Should I send my boys to an all boy school?

[Asher]

I did a quick google search to appease you:
Learning styles: http://members.aol.com/PegFlint/home...ingstyles.html

http://www.algonquinc.on.ca/edtech/gened/styles.html

Now, since there's generally accepted to be 4 learning styles...and 2 sexes...we apply the pigeonhole principle.

Classifying by sex isn't much better than unisex education, if you're segregating do it by learning style.

And Thinking styles: http://www.hyponoesis.org/html/essays/e008.html

[Provost Harrison]

Well I went to an all-boys school and I turned out alright

Seriously, having been there myself, I reckon this is one major contributory factor to my current love life problems, lack of exposure to the opposite sex in my teenage years, and it has made it very hard to tackle that side of my life. So let them mix!

[Juggernaut]

When I see threads like this I'm so glad I live in Sweden.

[blackice]

Off course Asher your research is well noted in the field

And of course Asher Dr. Michael Gurian's research and studies 14 books and world reknown in the field is but the same old generalizations... And hey what do "soccer-moms know anyway right? I mean after all you have kids that go to school and you have way more experience then they do right?

I understand your point totally and I agree to a certain extent but I also see a lack of understanding in what you say.

I also believe they should be allowed to split them up to proform such a test. If a boy shows the same aptitude as a girl for the same reasons you say put him with the girls? Ok so 95% of the boys are as the research shows. You want to take 5% of the boys and put them with the girls?

Ok and what problems would that cause with kids Asher... Like wise toss 2% of the girls with the boys?

I don't think that would work do you? Knowing the way kids are do you honestly believe that would work?
They know enough today Asher the numbers are close to what I have guessed here. You are simply asking for a whole new set of problems with your approach.

Beside they do that now, boys go to trade schools or to work enmass and girls off to higher learning enmass.

[Asher]

You want to take 5% of the boys and put them with the girls?

What I'm suggesting is that sex is not a factor in the first place, but rather the learning style.

And since your whole point was to let people learn better, what's the problem with segregating them by learning style?

If a class ends up with 95% girls and 5% boys then that's just how the cards fell.

You'll note I don't advocate segregating children, I simply said IF you do, you should do it this way rather than sex.

Asher the numbers are close to what I have guessed here. You are simply asking for a whole new set of problems with your approach.

So if the numbers are close to what you suggest, of the four learning styles, two of them only comprise 5% of the population each? You honestly believe that?

Beside they do that now, boys go to trade schools or to work enmass and girls off to higher learning enmass.

This is totally and completely not the case where I'm from. It's roughly equal.

[blackice]

http://www.algonquinc.on.ca/edtech/gened/styles.html

That site closely resembles how they arrived at the fact the genders learn differently.

Peg ok I will read her "opinion" later but it minicks the first one.
The last one again do they know how the genders think differently. That would be the next logical step. That is what they are doing now. If one kid can benifit from the research do it. If one kid learns more because of it do it.
If it takes separating them to give them a better head start do it.

The whole idea Asher is to separate them so they can learn to think at thier individual abilities and potential.
I am sure most boys you knew in school loved to read romance novels and write essays about them. And most girls like to build and repair cars and read technical manuals on car repairs and hotrod magazines?

Sounds steriotypical it is and it appears there is a reason for those "generalizations" And of course always exceptions to the rule.

We are talking kids here Asher, the main thinking is by not separating them we are doing more harn than good. None of those links defind the differences in the sexes. That is more in depth than any of those links you provided and is the issue.

one major contributory

Maybe, maybe not there could be many more issues that contribute to that than the school issue. Kids in mixed schools have problems later in life with the opposit sex also.

When I see threads like this I'm so glad I live in Sweden.

How come?

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
The whole idea Asher is to separate them so they can learn to think at thier individual abilities and potential.

So you're advocating splitting kids into two groups based on sex and sex alone.

I'm advocating splitting kids into four groups based on how they learn, since we're talking about school, if we split them up at all.

Now, I did some quick math and research to find the portions of the population has each learning type. It's not as simple as "boy" vs "girl".

These tests are based on the 16 Myers-Briggs personality types, and relates these personalities to one of the 4 learning styles.
Sources: http://www.dougdean.com/learningstyles/index.htm

http://soli.inav.net/~catalyst/Type/mbtitype.htm

So we get:
SP: Sensing & Perception: ISTP, ISFP, ESTP, ESFP: 5 + 5 + 13 + 13 = 36%
SJ: Sensing & Judging: ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ESFJ: 6 + 6 + 13 + 13 = 38%
NT: Intuition & Thinking: INTJ, INTP, ENTJ, ENTP: 1 + 1 + 5 + 5 = 12%
NF: Intuition & Feeling: INFJ, INFP, ENFJ, ENFP: 1 + 1 + 5 + 5 = 12%

The reason these don't add up to 100% is due to rounding errors.

None of those links defind the differences in the sexes.

Are you still oblivious to my point?
There is no defining the differences between the sexes, all you can do is generalize in what they think is true for most cases in any given sample. I don't think it should be based upon sex AT ALL. It's a non-factor. If you're splitting them up to help them learn better, you'd do it by learning style. That simple.

[CyberGnu]

Horsie, I don't know if you still read this thread, but there is one thing you might want to consider: Your own reaction to all this.

Let's say, just for the same of argument, that you sendyour kids to the all male school, and one of your sons later on in life seems to have problems meeting members of the opposite sex. Don't you think you will blame yourself, even if they might be independetn of each other?

However, if he does develop the same problems after a normal school, you can at least say 'I tried'.

