"Teaching to the Testosterone"
That's a headline on the cover story in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, exploring the always controversial issue of whether boys and girls should be taught separately. The article says that single-gender classrooms and schools, which have become easier to establish as a result of No Child Left Behind, are growing exponentially in public districts. Still, the numbers are relatively small: A leading advocate quoted in the article estimated that there were a dozen public schools in the United States offering single-gender education in 2002, and there are upwards of 360 today. The article says that many of the schools are in the South or in low-income areas. Some educators are hopeful that single-gender classes can help reverse the tide of underachievement particularly for poor, minority boys.
Single-gender education has existed in the Baltimore school system for well over a century. Western High is one of the nation's oldest single-sex public schools, and probably one of the finest, too. But while Western's girls enter the school having already demonstrated a relatively high level of academic acheivement, other schools in the city are experimenting to see if single-sex education gives a boost to children coming in behind. There are single-gender classes in the middle grades at New Song Academy, a well-regarded innovation school in Sandtown. And this academic year, the charter school Bluford Drew Jemison opened as an extended-day program for middle school boys.
Does single-gender education segregate unnecessarily, or is it an effective strategy to meet students' individual needs?
Categories: Around the Nation, Baltimore City, NCLB
Baltimoresun.com's 
Comments
One thing I would say, and this is by no means all there is to this issue, is to consider that many people spend large sums of money to send their children to single sex private schools. Of course this does not autmatically mean that these schools are successful, but it does give you a idea that a large segment of the population thinks they are a good idea. Just something to think about.
Posted by: Brian King | March 4, 2008 10:49 AM
Brian, your point is well taken. I would like to offer the perspective of an educator who has taught single-sex classes (although not by design). In my career, I have taught three classes that were all-male (the computer hiccuped that day). In each class, the males interacted with material that they normally rejected--poetry, creative writing--in a much more energetic and creative way than they did in a mixed classroom. I would much rather teach a room full of males than a mixed group. I think it does something for both sexes when the genders are separated both educationally and behaviorally. Students who don't have to worry about impressing the opposite sex are much more inclined to give a positive response to their studies.
Posted by: Joan | March 4, 2008 8:44 PM
Single-sex education isn't right or wrong as much as it is fitting for some kids and not others.
Posted by: Corey | March 7, 2008 8:40 AM