I am in favor of all boys schools and all girls schools, as contrasted with mixed gender schools. I think separation could reasonably start around age 5 or 6, and last through graduation of high school. I see less reason for this separation at the post-secondary level, but I can also see merits here as well.
I think that mixed gender schools tend to create a lot of confusion and chaos in children’s lives, where education and self-discovery should be paramount. Exposure to opposite sex is necessary, but that can occur outside of the more structured learning environment. Where there is no separation at all, where boys and girls are entirely mixed together all the time, the environment this produces can be harmful to education and to development of self-discovery and maturity in the young individual. The opposite sex contains lots of power, so the individual should have developed at least a rudimentary self-understanding and sense of identity needed to withstand this power in a healthy way, rather than internalizing unmanageable conflicts or difficult feelings that cannot yet be understood. Perhaps we could start integrating genders back together at around age 15 or 16, the age where individuals should be passing through social rituals to allow access into the adult world. We don’t have these rituals in Western society, but we should (another topic entirely).
I like the Japansese (and Chinese?) model of boys schools and girls schools, with children wearing uniforms. The situation need not be quite as draconian as it may be, but the right idea is there. In the West, fashion and popularity become more important to children than learning and self-discovery. Growth becomes more shallow and externally-directed, because there are properly no actual molds or channels for development to which the young child is subject. Energy is dispersed, dissipated, there is little structure to provide a solid learning or a solid development of self-identity as maturity and mastery of one’s impulses, desires and emotions.
Gender division in education should be mandatory for children from the time they are able to realistically identify each other as differing genders, until the time when they become “adults”. Maturity continues to develop well after 15-16 years old, well after 18 years old even, but the social recognition of as dividing line at around this age is an important psychological marker. Without this demarcation the mind loses focus and intention and potentiality tend to lag, unframed, as the individual is left mostly helpless to discover how he or she might shift perspectives and meaningful reference points to establish a new world of identity and value potential. But again, that’s a separate issue. Let’s just start with the recognition of the importance of gender division in education, we can move on to other related concerns later.
I appreciate that you are certainly enthusiastic about your ideas to improve the world. But I think you could possibly improve these ideas with some more learning/research.
Saying I need more “learning/research” without saying what is wrong with my ideas here is just disingenuous. As is your pasting links as if that were a substitute for conversation or debate.
Well I didn’t actually say I thought you were wrong … and I was trying trying to be as courteous as possible…
Look if you wish to learn more look at the links I post… if not then whatever. Here is guy on youtube also that posts some great (in my opinion) videos… youtube.com/watch?v=BFJmmz80er8.
Not to be personal but it sounds to me like you had a hard time with the opposite sex in high school, which is totally understandable (I know I certainly did)… and you are projecting … you say the opposite sex has all this ‘power’ but don’t really say why…
School is enough like a prison already. Psychologically healthy human beings need interaction with the opposite sex… it is natural.
I think gender separation is reasonable enough not to imply a projection from the supporting individual. I believe many behavioral specialists would agree with such a method. In fact, the only issue I see not being addressed in Aletheia’s OP is the issue of homosexuality: for a homosexual, such an environment would serve only to exacerbate their predicament.
Aletheia is not suggesting gender separation everywhere, just in the classroom/school (so long as I am understanding properly). They are by no means isolated from the opposite sex. Frankly, I don’t see how the influence of sex is not an issue in the learning space, especially if said space is their predominant source of opposite sex contact. Such a situation can shift the priority from learning and personal development to opposite sex relationships.
I would also add a class-size limit in the ballpark of eight to ten individuals per class, with a more personalized system than current public schooling, which is cookie-cutter at best. This, however, is another topic.
Wow !! nope no bad idea . Lets look at it from a family view. You rarely have kids of the same gender. You want to seperate family? You want Mom and Dad to have to deal with two schools while trying to support their family? Having my older sibs in school with me helped alot. Me alone in a school would have sucked and been harder on me. I do not condone seperating siblings in such a way. It could or would tear them apart. One gender would be flaunting that they are better than the other by way of their school… There is also no one at that school to help you out if your sibs ar not of your gender. Family togetherness is important. As important as education.
Most Chinese schools are co-ed. Division is normally made by type of high school (academic or vocational). Although, most Chinese schools are also boarding and obviously there is strict separation in accommodation.
This, and the rest of your post, contains numerous completely unsupported assertions which frankly I don’t believe are true. Specifically how is co-ed harmful to the self discovery and maturity of children? Give examples and empirical evidence, please.
