GOOD SCHOOLS GUIDE RESEARCH ON SINGLE-SEX GIRLS SCHOOLS IGNORES THOSE WHO NEED THE HELP THE MOST

The Guardian reported on its front page yesterday (link) that research on behalf of the Good Schools Guide (link) had revealed that "girls are far more likely to thrive, get GCSEs and stay in education if they go to a single-sex school, according to new research, which reveals pupils who are struggling academically when they start secondary school reap the biggest rewards of girls-only schooling."

Nothing wrong with this per se especially as this site has long been an advocate of single-sex education to help reduce the effects of the feminisation of education that has destroyed the schooling and opportunities of at least two generations of boys (number of articles in education section).

But the key issue is that, relatively speaking, this research is actually just pandering to the usual sexism and lack of interest in the educational needs of boys.

This is because if the Good Schools Guide really wanted to be useful and help the debate on what school structures help pupils achieve the best results, instead of studying girls,the study would have been about boys (or both sexes).

It is boys who are five to seven years behind girls at GCSE level.

It is boys who go to university in far fewer numbers than girls.

It is boys who need the discipline of a single-sex school.

Unfortunately, the Good Schools Guide has produced research which whilst pandering to the Guardian (who are hardly going to write a pro-male/boys story), systematically fails to say anything of use. If they had conducted the research for boys (or both sexes), that would have been of use.

In the end it is just a PR stunt with no value except for highlighting that the under-performance of boys is deemed unimportant, even though they are the ones most in need of help.

Comments

[Tom]

Sex segregation may produce better results on paper, and likewise, I am sure, Nazi, fascist and islamofascist school systems can show similar efficiency savings - but ultimately, to aggressive ends.

A study of 25 primate species shows those more inclined to sex segregate have evolved increased brain capacity for aggression and decreased capacity for empathy and higher thought (New Scientist, 2007).

It is women who sex segregate (Moxon, 2008), preferring female company four times more than men, who show no preference (think of all those ads for flatmates that specify 'female only').

Do you want to keep males aggressive, so they are not 'feminized', Trom?

In Gender (Connell, 2002), he points to research showing it is not men who have become less aggressive, but women who have become more aggressive over the last two decades, and I for one think less passive/aggressive women a very good thing indeed.

I also read very recently, that on a masculinity values scale, UK men are very traditionally masculine in their believes, compared to men of other countries, only Japanese men scoring higher, so please spare us the 'feminization' stuff, and the problematization of free association of the sexes, because UK men are certainly aggressive enough to function well, and we could do with a war or two less, as well as a few more women around, in all areas please - especially schools.

What would it take to change your mind on this subject?

[Tom]

Also Trom, the Finnish are renowned for having the best education system in the World, and from a quick google search, it appears they have no single sex schools at all, so perhaps we should look at the long game.

[John Kimble]

Tom, there are two different issues here - one is single sex schools, and the other is feminisation of education.

The first of these issues is no big deal either way - however feminisation of education is a disaster.

Let me explain what feminisation of education is and why is is so disgraceful.

The education system has been taken over by women - both in terms of the number of teachers and in terms of the way content is delivered and tested.

The problem with all these women teachers is that children already often lack male role models at home, and now don't get any in school either - this impacts particularly badly on boys.

Worse still is the way we've changed so much testing to faovur females. Schools no longer test facts and address issues scientifically. Instead, say in history, school ask children to speculate as to a particular group of people in the past might have felt in a certain situation.

Such lines of questioning favor and appeal far more to girls (and people who can talk bullshit).

What were originally noable attempts to help girls in an education system biased against them have in fact result in a swing to completely the opposite, with an system for the most part totally biased against boys.

[Tom]

Agreed, there need to be more male teachers, and the curriculum needs to be more male-friendly, but given the dangers of sex segregation outlined by me above, why not put the boys and girls in together as they do in Finland?

Men's rights activists surely realize that breeding for aggression turns men against men. If you believe in Just War theory, or even military adventure, then continue sex segregating, but if you believe in evolving more peacefully, then co-ed is the way, throughout life.

[Tom]

Indeed, one reason female teachers might be more aggressive towards boys (and girls), is because there are not enough male teachers around, so the adult females are suffering from the effects of sex segregation themselves.

In female chimpanzees, when there are too many females and not enough males around, the females kill their young (see Telegraph headline 'The female of the species is more deadly than the male).

Can anyone counter the scientific argument here, instead of just dismissing it as unimportant?

[Nigel]

An interesting debate. I do think the important point here is the lack of concern from our educational establishment about the poor performance of boys.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163212/White-working-class-boys-worst-performing-ethnic-group-schools-age-11.html

In general I,m not impressed by comparisons with small countries. Sweden and Denmark seem to be popular with the present government. Perhaps more useful are comparisons with equally large and complex industrial nations such as France or Germany.

Our education system is coed in the main at the moment and yet we have continued problems of agression from some young men and women. I doubt that has much to do with schoools and a lot to do with "breakdown britain". School is a place to learn home is where socialisation occurs. I think we have leaned that schools can't replace that socialisation lost due to family breakdown. What they can do is try to give a good education to all youngsters.

And we done Trom

[Tom]

Familial socialization and peer group mixed sex interactive socialization are different. Both important, both necessary. When families break up, usually for a very good reason or imperative, then the child loses, so to deliberately engineer the loss of male female interaction by segregating the sexes for no good reason or imperative, is absolutely retarded. I cannot believe some MRAs are so right wing and anti-equality they're even having this debate. We will be sex segregated when we are dead. Until then, we need to get a life on this one.