Boys and Girls in America

When I first saw this story out of Arizona, about a high school looking to ban hugs that last more than two seconds, I had the same initial reaction to it as the girl in the article: "totally ridiculuous". Not two minutes later, however, I came across a local story that detailed two adolescent boys sexually assaulting a girl in the bathroom of their public middle school. Suddenly, perhaps, not so ridiculous after all. Certainly, it could be argued that one school is hyperreacting to the natural tendencies of teenagers to respond to each other through touch, whether that touch is sexual or non-sexual, walk through the halls of a middle or high school as the bell rings, and you will see children hugging each other as if they've been separated for a lifetime, and not simply since 4th period. It could also be argued that one school is not attentive to the basic safety needs of younger adolescents who, in the course of exploring who they are developmentally, are not getting the best role models from society and popular culture. Who knows? I'm not sure if there is a right or wrong view to either of these stories, but it was certainly an interesting juxtaposition on a Sunday morning.

And, as if to lead me to my natural penchant for a middle ground, I read this fascinating article in the New York Times Magazine about a blossoming movement for single-sex public schools. Many of you familiar with public education laws and regulations see that label and start screaming, "Title IX, Title IX!!", as does the ACLU attorney monitoring this issue, who is quoted in this article. And yes, Title IX does expand upon the basic 14th Amendment prohibitions on gender discrimination by stating that public schools are not allowed to exclude boys or girls from programs solely based on their gender. We see this played out mostly in sports, but it applies to all public school systems. Co-ed, or unfunded, essentially. So, how does the single sex schooling movement justify itself, and receive public money to create these schools and classrooms?

One arm of the movement is spearheaded by the brain research of Leonard Sax, who uses his findings to claim that boys and girls are "wired differently" and therefore, should be taught differently. There have been modest successes in schools subscribing to this viewpoint, and I could detail to you a thousand meetings I've sat in with underachieving adolescent boys, who, when tested, show themselves to be quite bright and academically capable, but are struggling in middle school. The oft-repeated line in those meetings: he lacks motivation. And the article points to several schools in economically disadvantaged communities where single-sex classrooms and schools are working well for the students they serve. As quoted in the article,

Despite six years of No Child Left Behind, the achievement gaps between rich and poor students and white and black students have not significantly narrowed. “People are getting desperate” is how Benjamin Wright, chief administrative officer for the Nashville public schools, described the current interest in single-sex education to me. “Coed’s not working. Time to try something else.”

And many communities see this "something else" as the way to bring their students to high achievement levels.

The other side of the single-sex schools movement comes from Ann Rubenstein Tisch, who helped found The Young Womens Leadership School in Harlem. She feels that the brain research angle is too limiting, and states, “Nobody is planning the days of our girls around a photograph of a brain.” This school's philosophy is based largely on social reasons. Her single gender focus was framed by tours of elite private girls schools, social-economic research, and court decisions about schooling and gender, which will allow schools to provide single-sex education as long as a co-ed choice remains available.

This choice, it seems, is the lynchpin of the arguement both for and against. Academic research comparing co-ed versus same sex schools is largely inconclusive; however, what both models do illustrate is the power of parental choice and parental involvement in their children's educational needs.

...disadvantaged students at single-sex schools have higher scores on standardized math, reading, science and civics tests than their counterparts in coed schools. There are two prevailing theories to explain this: one is that single-sex schools are indeed better at providing kids with a positive sense of themselves as students, to compete with the antiacademic influences of youth culture; the other is that in order to end up in a single-sex classroom, you need to have a parent who has made what educators call “a pro-academic choice.” You need a parent who at least cares enough to read the notices sent home and go through the process of making a choice — any choice.

I work in a public school, and I can tell you, anecdotally, there are many days were having the boys and girls separated is a very good thing, and there are other days it's certainly better for them to be together. But, what I can tell you, definitively, is that the students I see who's parents are involved in their lives every day, and hold their own children accountable every day, are the students who succeed, across all demographic labels: gender, economics, race, disability category.

Which brings me back to the original two stories I posted. Would single-sex schooling have mitigated the problems in each of those articles? Perhaps not in the first; adolescent girls hug each other constantly. In the second article, maybe yes. The New York Times story makes some pretty powerful statements about how the single-sex classrooms and high schools allow education in a de-sexualized environment, which is often radically different from the environments the students live in. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen, but certainly in terms of eliminating fear of assault for at least part of the day cannot be bad. Allowing boys and girls to see there are options for their lives beyond the lure of pop culture is also motivating and powerful. I'm still not sure single-sex schooling is the answer, but it definitely brings up interesting questions.