To me, the whole idea of single sex schools is flawed because it runs on the deeply old fashioned mantra of ‘boys like girls, girls like boys’. Gender isn’t that simple: there are boys who like boys, girls who like girls, boys and girls who like and girls, and also boys who want to be girls and girls who want to be boys. Gender, as a concept, is not reducible to the ‘she’s got a vagina, she’s this gender and likes that gender’ attitude that single sex schools encompass.
Yes, as MathIsACircle also pointed out, the problem of homosexuality, of any alternate sexualities must be factored in. I am not denying this problem. What I am arguing is that entirely mixing children together with disregard for sexual identity and differences creates less than ideal learning environments. Perhaps the problem of homosexuality represents the imperfection of this system, its inability to completely account for gender with regard to maximizing learning potential. However, even separating based on “she has a vagina, he has a penis” is an improvement on the way things are now.
We might find alternate arrangements for children with alternative sexualities. These might be smaller settings that accomodate the needs of these individuals as best as possible, without mixing them in with a population that is sexually provocative and attractive to them. What I feel modern education lacks is an understanding of how powerful sexuality affects the child, the lure of the sexually attractive other and how this lure is a poison to educational potential. School should not be microcosms of society at large, with complex social dynamics, cliques and peer pressure conformity, anxiety and allure of attraction and dating, etc. All of these take away from the ability to LEARN, to educate, which is the focus of school. Those social activities should be nurished outside of the school environment - they should definitely be nourished, and from a young age, because this sort of socialization and attraction is an important part of psychological development. But not where learning must take precedence. The thing is: sexual relationships and attraction are psychologically more important and primary, biologically speaking, than learning. If we allow the one to overinfluence the other, you get a severe decrease in learning potential and interest, as well as a decrease in interest in personal self-discovery and strengthening of self-identity. This sort of self-awareness takes a back seat to the overpowering interests of social conformity and sexual fascination. This is just the way the body/mind work, it is “natural” but provides an obstacle to cultivating strong potential for and active interest and engagement in learning.
Children are only children for so long - it is crucial to create optimal conditions for this brief but centrally important period in their lives, for them to develop into the most self-actualized and highly intelligent, motivated people they can be. Transforming education centers into social and sexual microcosms is detrimental to this end.
Kids need their siblings, cousins and their friends at their schools. Seperating during education creates rifts. Most of the time they will not see each other or help each other if they are seperated by gender. School time takes up most of the child’s day. Social life is far less. You suggest ripping a vital part of their life apart.
I’m an only child, why didn’t that completely screw me up? Further, this is only in schoooooool. There is, I believe, the possibility of having different genders arriving at the same location and subsequently filing into two separate buildings, or even simply having classrooms themselves gender specific while allowing co-ed for recreation and lunch periods.
I’m seriously beginning to question if individuals on this board even think, or if they just pick a side, whether there is one or not, and defend it/condemn the opposing one. Surely gender separation has some serious faults. Does this mean there is inherently no benefit? You defecate, and it sure as hell stinks. I don’t believe I would enjoy the way it smells, therefor I exterminate you? No, that doesn’t seem right, does it?
If you have no sibs you did not become dependent upon them in your life. If you were born with one leg and knew nothing else but that you would be perfectly fine. But if you were born with two you would become dependent on two. So losing one would affect you would it not? Sibs depend upon each other in general. They identify with each other even if they fight like cats and dogs. Age seperation is one thing, Gender seperation creates an unnecessary rift. Age creates rifts too yes, but, why force another? Then add to that the natural competion between sibs you create another rift by making them seprate for educational purposes. My school is better than yours . Boys/girls are dumb thats why you have to go to that school, etc etc… We may fight and compete with our Sibs/cousins but, for the most part they have our backs and we depend upon that in some very important social ways.
Three main issues I see here are firstly, you are inadvertently calling me the equivalent of an amputee because I am independent as a result of not having siblings to be codependent with.
Independence is something your children need to develop.
You seem to suggest that girls, boys and siblings will not bicker and demean each other in a co-ed situation. Honestly, even this single child knows that girls and boys will call each other stupid over just about anything. If not school, because one eats cheese or like Justin Bieber.
Overall, you seem to be coming from the perspective of the mother rather than the perspective of the child. In order to build muscle, it has to be slightly damaged first. You can’t sugar coat a child’s development and then hope for the best when they hit the real world. Further, you must let the child mature. Coddling him and placing him, ever present, in the sibling hierarchy is not going to help him. In fact, it is more likely to develop complexes than any benefit.
And you have yet to acknowledge the possibility of separation in the classroom alone, allowing co-ed/age interaction everywhere else but where they are supposed to be learning.
