Gender segregated schools Essay Example for Free

Gender segregated schools Essay The Benefits and Disadvantages of Single-Sex Education Schools in early 17th century America were fist modeled after English learning institutions after Puritans immigrated over to the English colonies. Originally only rich white males were allowed to attend school to learn how to read and write. In many cases, most parents placed their boys into the nine month long curriculum to keep them out of mischief. For the other three months of the year, students would be released from school during the summer months to lend a hand on their familys arms to help cultivate the land and raise animals. During the summer months, wealthy white girls attended these same schools often taught by a female instructor to learn to read and write. Of the girls who could attend the schools, many were kept at home to be taught the essentials for their future such as cooking, sewing, and the caretaking of babies and toddlers (A Short History). Fast forward one hundred years and the first coeducational schools can be found appearing in the American colonies, primarily the New England area. In these schools the major focus was to teach children how to read, specifically for religious purposes. The likely cause of the integration of boys and girls in schools is thought to be stemmed from growing numbers of female church numbers and the practical requirements of finding enough children to support schools in sparsely populated regions making schools more practical to spread religion (A Short History). After the revolutionary war, American citizens saw that womens education was important and was needed to promote good citizens and great leaders in society. With this state of mind, many private schools opened their doors to coeducation and allowed both boys and girls to attend school together. Until the late 1840s, only rich white boys and girls were allowed to attend schools because there was no government funded schools. That changed when reformers Horance Mann and Henry Barnard succeeded with their efforts to promote a free public school system. This finally allowed all white children to attend schools together for free. The only exception to gender-integrated schools where catholic families who objected the practice of coeducation on moral and religious grounds and that males and females had profoundly different purposes to fulfill (A Short History). Because of this many catholic schools remained segregated y gender. In the early 1900s many schools created classes specifically to prepare boys and girls for their future. Girls were taught home economics and traditionally feminine labor skills, such as secretarial work and or garment-making while boys were educated in industrial arts, bookkeeping, and commercial geography (A Short History). These classes were introduced for the importance of the growing labor market of the time period. In todays society, some parents are faced with placing their children in gender- segregated schools or in public schools to better benefit their children. The problem brains of the two genders learn different subjects at different ages. So, with this, boys or girls have an advantage over each other. The same happens when puberty becomes a factor in adolescence as well as in high school with distractions. On the other side, there are also benefits to public schools such as socialization with the opposite sex and better preparation for the real world. Then there are gender segregated schools that better accommodate teaching methods and times for specific sexes as well as better grades, less competition, and fewer distractions. Again there re bad sides to this too, such as less socializing and less competition to prepare someone for their future Job. With all of these factors, any parent faced with a decision like this will have a hard time figuring out what type of education their child should receive. One of the major arguments people make supporting gender-segregated schools is the fact that boys and girls brains differ in many different aspects. Whether it is an emotional difference or the structure of the brain, one gender will do better in class than the other. In 2007, a team of neuroscientists from the National Institute of Mental Health conducted a study on subjects ranging in age from three to twenty- seven years old both male and female. Their results showed that the occipital lobe of the brain where visual processing is mostly associated with is developed much more rapidly in six to ten year old girls, as opposed to the male brain where this lobe does the majority of its development after fourteen years of age (Novotney). Another major brain difference between the girls and boys is that a girls corpus callosum is twenty- five percent larger than a boys, making girls better at multitasking. A girls prefrontal ortex also develops earlier and larger than that of a boy, making girls better at abstract thinking and thought analysis as well as making better choices between right and wrong (McBride). Meanwhile, the cerebral cortex where mechanical and spatial thinking is conducted is used much more in boys. This results in boys having an easier time learning with movement and pictures as opposed to girls. With these different developed sections of the brain, girls gain an upper hand in classrooms over boys by ways of better listening, sensory memory, and especially reading and writing. However, boys gain an upper hand over girls in math as Leonard Sax a Ph. D. in psychology and author of Why Gender Matters explains: [the] fact that many middle-school boys seem to learn algebra better when you start with numbers, whereas many same-age girls seem to be more engaged if you start with a word problem. For example, if you are teaching