Single Sex Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single sex education has been better than we ever expected. Zero “dating” distractions. Zero preening and competition regarding the same. More opportunity and better environment to form strong personal relationships within the group. A program aimed at the gender in question, it’s strength and it’s weaknesses, which makes the environment more cooperative and fulfilling. The idea that boys and girls have to stew together in the same pot when their hormones are raging and their learning differences most apparent, just to be able to function in a coed workforce, is ridiculous.

This post screams heteronormativity. Not all people are attracted to the opposite sex (or solely to the opposite sex).

??? More than 90% of this world is heterosexual. That is almost everyone. There is a small group of people who aren't. Of course it makes sense that the PP you're addressing is discussing the perspective of the majority. Please get over yourself in thinking that the 90% have to always cater to the 10%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single sex education has been better than we ever expected. Zero “dating” distractions. Zero preening and competition regarding the same. More opportunity and better environment to form strong personal relationships within the group. A program aimed at the gender in question, it’s strength and it’s weaknesses, which makes the environment more cooperative and fulfilling. The idea that boys and girls have to stew together in the same pot when their hormones are raging and their learning differences most apparent, just to be able to function in a coed workforce, is ridiculous.

This post screams heteronormativity. Not all people are attracted to the opposite sex (or solely to the opposite sex).

Thats’s right, ignore everything else in the post about why kids can do better in same sex schools and jump right into outrages, labelling and virtue signaling. The quickest estimate I found was that about 4.5% of the US population identifies as non-heterosexual. Meaning 95.5% of students would be less likely to be romantically distracted in a single sex school, not to mention all the other reasons a parent might choose such an environment.

This post said nothing about the other reasons parents choose same sex education. But, if the reasoning here is to prevent “distraction” because they don’t need to worry about “hormones” or being attracted to classmates or whatever that says much more about the parents than the value of same sex education and the type of environment kids are growing up in.

Btw, percentage of 13-17 year olds who identify as LGBTQ+ is about 10%: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Youth-US-Pop-Sep-2020.pdf

It is definitely more than 10% LGBTQ+ at Madeira.

Good to know. Will cross that off the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single sex education has been better than we ever expected. Zero “dating” distractions. Zero preening and competition regarding the same. More opportunity and better environment to form strong personal relationships within the group. A program aimed at the gender in question, it’s strength and it’s weaknesses, which makes the environment more cooperative and fulfilling. The idea that boys and girls have to stew together in the same pot when their hormones are raging and their learning differences most apparent, just to be able to function in a coed workforce, is ridiculous.

This post screams heteronormativity. Not all people are attracted to the opposite sex (or solely to the opposite sex).

??? More than 90% of this world is heterosexual. That is almost everyone. There is a small group of people who aren't. Of course it makes sense that the PP you're addressing is discussing the perspective of the majority. Please get over yourself in thinking that the 90% have to always cater to the 10%.

But telling a child who may be LGBTQ they are going to a particular school because they are less likely to be “distracted” sends a huge message about parents’ beliefs and values and whether they would accept their child’s identity. That’s the point. Making assumptions like this is why LGBTQ children don’t come out and have increased risk of suicidal ideation (it’s not that they’re gay, it’s that parents make a hostile environment to be gay).

Point is, choosing same sex education for this reason neglects the fact that at least 1 in 10 kids are not heterosexual.

[Anonymous]

The gay panic is strong in this thread!

[Anonymous]

If you are serious, the research on girls-only schools is extensive and very compelling.
It is not for every family but all girls schools have great outcomes.
There are many threads on this board on the topic but also the research is pretty compelling.
It’s my own lived experiences having done both co-Ed and singer gender in HS. But I believe the research

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are serious, the research on girls-only schools is extensive and very compelling.
It is not for every family but all girls schools have great outcomes.
There are many threads on this board on the topic but also the research is pretty compelling.
It’s my own lived experiences having done both co-Ed and singer gender in HS. But I believe the research

Can you share links? DD is at a single sex school but I would love to have links to help others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single sex education has been better than we ever expected. Zero “dating” distractions. Zero preening and competition regarding the same. More opportunity and better environment to form strong personal relationships within the group. A program aimed at the gender in question, it’s strength and it’s weaknesses, which makes the environment more cooperative and fulfilling. The idea that boys and girls have to stew together in the same pot when their hormones are raging and their learning differences most apparent, just to be able to function in a coed workforce, is ridiculous.

