More public schools splitting up boys, girls

[Starry Messenger]

5. More on the studies of Leonard Sax, the web owner of Single Sex Schools-

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6050/1706.summary

No Evidence from Brain Research

"Brain researchers have proven that boys learn differently than girls," said a teacher in a SS public-school classroom (14). This statement reflects misinformation about neurobehavioral science. Neuroscientists have found few sex differences in children's brains beyond the larger volume of boys' brains and the earlier completion of girls' brain growth, neither of which is known to relate to learning (75). In adults, certain sex differences have been reported (e.g., in brain activation patterns, auditory thresholds, memory performance) (16-18), but none are substantial enough to justify different educational methods. Moreover, sex differences in adult brains cannot be assumed to be mirrored in children. Sex differences in adults' neural structure or function may result from a lifetime of sex-differentiated experiences rather than "hardwiring" (7 7).

But this is not what educators, parents, and school boards hear about brain-related sex differences. In an article in a teachers' journal, for example, Leonard Sax (Executive Director of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education) states that boys and girls need different classrooms because of differences in autonomic nervous system function (19). Extrapolating from research on adults' cardiovascular regulation, he concludes that boys respond to classroom stress by activating the sympathetic nervous system, whereas girls respond by activating the parasympathetic nervous system.

Sax then infers that boys are "thrilled" and "aroused" by loud, energetic teachers, whereas girls are intimidated, even to the point of nausea. He consequently counsels that boys should be taught through loud confrontation ("What's your answer, Mr. Jackson? Give it to me!&quot , whereas, girls should be approached with a gentler touch ("Lisa, sweetie, it's time to open your book.&quot (19). In his books, Web site, and teacher-training programs, Sax rationalizes different educational experiences for boys and girls by using obscure and isolated findings about brain maturation, hearing, vision, and temperature sensitivity (20). Although scientists have debunked many such claims as "pseudoscience" (17,21), this message has yet to reach many educators who are implementing such recommendations in SS classes within coeducational schools.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/the_single_sex_school_myth_an_overwhelming_body_of_research_show.single.html

The Feminist Case Against Single-Sex Schools
No, the studies don’t show that girls’ schools are better for girls. But they’re sure great at perpetuating sexist attitudes.

Together with six co-authors, we recently published a peer-reviewed article in the journal Science, “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Education,” in which we align ourselves with the latter group of feminists. It’s a provocative title, but our paper supported it with three lines of evidence. Now, our challenge is to persuade the first group of feminists that the very existence of segregated academies reinforces cultural attitudes about gender differences and abilities. But before we get to that part of the case, let’s look at the three lines of research we reviewed for Science.

First, decades of research on academic outcomes from around the world has failed to demonstrate an advantage to single-sex schooling, in spite of popular belief to the contrary. Of course, there are some terrific single-sex schools out there. However, research finds that their success is not explained by gender composition, but by the characteristics of the entering students (such as economic background), by selection effects (for example, low performing students are not admitted, or are asked to leave), and by the substantial extra resources and mentoring these programs provide. When researchers control for these factors, the advantages of single-sex schooling disappear. (And in the case of boys, the research looks even more favorable for coeducation—interesting, given how much the current surge of interest in single-sex programs is directed at them.)

The second line of evidence stems from neuroscience. It has become common lore among parents and teachers that gender differences in brain function mean “boys and girls learn differently.” However, the bulk of scientific evidence demonstrates nothing of the sort. Thousands of studies comparing brain and behavioral function between adult men and women have found small to insignificant differences, and even smaller differences between boys and girls.

This is important, because much of the new single-gender K-12 pedagogy is based precisely on the idea that girls and boys need different—and often highly gender-stereotypic—learning environments to thrive. News reports describe girls’ classrooms in which the lights are low, the temperature is elevated, students are seated in small, collaborative clusters, and teachers are trained to speak gently and quietly as they conduct lessons involving fashion and wedding planning. Boys’ rooms, in some communities, are brightly lit, with the temperature turned down, the desks removed, and the boys engaged by loud, assertive teachers who keep them running relays and tossing balls during math lessons. Even preschools have followed the trend. And in spite of many feminists’ belief that single-sex instruction counters it, such sexism still lurks at all-girls’ schools, albeit in a more subtle and therefore pernicious form, according to University of Michigan professor of education Valerie Lee and her colleagues. (Such sexism was also apparent in California in the late-1990s, when a state-sponsored experimental single-sex program failed: Five of its six academies closed within three years, with researchers finding that teachers in single-sex classrooms tended to reinforce, rather than break down, traditional gender stereotypes.)