equations in multiple variables, the typical 7th-grade boy will do better if you begin by asking If x + 2y = 60, and 2x + y = 90, how do we solve for x and y? But the typical 7th-grade girl will be more engaged if you begin by asking If a sweater and two blouses cost $60, and two sweaters and a louse cost $90, how much does each blouse and each sweater cost? (Sax 15). By splitting boys and girls in school, a teacher can adjust a test to where the two genders of students both benefit from word or equation only math problems. According to Lisa Damour, Co-director of the Center for Research on Girls at Laurel school, a girls day school claims that the benefit of single-sex schools is that they offer the dynamic of having only one sex in the classroom at a time, creating girls class that would not work as effectively in a boys class and vice versa (Novotney). That way boys and girls are taught the same subject at different times in a better gender specified manner. Many studies have statistically shown support towards gender-segregated schools as being better for students in both education and even personality. A study was conducted by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania studying schools in Seoul South Korea that randomly assigned students to either attend a coed or gender-segregated school. In these schools, all students were from different socioeconomic backgrounds. The results of this study found that girls in gender- egregated schools were more likely to attend college after graduation as compared to girls at coeducational schools; the same appeared in boys of both types of schools. Both boys and girls in these gender-segregated schools made higher test scores than coed schools in the same city. In another study conducted by Betta Hannover and her colleague Ursula Kessels found that American girls in girl only schools were more comfortable with physics. The National Foundation for Educational Research in England also supports that boys and girls do better on test scores and overall grades as compared to coed students regardless of background factors. The study also backs up the Hannover and Kessels study by finding that girls at single-sex schools were more likely to take non-traditional courses courses which run against gender stereotypes (Single-Sex). Student grades at single-sex schools could be better than expected by both boys and girls because boys and girls in the single sex schools are more comfortable enrolling in contradicting gender-stereotypical classes, like girls interested in computer science, and boys in art. These classes could seem a bit more difficult for some students bringing their overall grade down a bit even if it is in egard to students in different nations or here in America. Researcher for the Australian Council for Educational Research Cornelius Riordan found that most boys and girls who attend single-sex catholic schools were from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, yet these students obtained better grades than coed students (Single- Sex). This backs the study done by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, that socioeconomic background does not play a major role on a students grades as thought by many people who oppose single-sex schools. Riordan also found that students in these catholic schools view learning in a more positive manner which ould be another reason as to why students in single-sex schools do much better than coed students. In another study conducted in Jamaica by Marlene Hamilton found that students attending single-sex schools out preformed students in coed schools in almost every subject tested which confirmed the research done in Australia, South Korea, England, and America (Single-Sex). With many studies on students all over the world being consistent, it proves that single-sex schools are better for a students education. Not only do single-sex schools benefit a students education, but their overall focus and character as well. At Thurgood Marshall Elementary School in Seattle, principle Benjamin Wright led the movement of the schools traditional coed classroom setting to single-sex classrooms. Before this transition he would address over thirty misbehaving children a day, eighty percent of which were boys. In regard to the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, the single-sex classrooms, there were on average one or two students sent to the office for misbehavior a day. The boys reading average rose to sixty-six percent while their writing average also went up to fifty-three percent (Single-Sex). All of this was done under the same teachers for boys and girls. At an inner-city high school in Montr ©al who underwent the same type of transition also saw positive results. The number of students skipping class dropped by thirteen percent to Just seven percent. Fifteen percent more of students passed their final exams as opposed to before where sixty- five passed. Finally, the rate of students continuing their education in college doubled what it used to be before the switch. With these consistent positive results, many schools will turn to the idea of following these footsteps and transition to single-sex schools or classrooms to benefit all students in their education and haracter. Although segregating students by gender has its positive results, it also has negative results in students psychologically and socially. New York Times writer Tamar Lewin stresses the strongest argument against single-sex education is that it reduces boys and girls opportunities to work together, and reinforces sex stereotypes (Lewinl). By splitting the two genders apart, students will not know how to properly work together or even communicate with one another. According to the American Psychological Association, school is