Since 1954, we?ve pretty much agreed ?separate but equal? is not really an acceptable notion. However, when it comes to gender-specific education, some are ready to turn this notion on its head.
Having long been a staple of private schooling, the idea that boys and girls should be taught separately has recently gained traction in the public realm. The idea behind a gender-specific curriculum is nothing new: Boys and girls are biologically and psychologically different, they develop in different ways, and so, the thinking goes, they should be taught differently. If only it were that easy.
Obviously, the goal of this thrust toward sex-stratified education is to ensure greater success on both sides of the gender divide; a specialized curriculum specifically tailored to the needs of each gender will result in a better-fitting, and thus more effective, learning experience. Taken on a purely theoretical level, this is an excellent idea ? we have differences, they make us learn differently, let?s all learn better and become better people! Yay!
I?m going to go out on a limb and say we haven?t done very well in taking a neutral stance toward differences; let?s just say recognition of differences has been known to cause a little thing called discrimination. History has shown us that viewing differences in a positive light, or even merely accepting them as normal, has proved almost counterintuitive for the nation as a whole. It often takes an extra effort for humans to shake the notion that ?you are not like me? does not entail ?therefore, I am better than you.?
That said, a heightened awareness of humanity?s history of poor judgments has often left us at the other extreme ? paralyzed by fear of failure. So it often seems as if we vacillate between two extremes: acting in self-righteous confidence, or passively bemoaning previous wrongs.
Let?s apply this system to gender-specific schooling and see what we get. On one side are organizations like the ACLU, which opposes gender-separate education for fear that it sends a message of irreconcilable differences. In a recent New York Times article on single-sex education, Rosemary Salomone of St. John?s University School of
Law expressed her fears regarding ?what kind of message? is sent out ?when you tell a group of kids that boys and girls need to be separated because they don?t even see or hear alike? ? Every time I hear of school officials selling single-sex programs to parents based on brain research, my heart sinks.? Ms. Salomone?s woes reflect the paranoia that comes with the possibility of seeing past discrimination projected into the future. And this paranoia is certainly not unfounded, especially in the area of gender relations. For instance, on the other end of the spectrum are cases such as former Harvard President Larry Summers? remark implying women do not have the same ?innate ability? for math and science as do men, a prime example of both ignorance and the ease with which any difference can be construed as inferiority.
Studies have shown single-sex education improves not only test scores and general absorption of classroom material, but also increases the confidence of students in gender-specific classrooms, creating a more positive learning environment. This leaves us at a crossroads. Do we implement a program that is doubtlessly beneficial on an academic level, but reeks of possibly expanding the gender divide? While my paranoid instincts vote no, I have to argue that acting in the direction of progress is, ultimately, more promising than inaction for fear of undoing progress.
But if this progress is ever to be truly attained, the key is to find that elusive middle ground between overconfident, tunnel-vision decisiveness and passive immobility. In implementing such an approach, we cannot forget about past discrimination (racism: check, sexism: check), especially in a case in which there is a real risk of creating further disconnect between two sides.
There are ways ? such as separate classroom time while maintaining joint game or recess time ? to consolidate the need for different learning environments with the necessity of interaction with both genders, and these methods need to be actively sought out, rather than dismissed as too difficult or unnecessary.
We cannot lose sight of the divisiveness that can potentially arise from sex-specific classrooms. But it is possible to see potential failure and press on, to ? since I?m starting to sound like a self-help book, I?ll cite one ? ?feel the fear and do it anyway,? as professed in Susan Jeffers? popular volume.
We?ve conceded that social progress needs to happen; the challenge is finding the path to action fed by thoughtful, aware behavior, rather than tactless impulse or pessimistic passivity.
Hannah Shtein ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in philosophy.
