SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL -- UPDATED

The fabulous L. at Homesick Home pointed me to this proposed class action brought by the ACLU challenging a Louisiana public school district's plans to implement single-sex education in junior high (ages approximately 11 - 14) based on overbroad stereotypes about the differing interests and abilities of boys and girls.  Here are some highlights from the plaintiff's Complaint:

. . . 44. Mr. Murphy briefly outlined the differences in instruction that would be given to girls and to boys.

      45. For instance, girls would receive character education and be subject to high expectations both academically and socially.  Girls would be taught math through "hands-on" approaches.  Field trips, physical movement, and multisensory strategies would be incorporated into girls' classes.  Girls would act as mentors for elementary school girls.

NOTE:  While "character education" sounds harmless enough, why do I have the sense that character education for girls is going to consist of girls being taught to quietly and mildly follow the rules while waiting for the boys to save them from any real harm?  The next paragraph does nothing to reassure me.

    46.  On the other hand, boys' teachers would teach and discuss "heroic" behavior and ideas "that show adolescents what it means to truly 'be a man.'  Boys' classes would include consistently applied discipline systems and offer tension release strategies.  Boys' classes would also feature more group assignments.

    47.  Mr. Murphy explained that the approaches the Southside Junior High School would utilize were based on the work of Leonard Sax and Michael Gurian, two popular writers on gender differences.

. . .53. Dr. Sax is a medical doctor with a Ph.D in psychology who has styled himself an expert on and advocate for single-sex education. He does not perform scientific research and he does not have training in education.

. . . 54. In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax states that because of biological differences in the brain, boys need to practice pursuing and killing prey, while girls need to practice taking care of babies.  As a result, boys should be permitted to roughhouse during recess and play contact sports, to learn the rules of aggression. Such play is more dangerous for girls, because girls are less biologically able to manage aggression.

. . . 57.  In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax urges that boys be taught in competitive, high-energy teams.  In contrast, teachers should assure that girls are relaxed in class.  For instance, girls should be encouraged to take their shoes off.  Also, girls should never be given strict time limits to complete tasks.  Stress makes boys perform better and girls perform worse, according to Dr. Sax.

NOTE:  So much for raising girls to go into fields like, say, litigation . . .  This reminds me of one of the best classes I ever took -- first year Latin in ninth grade -- where we were subject to very fast paced competitive drills in vocabulary and grammar.  The top three students in the co-ed class were girls.  Boy were we girls loaded for bear every day and boy did we know the subject matter cold by the end of the year.

       58. In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax explains that because of sex differences in the brain, girls need real world applications to understand math, while boys naturally understand math theory.  For instance, girls understand number theory better when they can count flower petals or segments of artichokes to make the theory concrete.

     QUERY:  In junior high?!?!?  (In fairness, it's not clear to me whether Dr. Sax IS referring to junior high kids here, but this guy is making me very nervous . . .)

      59.  In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax explains that literature teachers should not ask boys about emotions in literature, but should simply focus on what actually happened in the story.  In contrast, teachers should focus on emotions rather than action in teaching literature to girls.

     And then after being explicitly encouraged by their schooling to focus on emotions, these girls can then be grow up to be mocked by the men in their lives for talking about "feelings" all the time.

. . . 60. In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax explains that most boys enjoy taking risks, and most girls do not.

     If this is true and inherent (rather than the product of adults wringing their hands about protecting girls from stress and aggression) , then one wonders why on earth Dr. Sax advocates shielding girls from stress and aggression rather than encouraging girls to take more risks so that they can learn to rise to these types of challenges.  Like the boys who don't quite match their supposed gender norm:

. . . 62.  In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax explains that "anomalous males" -- boys who like to read, who don't enjoy competitive sports or rough-and-tumble play, and who don't have a lot of close male friends -- should be firmly disciplined, should spend as much time as possible with "normal males," and should be made to play competitive sports.

There is more but I had better wrap this up.  The attorneys conclude very simply pointing out the problem with the approach of Dr. Sax and the school district:

. . . 77.  All girls are not alike.  Research demonstrates that the psychological differences between individual girls are far larger than any average phychological differences between girls and boys.

     78.  All boys are not alike.  Research demonstrates that the psychological differences between individual boys are far larger than any average psychological differences between boys and girls.

    79.  Psychological research demonstrates that on average, boys and girls are psychologically more alike than different.

   80.  Gender is an imprecise proxy for psychological, emotional, and developmental differences in adolescents. 

It is a common critique that feminists deny any differences between the sexes.  But no serious feminist does.  Obviously, neurological and hormonal differences play a role in our behavior and intellectual development. What feminists say -- over and over again -- is that we have to proceed with extreme caution in evaluating and acting on these differences.  With all sort of overblown and very ingrained cultural assumptions and stereotypes permeating our lives, we tend to assign far too much weight and leap to all sorts of unsupported conclusions whenever we learn about a particular average difference between the sexes.  And we tend to forget that the sexes are far more alike than different and that many people don't match the supposed norm for their gender.  These conclusions naturally tend towards the notion that women are less capable all around, except in tasks like tending home and hearth which happen to be unpaid and unpowerful jobs. 