preparation for the adult life and how oys and girls learn to interact will dictate relationships formed in the workplace (Saunders). As students are separated by gender, they miss vital chances to work with one another and build important social skills. By segregating students, they are missing out on learning those very skills needed outside of school such as an engineering firm where thoughts from multiple engineers take place. A female engineer who spent her entire school life including college in single-sex classes may feel a bit more uncomfortable speaking out her ideas to the male engineers. Not only oes this affect people in the work place, it affects their personal relationships as well, for example, a male trying to meet women to date, becomes much more difficult. If he has spent little or no time communicating with the opposite sex, he may feel shy or awkward. Elizabeth Danish explains: Part of the idea of going to school is to prepare your child for real life when they leave. There is no doubt that the real world is mixed gender rather than single sex and so that means that the best way to do this would be to emulate that in school. Further, learning to talk to members of he opposite sex is a very important skill and one that can leave you at a significant disadvantage if youve never had a chance to practice. By experimenting with relationships now when things are less serious, your child will be better at managing and finding them when they leave (Danish). She also believes that in coed schools students become more understanding of each other and are more open minded of new conditions. Danish then suggests that building a feminine side to men could help them better understand girls and reduce the changes of sexism in schools. The problem with some single-sex schools is that he ideas of men are better than girls or in some cases women are better than men begins to circulate and lowers the self-confidence and self-esteem of some students. Another problem facing single-sex classrooms is lack of trained teachers to What could be done to better benefit students in single-sex schools is to have the two genders attend the same school in different buildings. With this, students could be integrated during lunch hours and for elementary schools even recess. This way the two genders can socialize with one another and not be completely segregated throughout all twelve years of school. This socialization can help prepare boys and girls for life outside and after high school in both work life and relationships with one another. In regards to single-sex classrooms, studies show how boys are encouraged or more engaged in learning subjects can be implemented in teaching methods for specifically boys and vice versa for girls. With this, teachers can know what method of teaching works better so they can use it only for boys and only for girls. The numbers of single-sex schools have been on the rise in the past fifteen years and will continue to go up because they are proving to better benefit students education and personality. However, many advocates believe that the psychological and sociological downsides to this form of education are harmful to students and outweigh the positives.

Vivisection: Progress as Paradigm :: Animals Science Papers

Vivisection: Progress as Paradigm "Progress is an optional goal, not an unconditional commitment, and its tempo has nothing sacred about it. A slower progress in the conquest of disease would not threaten society, but would be threatened by the erosion of those moral values whose loss, possibly caused by the too ruthless pursuit of scientific progress, would make its most dazzling triumphs not worth having." –Hans Jonas, bioethicist, 1969 I. Introduction The debate over animal experimentation for scientific advancement is serious and highly controversial. It brings our assumptions about the value of human life and scientific advancement into question. Analysis of this controversy does not purport any easy solutions: there are many points of view. However, it is apparent that the tones are shifting to entertain alternative methods. In allowing the interests of our own species to override the greater interests of members of other species, can we be equated with racists? Sexists?[1] To oppose the use of live animals in scientific experimentation do we not oppose all cruelty to animals, and should we not all be vegans? Should we not charge congress on all fronts for every connection between us and non-human animals? All of these questions will be touched on in this paper, but I will focus more directly on the vivisection controversy, for which I will borrow the Animal Liberation Front's definition: "Any use of animals in science or re search that exploits or harms them." I will give a brief history institutionalized experimentation and challenge the antagonistic viewpoints presented about the efficacy of the use of live animals in research, and offer some budding alternatives. II. History of Institutionalized Experimentation Experiments involving animals for scientific interests began centuries ago, but became institutionalized with Francois Magendie (1787-1855). Magendie was known as a hardworking and brutal physiologist. Barbara Orlans describes some of his experiments in In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation: "Magendie isolated a section of the dog intestine so that it was attached to the rest of the body only by a single artery and vein. This of course was done without anesthesia. Magendie injected various powerful poisons including prussic acid into the intestinal segment and found that the animal was poisoned just as if the normal connections had been intact. He obtained a similar result by injecting a leg detached except for its crural artery and vein.