MathIsACircle, I like your idea of gender separation as applies only in the classroom, but not to lunch or recreation, or perhaps even not to before or after school events. I think this is a useful improvement on the idea. Thanks for the contribution.
Ok forget the leg since you missed it entirely and chose to be insulted. Independence is needed but dependence upon family is needed also. Coddling does not even figure into it. You are right in many things but you are missing my point. My point is to seperate kids based on gender creates a rift that will go beyond school. They will lack common memories that bind them together. Only children are normal perfectly fine humans. But they do not have siblings that live with them. Siblings need to bond. 12 years of 5 days a week 9 to 12 months out of the year 8 hours a day seperation is alot of bonding time that they can never get back. They will become strangers. You don’t find that wrong? You don’t need it because you don’t have siblings. There is a difference, and what about twins? Or triplets etc? Seperation of that bond is good too ? I see alot of family issues when we seperate genders. Other cultures have done it since they began so of course there are very few issues , its a heridtary social meme. Our memes on the other hand are against it.
Per the leg, I was merely pointing out that you are, by the nature of the analogy, presenting being an only child as a casualty, not as full as two siblings.
I am arguing that the familial bond does not have to be biological. I dare say if you have five brothers and two sisters, all of which are either desperately poor, struggling with drugs, criminals, or insane, you should depend on them or allow them to leech off of you simply out of some misplaced sense of duty.
Per “12 years of 5 days a week 9 to 12 months out of the year 8 hours a day separation,” I have twice previously pointed to an “only in the actual classroom where learning is taking place.” This means it is not eight hours a day. Further, you make no mention of the effect of the children being separated from their family for this same period. Also, are your children all the same age? Would they be together in these classes in the first place? I personally do not remember any siblings in any of my classes, though I’m sure my various schools were not populated entirely by only children. What gives?
I have to say, Kris, speaking as an only child, I agree with MathIsACircle here. Dependence on family is not taught during school hours, it’s taught at home. Two siblings may be close as they possibly could be and still be separated during school hours, either because they’re in a different grade or because they have different teachers, or maybe one has English first period and the other has it fourth period. He’s not necessarily advocating complete segregation, just segregation during the working school hours. I like the idea of two separate buildings with the possibility of all the students having lunch and breaks together.
I grew up alone, and yet I’ve developed very strong relationships that I rely on with my cousins. I see where my relationships with them differ from the relationships they have with one another as siblings, but there is no less value there for not having grown up together and been around each other constantly, it’s just different. Speaking of 4 of my cousins specifically, who are all siblings, they went to school together but had no contact during classes as they were all in different grades, and yet their close sibling relationship remains intact. I don’t think arguing against this from a “siblings need to be together” perspective is very well thought through.
I see your opinions and conjecture, but where is there any supporting evidence that you are correct? Typically, an argument has some form of supporting evidence. You offer none. To make your case, would it not be useful to show comparative studies supporting your opinions?
And you have proof of this? Please show your proofs, I would be interested in seeing such information that has been missed by the majority of educators in the U.S.
I’m not sure self-discovery is as insular a process as that. Part of developing a strong identity is knowing oneself in relation to others. I’m sure you understand how the concept of identity depends on “otherness.” So I would infer the opposite as you have, that growing up in a more diverse, heterogeneous environment would increase the possibility for a strong identity and the opportunity for self-discovery. By separating boys and girls I don’t think you’d be doing either a favor. I agree that the opposite sex/sexual interest can distract from school curriculum, but I don’t think separation is the best solution. It might be important to learn how to deal with the distraction of sexual attraction (or whatever) sooner rather than later.
Please let me know if I missed an important point you made. I am genuinely interested in this issue.
I’ve given this some additional thought and discussed the topic with my mother (who happens to be a middle school teacher with experience in both co-ed and gender specific classrooms) So here’s my revised proposal:
The classrooms themselves are gender specific, while the building itself remains unchanged. The halls between classes, lunch rooms during lunch periods et cetera remain co-ed. This system is only in action in middle and high school.
From what I gather, the presence of the opposite sex in the learning environment during pubescent and peak hormonal periods in the student’s life causes a substantial distraction from studies. I have no figures to cite, as this pulls primarily from the experience of myself as a volunteer teacher and my mother as a full-time teacher in the middle school environment. I will, however, search for any similar studies.
Fuse, I would generally agree that learning to control sexual urges would be the way to go, but I doubt whether simple conditioning would enact a change during these initial hormonal cycles…which is where I think the classroom (as opposed to school) separation shows potential.