This post screams heteronormativity. Not all people are attracted to the opposite sex (or solely to the opposite sex).

??? More than 90% of this world is heterosexual. That is almost everyone. There is a small group of people who aren't. Of course it makes sense that the PP you're addressing is discussing the perspective of the majority. Please get over yourself in thinking that the 90% have to always cater to the 10%.

But telling a child who may be LGBTQ they are going to a particular school because they are less likely to be “distracted” sends a huge message about parents’ beliefs and values and whether they would accept their child’s identity. That’s the point. Making assumptions like this is why LGBTQ children don’t come out and have increased risk of suicidal ideation (it’s not that they’re gay, it’s that parents make a hostile environment to be gay).

Point is, choosing same sex education for this reason neglects the fact that at least 1 in 10 kids are not heterosexual.

This isn't that hard. Likely the 1 in 10 LGBTQ kid isn't looking at a single-sex school anyway. Remember you want the "best fit" for your child. We aren't closing all the single-sex schools just because 1 in 10 kids are LGBTQ. That would be stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Single sex education has been better than we ever expected. Zero “dating” distractions. Zero preening and competition regarding the same. More opportunity and better environment to form strong personal relationships within the group. A program aimed at the gender in question, it’s strength and it’s weaknesses, which makes the environment more cooperative and fulfilling. The idea that boys and girls have to stew together in the same pot when their hormones are raging and their learning differences most apparent, just to be able to function in a coed workforce, is ridiculous.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single sex education has been better than we ever expected. Zero “dating” distractions. Zero preening and competition regarding the same. More opportunity and better environment to form strong personal relationships within the group. A program aimed at the gender in question, it’s strength and it’s weaknesses, which makes the environment more cooperative and fulfilling. The idea that boys and girls have to stew together in the same pot when their hormones are raging and their learning differences most apparent, just to be able to function in a coed workforce, is ridiculous.

This post screams heteronormativity. Not all people are attracted to the opposite sex (or solely to the opposite sex).

??? More than 90% of this world is heterosexual. That is almost everyone. There is a small group of people who aren't. Of course it makes sense that the PP you're addressing is discussing the perspective of the majority. Please get over yourself in thinking that the 90% have to always cater to the 10%.

But telling a child who may be LGBTQ they are going to a particular school because they are less likely to be “distracted” sends a huge message about parents’ beliefs and values and whether they would accept their child’s identity. That’s the point. Making assumptions like this is why LGBTQ children don’t come out and have increased risk of suicidal ideation (it’s not that they’re gay, it’s that parents make a hostile environment to be gay).

Point is, choosing same sex education for this reason neglects the fact that at least 1 in 10 kids are not heterosexual.

This isn't that hard. Likely the 1 in 10 LGBTQ kid isn't looking at a single-sex school anyway. Remember you want the "best fit" for your child. We aren't closing all the single-sex schools just because 1 in 10 kids are LGBTQ. That would be stupid.

No one said that. LGBTQ+ kids can and do go to single sex schools. The point isn’t about single sex schools themselves but saying that the reason for them is to reduce “distraction” because of the opposite sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All girls HS was good for me because I focused on my studies, not boys and make up etc.

It was bad for me because I got to a co ed college and had no idea how to deal with boys.

This was my general experience too, but I'd add that I became extremely confident and outgoing in HS, and learned to work well with other women, which some women can struggle with.

There were plenty of girls in my HS who dated boys and were into makeup etc., although I was not one of them. Learning to deal with boys in college took about a semester, NBD. Learning makeup and fashion took longer.

[Anonymous]

I work in an international environment and I can ALWAYS point to the men who went to all boys schools. They do not work well with women. The women who went to single gender schools are confident and assertive. My kids will always go to private co-ed and they are girls.

[Anonymous]

Oh please- you can tell with every person you meet who went to single sex or co-ed. Utterly ridiculous. I imagine it is your preconceived bias which enters into your perspective.

I know people how went to both. My brothers and all their friends went to all boys. You cannot tell any difference.

[Anonymous]

Good to know. Will cross that off the list.

Good. You won’t be missed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good to know. Will cross that off the list.

Good. You won’t be missed.

Were y'all this mean before the pandemic, or is the pandemic taking a toll on your usually easy-going temperaments?