[blackice]

So you're advocating splitting kids into two groups based on sex and sex alone.

So you're advocating splitting kids into two groups based on sex and sex alone.

No not at all who said that? Is this a new conversation?

It's not as simple as "boy" vs "girl".

Ok now compare those types with what they know about the differences between the genders. That is what we are talking about here. It maybe it is simpler than you are attempting to make it out to be. For instance:

ESTP: "Promotor". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence. 13% of the total population.

What percentage of boys vs, girls fall into this. it would be important to know concidering that is what we are talking about.

ESFP: "Entertainer". Radiates attractive warmth and optimism. Smooth, witty, charming, clever. Fun to be with. Very generous. 13% of the total population.

What percentage of boys vs, girls fall into this.
That is what the researchers are doing, what you post is too general for any use in the school issue, generalizing. The are breaking down into the sexes also.

Are you still oblivious to my point?

I have seen your point from the onset and all you do is ignore the inherent gender differences to make your points. Find some research that deals with that and we can talk about the same thing.

Your summary is a nice “opinion” but again it ignores the gender differences. All studies in the area agree on the same thing, we are different and learn differently. You seem to be of the opinion the sexes are the same?

Some people seem to be of the “opinion” all boys that go to all boys schools end up having problems with the opposite sex? Is there a link to show this obviously well documented and enormous problem? Or at least some facts to back this huge problem up?
Seems to me the masses go to mixed schools any many people, male and female have problems with the opposite sex. I have read nothing that states it is because of private school environments. Generally those problems start at home not schools.

[Asher]

blackice, I'm trying to figure out what you're doing.

Are you saying that there is a hardwired difference between how boys learn and how girls learn?

I think you're confusing generalizations many reports make (such as the ones you link) because perhaps most (>50%) boys learn a certain way.

I'm saying we should ignore "inherent gender differences" because there are no "inherent gender differences" for every person when it comes to learning. There are trends and correlations but it's not as concrete as dividing the children up specifically by learning preference.

Once again, I'm not talking at all about sex. I'm suggesting an alternative to classifying children based upon their sex. If you're going to split them up to learn better, the sex is irrelevant and it should only be by learning style. The "inherent gender differences" in learning styles manifest themselves once the students are tested for their learning style, and split up accordingly...

[blackice]

Center for the Applications of Psychological Type is doing great studies in this area. You will note the type of schooling is consistant with what the researchers are saying boys need in schools and do not have. Armed with all this research why then is it being ignored?

I think you're confusing generalizations many reports make (such as the ones you link) because perhaps most (>50%) boys learn a certain way.

No Asher I am not at all, but thanks for taking the time to tell me what I think Generalizations are reports which do not go into depth on a subject such as the ones you presented. Simply because the studies you link do not break it down that way does not mean it does not exsist. The studies done by these people as per my links. Involve using these tecniques as you should and apply them to genders. That is exact yours are general.

I am saying if boys fall into certain learning types which they do and girls another why would you have them in the same class? Again show me gender breakdowns which you simply dismiss.

The point being girls sit still in class boys do not so why do they insist boys do what girls can do naturally?
Or fail them and or drug them to be the same? I guess it is a gender issue isn't it...

[Asher]

Do you only see boys and girls as absolutes, blackice?

"Boys" can't sit still...
"Girls" can sit stilll...
Seems kind of simplified to me. Like you intentionally see things only in black & white...

[blackice]

Like you intentionally see things only in black & white...

Sometimes if it is yes don't you, I mean murder is murder right?
In this issue which you are just learning about. those types of statements hold true for the majority. Why Asher because that is the way it is. Reality.

Now tell us all about the figity loud class clown girls you know who were the majority in your classes. You like to ignore the obvious to make arguements or what. To say there is no difference between the sexes is to ignore reality.

Several books you claim to have read would back what you are saying better. I am having doubts you even read them. The reason is obvious if you did you would be using those examples instead of the generalized ones you do.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Sometimes if it is yes don't you, I mean murder is murder right?
In this issue which you are just learning about. those types of statements hold true for the majority. Why Asher because that is the way it is. Reality.

I'm not just learning about it, I studied it quite a bit last year in my psychology classes (the prof's research area was child psychology).

Not everything is black and white. Some things are, like murder. Other things aren't, like how boys and girls behave... it's not reality, it's simplified reality in cases where you don't have ways of narrowing down behavior. Since we have tests to test how people learn, there's no need to simply generalize based upon gender only, we can be more specific.

Now tell us all about the figity loud class clown girls you know who were the majority in your classes. You like to ignore the obvious to make arguements or what. To say there is no difference between the sexes is to ignore reality.

This isn't making much sense. Much of the class clowns were male, but there were also a few female class clowns in my school days...

I never once said there was no difference between the sexes.

You seem to be perfectly fine relying on stereotypes only, after all of your selfrighteous ranting about how boys don't get taught like they should due to having unisex learning. What about the boys who don't fit into that stereotype (which make up at least 24% of all boys, in reality far higher -- using my previously mentioned figures)? Do they still have to be taught according to someone else's rules because you enjoyed stereotyping?

Several books you claim to have read would back what you are saying better. I am having doubts you even read them. The reason is obvious if you did you would be using those examples instead of the generalized ones you do.

blackice, you're so dense it's frustrating.
I understand you're talking about the stereotype, and yes, there is a difference in the boy/girl stereotype since many boys and many girls act similarly.

But why settle for classifying on gender when you can classify on learning style? Why settle for stereotypes when you can knock down the stereotypes and get to the heart of the matter -- learning style?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not everything is black and white. Some things are, like murder.

Murder isn't black or white either .