And The Band Played On By Randy Shilts Essay

And the band played on is a true story published in 1987 that illustrates the AIDS epidemic. The AIDS outbreak started in this book around the 1970’s and is still around in today’s society. Randy Shilts wrote this book in order to show the many errors that occurred and killed while trying to find what this virus was and how it was spread. Many people during this time were affected by this virus especially in New York and San-Francisco, which is where most of this story takes place. AIDS which is also known as acquired immune deficiency syndrome is being spread fast after the first known account discovered by the CDC, and is extremely difficult to identify. Shilts discusses the many issues that could have saved thousands of lives throughout his investigative journalism. Some of the issues that effected many lives of the people living in the highly populated areas like New York and San-Francisco were the ethics of this complicated situation, the political issues that tagg ed along with this multitude, and the medical issues in determining the problem and solution of the epidemic. And the band played on had many cultural issues taking place all over heavily populated areas like San-Francisco. One of which is the fact that after this virus became better known by the public, but not by everyone. At first, it was only being published in articles mostly only read by the gay community. During the 1980’s being gay was much different than in today’s society. It was especially harder for gay men and women during this time because people who were homosexual were treated as outcasts and alienated. San-Francisco and New York City became heavily populated with homosexuals. The higher populations of gays in these areas made it easier for them to cope because they dealt with less criticism. This made the AIDS epidemic more prevalent in these areas due to the fact that it was being spread mainly through gays. When AIDS started killing more and more people, the general public became aware of the outbreak. Because of the lack of knowledge of the nature of this virus it was not given a specific name. at first AIDS was being called gay cancer due to the fact that people were unaware of how it was actually spread. This made the prejudice against gays  much more prevalent just about everywhere. This was making it very difficult on the political side of the AIDS issue. The politics surrounding the AIDS epidemic in And the Band Played On was a complicated issue. The issue being that it was surrounded by the gay population making it a touchy subject for most. Even newly elected president Ronald Reagan would not talk about the issue publically for the fact that it might hurt his status as the president of the United States of America. Ronald Reagan’s policies were to cut government spending, which included the spending of the much needed CDC at the time. The CDC lost a lot of money that could have helped immensely in the research to counteract the spread of aids. Many doctors and scientists refused to work on such an issue. For example, the blood bank officials were not at all convinced by the CDC’s findings of the blood being tainted from AIDS patients. Many AIDS patients were donating blood, and even though the blood is filtered and tested for diseases there were cases popping up of babies contracting the AIDS virus. The blood bank off icials knew that people who received their blood were getting AIDS, but did not put a stop to blood draws from infected patients. The officials were more concerned about themselves and their business then the lives of people that were receiving their blood. The blood banks were not the only businesses that were disregarding the lives of others. Shilts also discusses how the bath house business in the heavily populated areas was another key player in the political battle that cost many people their lives. The CDC discovered that gay bath houses were where many gays were contracting the disease. Many people would come and go in these bath houses just for sexual interaction. Sex in these bath houses was spreading the AIDS virus like wildfire. The CDC had no absolute proof yet that the virus was being spread sexually at the time. The bath house owners made a lot of revenue in areas like San-Francisco which made it highly unlikely for them to listen to the CDC about the public health issues that surrounded their business. Many bath house owners cared for only themselves and the money they were making, just like bloo d banks. The CDC needed definitive proof showing that this is where the majority of the virus was being spread before the executive director of public health would shut them down. Even the public health director was worried about jeopardizing his status if he shut  these bath houses without definitive proof that it was being spread there which could take years to prove. Taking more time to prove this would cost many more people their lives. In the book Shilts says, â€Å"some said Ronald Reagan would be remembered in history books for one thing beyond all else: He was the man who had let AIDS rage through America, the leader of the government that when challenged to action had placed politics above the health of the American people.