I do not necessarily have a problem with single-sex education in and of itself.  I myself experienced a single sex educational environment for four years when I attended Mount Holyoke College.  The difference there is that the educators at Mount Holyoke and similar women's colleges, both historically and today, used single-sex education as an opportunity to free students from damaging gender stereotypes.  For example, as far back as 1837, Mary Lyon the founder of Mount Holyoke believed there was no limit to what women students could master in the fields of math and science (or any other field).  As a result, Mount Holyoke has a tradition that carries on to this day of undergraduates performing very high level work in the sciences, especially chemistry and physics.   

It appears that in the case of the Louisiana school district, however, single sex education will further entrench students of both sexes in damaging stereotypes.  Note that the "anomolous males" who don't conform to supposed "gender norms" will be forced to toughen up whereas females will be spared from such toughening regardless of their proclivities.  This sounds like a definite case of "separate and unequal" and I am sure the reality of it will be even worse than the theory.    

UPDATE:  Shakespeare's Sister has some good commentary on the "Boy Crisis" and proposed "solutions" to it here.

Comments

[TangoMan]

Why are you afraid to engage the complexity of real world

How long have you been reading Happy's blog? :)

Note also that the specific, specified disparities discussed in pts. 77-79 refer to "psychological differences,"

I already addressed this at length in the apples to oranges comment above.

you believe this is incompatible with opposition to institutionalized sexism.

Not quite. Most of these types of reforms are initiated to undo the effects of institutionalized sexism that was imposed on the curricula of many districts after the "Girl Crisis" inspired reforms designed by the National Council of Teachers of English and National Counicl of Teachers of Mathematics in the early 1990s, which has led to a growing gender grade disparity that is wider than the gender test disparity. This is one of the reasons that universities are finding the predictive validity of HS GPA to be rapidly declining in relation to testing instruments like the SAT, which have remained fairly stable over the period. Girls are doing much better in earning grades than boys in large part due to the curricula reform (instiutionalized sexism) but those grades aren't measuring content mastery as well as objective tests.

You know, keeping a math journal and sharing your feelings about math problems is a great way to earn points toward your final grade but it does jack for improving content mastery. This is simply another stupid educational fad but one that far more girls will comply with than boys.

[TangoMan]

boys are hyperactive children who cannot learn to read fiction, learn social sciences, empathize, or have insight".

That's a simplification. Boys aren't interested in reading much of Young Adult Literature that is assigned and deals with topics like racism, substance abuse, sexism, date rape, divorce, bullying, and the other social agenda issues that educational reformers and their feminist enablers are pushing into the schools. Boys have no trouble in reading fiction that has appeal to them.

As for learning social sciences, well when a social studies class devotes as much time to the changing skirt lengths and roles of women during WWII as to the battles, geopolitical motivations, and military history and famous generals and heroes then boys tend to tune out because they're not really interested in the feminist agenda filtered through the guise of American History.

As much as I slag on feminism I don't have a problem with people choosing to adhere to the philosophy and live their personal lives accordingly, but I do object in the strongest terms to having it infect basic educational curricula with the aim of using the curricula as an agent of social transformation.

[Dan S.]

"You know, keeping a math journal and sharing your feelings about math problems is a great way to earn points toward your final grade but it does jack for improving content mastery."

For reality-based information about/discussion & examples of math journals, see for example here (with multiple links - first broken, others good). "Sharing your feelings about math problems" has a small role - mostly in getting kids writing (if they can't think of anything else, they can at least say they thought it was hard/easy, fun/didn't like it). One of the main purposes is helping to get kids started thinking about thinking - metacognition:

"Students who think metacognitively are aware of their own thinking processes, have effective strategies to achieve their learning goals, and make conscious choices about how they are going to learn. They use executive control mechanisms to monitor their learning and adjust their strategies when they are not being as effective or successful as they would like."

"As for learning social sciences, well when a social studies class devotes as much time to the changing skirt lengths and roles of women during WWII as to the battles, geopolitical motivations, and military history and famous generals and heroes . . ."

Then it sounds like a pretty neat social studies class (although I fear that "roles of women during WWII") is imagined by the writer to mean 'brave women ambulance drivers," rather than mostly a glance (using at least one famous primary source) at the experiences, for example, of many American women during the war , which arguably influenced certain developments that Tangoman finds so slag-worthy.

I want to hear more! Tangoman - what textbook is this from? Or do you have lesson plans, or anecdotes about a class you've witnessed (or heard about) . . . ?

[evil_fizz]

Boys aren't interested in reading much of Young Adult Literature that is assigned and deals with topics like racism, substance abuse, sexism, date rape, divorce, bullying, and the other social agenda issues that educational reformers and their feminist enablers are pushing into the schools. Boys have no trouble in reading fiction that has appeal to them.

So, we should give boys books about wars, guns, and fast cars and not expect them to address real issues in their reading? Come on. There's a huge difference between the things you'd choose to check out of the library and the things you've got to read for class.

