schools. By legal definition, we don't trust their judgement. As for people we legally trust to run around with bazookas, one would hope we have confidence in their temperament.
Yes there's probably a lot to that. There is much to recommend interaction outside the classroom. Probably more so than interaction in the class-room, when you think about it, because that is quite an unnatural environment. So what would you recommended as an alternative?
You know, that's the biggest problem with these opinion-based threads, everyone can rely on their opinion as facts. Gender equity advocates have compiled mounting evidence that K-12 public school sex segregation is not justifiable either educationally, or legally. 5 For example: Most of this deliberate sex segregation increases sex-stereotypes and is not justifiable as an instructional strategy, i.e. there is no evidence that girls and boys (as a group) learn differently, need to be taught differently, or need to be educated in separate classes.6 Sex-segregated girls and boys are rarely treated equitably—separate is not equal when considering race or sex. 7 Students in sex-segregated classes do not have better educational outcomes than comparable students in equitably resourced co-educational classes.8 Sex-segregated education generally costs more than coeducation due to additional administrative procedures, duplicate services, facilities and staff, additional specialized teacher training, increased evaluation requirements, and the need for legal services. Exclusionary sex discrimination generally violates Title IX, the US Constitution, and some state Equal Rights Amendments, as well as specific laws that protect against race and sex segregation and discrimination related to LGBT status (sexual orientation) and gender identity. 9 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ discrimination principles were violated by many schools with sex-segregated education which in this report includes coed schools with single-sex academic classes and entire single-sex public schools. 4 http://www.feminist.org/education/pdfs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf 5 Reasons and references to evidence ranging from Susan Bailey’s Fall 2013 Ms article “Failing our kids: Despite pseudoscience to the contrary, sex segregation in public schools creates problems---not solutions” to academic meta-analyses of research studies on single-sex education are on our FMF sex segregation web page www.feminist.org/education/sexsegregation/asp and many are cited in the reference list of this report. 6 There are more individual differences within groups of girls or of boys than between groups of girls and boys. 7 The Oct. 2014 OCR guidance on equitable resources noted in footnote 2 provides many examples of education resource inequities ranging from qualifications of teachers to physical facilities. 8 If a school has rigorous evidence that their sex segregation is more effective in producing significantly better outcomes than comparable quality coeducation, they might be able to justify their sex separation using the exception in Title IX that allows single-sex education if it advances gender equitable outcomes. For example, sex separation is allowed in contact sports if it increases the participation of girls in athletic teams, but there are thousands of Title IX athletic complaints because the separate teams rarely benefit from equal facilities and support. 9 Since there are so many individual differences it is hard to justify excluding a person just because of their location on the biological sex or gender identity continuum even in areas such as contact sports where Title IX allows different sex teams.
Your source does not say this Your sources related to the provision of athletic equipment for crying out loud! Putting you source in small text as a footnote doesn't make it any better. A footnote of a footnote is even worse. Here is a real data source from Penn State: Girls attending girls' schools were significantly more likely to attend a 4-year college compared with girls attending coed schools (Cohen's d = 0.5, p < 0.01). Likewise, boys who graduated from boys' schools were significantly more likely to attend a 4-year college compared with boys who graduated from coed schools (Cohen's d = 0.8, p < 0.01). All these effects remain significant after controlling for eligibility for free school lunches, prior academic achievement, and other demographic and student parameters. Boys at boys' schools also earned significantly higher test scores compared with boys at coed schools; likewise, girls at girls' schools also earned significantly higher test scores compared with girls at coed schoolshttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-012-0157-1 Source? Irrelevant
