The article begins by reviewing surprising new studies that suggest girls in single-gendered schools base their own self-worth more on social standing than academic success (as opposed to coed schools, which weigh the opposite more heavily). These results contradict conventional wisdom which would say eliminating the distraction of boys (mainly romantic drama) would lead to greater academic success and less concern regarding social confidence. A lot of this can be explained by the social dosage hypothesis, which claims that when either gender is segregated, each will get an extra strong dose of what it is to be "that gender".
Although past studies have shown that all-girls schools have empowered women academically, there are many reasons to believe that such an environment could be poisonous to gender equality.
In her book Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps - and What We Can Do About It, Lise Eliot spends a significant portion of a chapter discussing various reasons why single-gendered schools can be harmful. Many of Eliot's arguments are backed by research on "pilot" single-gendered schools. Although a strong positive of single-gendered schools is that each has strong, dedicated teachers of that gender serving as pro-academic role models, Eliot contrasts this with many negatives. In all of the research she has examined regarding the academic achievement of those in single sex schools versus those in coeducational schools, she has found no convincing evidence there is any difference. In addition, segregation tended to reinforce stereotypes, which led to the eventual closing of the pilot schools.
An underlying theme in Eliot's book is that scientists have only uncovered small differences between the brains of boys and girls, so, naturally, she is against the argument that boys and girls need different educational experiences because their brains are different. Eliot even uses the idea of coed sports as a solution to evening up boys’ and girls’ social-emotional differences as an equal blend of boys and girls would help tone down extreme competitiveness that drives boys away from sports and help girls learn value and joy of team-based competition.
Ultimately, Eliot claims that the strongest argument against single-gender education lies in the reality of adulthood. She makes excellent points that girls and boys will eventually need to learn to work together, respect each other, and compete against each other. While single gender schools may be a good safety blanket for some students, they are never going to close the real gender gaps that Eliot spends her whole book discussing. One of her central points is that each gender has much to learn from the other. According to Eliot, in the past girls have benefited from emulating boys’ more assertive and ambitious ways, while boys have always gained from the studious example and calming influence of girls in classrooms. The article mentions that single-gendered education should not exist because it causes women to act more aggressively towards one another, but the stronger argument against it is that it allows the continuation of gender stereotypes. Coed classes are ultimately a better environment for destroying stereotypes of the opposite sex, just as any stereotype deflates when people get to know one another as individuals. "Single sex classrooms may be temporary fix, but risk of gender stereotyping and loss of mutual understanding makes such segregation a step in wrong direction."
http://healthland.time.com/2013/12/18/do-all-girls-schools-breed-feminists-or-mean-girls/
Eliot,
Lise. Pink Brain, Blue Brain: how small difference grow into
troublesome gaps and what we can do about it.New York: Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Company. 2009. Print
No comments:
Post a Comment