† It is easy to put the blame on one person for a nationwide epidemic, but in the end it was not just president Ronald Reagan that let the AIDS virus run ramped throughout the nation. Although Regan’s promise of a grant to the CDC never was received , this problem was not just fueled by the president, businesses small and big, and gay activists that did not want their bath houses shut down even though they knew the dangers behind them only aided the outbreak. Not only were these issues caused from them but even scientists and doctors. The medical issues in determining the problem and solution of the epidemic were doctors and Scientists that were competing to find the cause of this virus, and mainly competing to identify the virus. If they can identify the virus they will be able to test for it. The CDC discovered that they could test for it but with only a marginal accuracy. This idea of testing for AIDS only to certain accuracy made it difficult to mandate the testing, especially in the blood banks. American Doctor, Dr. Gallo was contacted by the CDC and told of this new virus that was killing many gays and decided that he would help research this virus. Meanwhile the French are also studying the strange new virus. As these scientists and team of doctors are trying to solve the mystery of the AIDS virus they realize the importance of it after the amount of death it has caused has reach new heights when death numbers increase quickly pass ed the thousands. Both parties of scientists realize that if they discover the aids virus they may be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Just like the blood banks and the owners of the bath houses, Dr. Gallo and the French no longer cared about the lives of the people, but only for themselves and their own personal gain. In the end this almost delayed the discovery of AIDS due to the fact that both research centers had discovered it, but Dr. Gallo claimed that he had discovered it first. This almost caused the French to sue Dr. Gallo which would have made the ordeal even longer causing more deaths that could have been avoided. Another medical issue that could have saved lives  was the grant that president Regan promised the CDC for research that they never received. If they would have got this grant money the issue with Dr. Gallo and the French could have been avoided. The CDC could have used this grant money to buy the proper technology to study this virus and find it themselves, which in turn could ha ve saved lives. In And the Band Played On there are many things that Randy Shilts Expresses that could have saved many lives. He wrote this book to bring light to the fact that the AIDS epidemic was ignored and not taken seriously. There are many issues Shilts brings up in his book that could have helped avoid the many complications that were faced during the AIDS breakout. Shilts sheds light on how this epidemic was poorly resolved. Although he does not explain the ways these errors should have been handled, he lets the reader decide on how these mistakes could have been treated. The thousands of lives taken from the aids epidemic could have been avoided, or at least less then what it was. For example, Regan could have been more proactive in the fight against AIDS rather than ignoring it completely due the fact that it was a touchy subject. He was more worried about his status as a president if he addressed this issue. Shilts brings up the politics surrounding the AIDS epidemic when he talks about the blood banks. The politics surrounding the blood banks allowed many people to contract the AIDS virus knowingly. If the blood bank officials would have cared less about themselves and more about the public health, hundreds of deaths could have been avoided. Another large amount of deaths was caused from the politics around the issue of the spreading of the AIDS virus in bath houses. The bath house owners neglected the public’s health for their own benefit. The bath house owners cared for no one else but themselves and the money they were making. The medical problems they had with finding the AIDS virus also cost many lives. Dr. Gallo and the French battled against each other in order to find the virus when they should have been working together. Also, the grant money the CDC was promised never arrived which could have cost many lives because they might have been able to find it sooner than Dr. Gallo or the French. Ethics, politics, and medical issues caused thousands of deaths that could have been avoided. History usually repeats itself, and Shilts wrote this book in order to prevent another massive tragedy like the AIDS epidemic from happening again.