I'd also point out that much of what's required in school is not particularly popular with students. I appreciate having read Invisible Man, Ulysses, and Light in August, but I'm certainly not going to be picking them up again for pleasure reading.

[The Happy Feminist]

"As for learning social sciences, well when a social studies class devotes as much time to the changing skirt lengths and roles of women during WWII as to the battles, geopolitical motivations, and military history and famous generals and heroes . . ."

Wow. Just -- wow. God forbid that the little princlings have to even consider the historical experience of the less important half of the human race. We certainly wouldn't want to burden them with such trifling and boring matters.

I wouldn't assign "military history" central importance anyway. Not because of any ideological opposition to war, but because learning about specific military maneuvers and technology is only one small part of the story -- the real action relates to the political, economic, diplomatic, and religious forces that propels countries into war to begin with. Certainly, I also think it is important to look at the ways in which a war, like World War II, has an effect on society many decades down the road after all the fighting has done -- including even the effects it may have on the status of the inferior sex that those poor schoolboys shouldn't be bothered having to think about.

[TangoMan]

World War II, has an effect on society many decades down the road after all the fighting has done

Terrific - that's what college level history classes are for, not a student's first introduction to the history of WWII when they are in junior high school.

I wouldn't assign "military history" central importance anyway.

I think you misunderstood - the time alloted to all of the topics, including military history, was about equal to the time alloted to the changing roles of women during that period and the changing skirt lengths.

One of the main purposes is helping to get kids started thinking about thinking - metacognition:

You come across as an education major. If so, terrific, for I'm quite familiar with that field's body of literature and I'd love for you to defend the rigor and validity of education "research."

although I fear that "roles of women during WWII") is imagined by the writer to mean 'brave women ambulance drivers,"

Save your psychoanalysis of me for your blog. Idiot.

So, we should give boys books about wars, guns, and fast cars and not expect them to address real issues in their reading?

False dichotomy. The core issue here is whether it is better to push the ideological social agenda topics which turn off young boys to reading or to put aside the feminist, multiculturalist, and liberal brainwashing and provide reading material that has substance but which also is of interest to young boys. Take a book like Red Badge of Courage - there's nothing that feminists should object to other than it has boys as main characters, and deals with their fears about war and is set in the patriarchal past. The book provides fertile ground for substantive literary analysis and it's engaging.

[The Happy Feminist]

I don't see any problem whatsoever with giving equal time to both military history and the changing role of women during World War II at the junior high level. It doesn't even strike me as particularly strange or ideological to do so. So maybe the girls are bored by the battle portions of the class (or maybe not) and maybe the boys are bored by hearing about women (or maybe not). The point is we don't always get to learn only about the stuff we find engaging. I think a healthy balance is key.

It is interesting how studying how a great historical event affected the female half of the human race is seen as "feminist brainwashing." One assumes therefore that paying attention to the male half of the equation only is not brainwashing or ideological at all?

[TangoMan]

It doesn't even strike me as particularly strange or ideological to do so.

It strikes me that way.

"Class, for the next four periods we're going to address American involvement in the World War. Today, Monday, we're going to look at the causes that led to American entrance into the war and the political leadership, their decisions and the mobilization that followed. Then for a change of pace, on Tuesday, we're going to examine the changing role of fashion as women responded to greater freedom and increased responsibility on the homefront as most of the men were overseas - we're going to look at how changing skirt lengths represent an embrace of freedom and how the skirt lengths changed shortly after the war ended. Then continuing on that theme, on Wednesday we're going to learn about the vital role women played in the productive war economy and how manufacturers had to overcome their skepticism about women's suitability for that role - for homework you should read the personal accounts of Rosie the Riveter. Then to wrap up this module, on Thursday, we're going to look at the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor and the D-Day invasion, and yes there were a number of other battles, but you know, one battle is just like another. Yes, Susie I see you have your hand up, what's your question?"

"Will you teach us why we dropped two A-bombs on Japan and if there were other alternatives?"

"No, there's no time to go into meaningless minutia like that. Make sure you complete your project of creating a collage of women's fashions during the WWII era."

[The Happy Feminist]

You're right. The lives of women during the war and how it affected women's role in society -- completely foolish. Doesn't warrant any time because no serious person gives a crap about women.
(End sarcasm.)

And, by the way, women's role in society is defined by more than just fashion. If indeed the curriculum were stressing that aspect of women's lives, I would think that was not only silly but not very feminist. But you seem to object to having the children study the effect the war had on women's roles and women's status in society even apart from fashion because you deem these issues insignificant or unimportant. I can't fathom why; the only conclusion I am left with is that you deem the lives and concerns and status of women to be trivial and that you deem women themselves to be trivial.

[L.]

This comment thread reminds me of when we read "A Farewell to Arms" in my tenth-grade suburban public school English class, and my old fuddy-duddy English teacher said, "The boys will like it because it`s a war story, and the girls will like it because it`s a love story."
And one girl asked her, "Why can`t the girls like it because it`s a war story?"

See, high school kids were already making fun of people using gender stereotypes, way back in 1980.

So TangoMan, I can hear the pterodactyls flapping in the sky above your last comment.