Why School Attendance Matters and Strategies to Improve It

School attendance matters. It is arguably one of the most important indicators of school success. You cannot learn what you are not there to learn. Students who attend school regularly improve their chances of being academically successful. There are obvious exceptions to both sides of the rule. There are a few students deemed academically successful who also have attendance issues and a few students who struggle academically who are always present. However, in most cases, strong attendance correlates with academic success, and poor attendance correlates with academic struggles. To understand the importance of attendance and the influence the lack thereof has, we must first define what constitutes both satisfactory and poor attendance.   Attendance Works, a non-profit dedicated to improving school attendance, has categorized school attendance into three distinct categories. Students who have 9 or fewer absences are satisfactory. Those with 10-17 absences are exhibiting warning signs for potential attendance issues.   Students with 18 or more absences have a clear cut chronic attendance issue. These numbers are based on the traditional 180-day school calendar. Teachers and administrators will agree that the students who need to be at school the most are the ones that are seemingly seldom there. Poor attendance creates significant learning gaps. Even if students complete the make-up work, they most likely will not learn and retain the information as well as if they had been there. Make-up work can pile up very quickly. When students return from an extended hiatus, they not only have to complete the make-up work, but they also have to contend with their regular classroom assignments. Students often make the decision to rush through or completely ignore the make-up work so that they can keep pace with their regular class studies.   Doing this naturally creates a learning gap and causes the student’s grades to drop. Over time, this learning gap increases to the point where it becomes nearly impossible to close. Chronic absenteeism will lead to frustration for the student. The more they miss, the more difficult it becomes to catch up. Eventually, the student gives up altogether putting them on a path towards being a high school dropout. Chronic absenteeism is a key indicator that a student will drop out. This makes it even more critical to find early intervention strategies to prevent attendance from ever becoming an issue. The amount of schooling missed can quickly add up. Students who enter school at kindergarten and miss an average of 10 days per year until they graduate high school will miss 140 days. According to the definition above, this student would not have an attendance problem. However, all together that student would miss nearly an entire year of school when you add everything together. Now compare that student with another student who has a chronic attendance issue and misses an average of 25 days a year. The student with a chronic attendance issue has 350 missed days or almost two entire years. It is no wonder that those who have attendance issues are almost always further behind academically than their peers who have satisfactory attendance. Strategies to Improve School Attendance Improving school attendance can prove to be a difficult endeavor.   Schools often have very little direct control in this area. Most of the responsibility falls on the student’s parents or guardians, especially the elementary aged ones.   Many parents simply do not understand how important attendance is. They do not realize how quickly missing even a day a week can add up. Furthermore, they do not understand the unspoken message that they are relaying to their children by allowing them to miss school regularly.   Finally, they do not understand that they are not only setting their children up to fail in school, but also in life. For these reasons, it is essential that elementary schools in particular focus on educating parents on the value of attendance.   Unfortunately, most schools operate under the assumption that all parents already understand how important attendance is, but that those whose children have a chronic attendance issue are simply ignoring it or do not value education. The truth is that most parents want what is best for their children, but have not learned or been taught what that is. Schools must invest a significant amount of their resources to educate their local community adequately on the importance of attendance. Regular attendance should play a part in the daily anthem of a school and a critical role in defining the culture of a school. The fact is that every school has an attendance policy. In most cases, that policy is only punitive in nature meaning that it simply provides parents with an ultimatum that essentially says â€Å"get your child to school or else.†Ã‚   Those policies, while effective for a few, will not deter many for whom it has become easier to skip school than it is to attend. For those, you have to show them and prove to them that attending school on a regular basis will help lead to a brighter future. Schools should be challenged to develop attendance policies and programs that are more preventive in nature than they are punitive. This begins with getting to the root of the attendance issues on an individualized level. School officials must be willing to sit down with parents and listen to their reasons for why their children are absent without being judgmental. This allows the school to form a partnership with the parent wherein they can develop an individualized plan for improving attendance, a support system for follow through, and a connection to outside resources if necessary. This approach will not be easy. It will take a lot of time and resources. However, it is an investment that we should be willing to make based on how important we know attendance to be.   Our goal should be to get every child to school so that the effective teachers we have in place can do their jobs. When that happens, the quality of our school systems will improve significantly.