注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

花旗国的半边天

An Exploration of Women's Issues

 
 
 

日志

 
 

男女分校制的利弊 (Single-Sex Education)  

2011-11-19 22:45:37|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

男女分校制的利弊 (Single-Sex Education) - 美国马尾妹 - 花旗国的半边天由政府赞助、学费全免的美国公立教育系统一直以来采用男女同校制。法律规定,公立学校必须为每一个学生提供平等的学习机会,有人认为男女分校制破坏了这种平等,有失公允。如果父母想让孩子在性别单一的环境下接受教育,就必须支付高昂的学费,把他们送到管制较少的私立学校或教会学校。然而近十年来,美国的公立学校掀起了男女分校的热潮。20纪九十年代中旬,全美仅有两所公立学校实行男女分校。而目前美国的分校制学校却超过了五百所。这证明了越来越多人已经认识到分校制的优点:男生和女生在学习方面有不同的特性,男女分校有助于满足不同性别在学习上的不同需求。尽管男女分校制已经备受赞许和推崇,但反对的声音依然存在。很多人认为男女同校是最好的教育模式,无可取代,而事实上目前大多数美国公立学校依然实行男女同校制。


Until very recently, the American public school system, which is funded by the government and free for students, always followed an exclusively co-educational model of education.  By law, public schools must provide equality for all students and it was believed that separating boys and girls in the classroom would undermine this equality.  Parents who wanted their children to have the experience of learning in a single-sex environment were forced to turn to private and parochial schools, which are subject to fewer regulations than public schools but are not free of cost.  Over the past decade, however, a growing number of public schools have begun to offer some sort of single-sex option: in the mid-1990s there were only two public schools in the whole country that offered a single-sex option, today there are over five hundred.  This growth is a testament to the increasingly popular belief that boys and girls learn differently and thus learn better in single-sex environments catered to their gender-specific needs.  While this belief has gained prominence in recent years, it is by no means uncontested.  The majority of American public schools are still co-educational and many maintain that this is the best mode of education.

     

According to those in favor of single-sex classrooms, gender-segregated education is beneficial for both boys and girls.  Boys generally develop at a slower pace than girls, meaning that they are often outperformed by girls in the formative years of early education.  Some experts argue that this developmental gap puts boys at a disadvantage that leads to disinterest and underperformance in school. Other experts believe that coeducational environments subtly undermine young girls' self-esteem and discourage them from achieving in traditionally male-dominated fields such as math and science.  People who believe that either or both of these suggestions are true insist that creating more single-sex opportunities within the public school system is essential to resolving these issues and ensuring that students get the best possible education.


It is unclear, however, how real the purported benefits of single-sex education are.  A recent report published by the American Council for Coeducational Schools (ACCS) claims that the movement for single-sex education is misguided and ill-informed.  As the report notes, there is no conclusive scientific evidence supporting the claim that students learn best among peers of the same gender.  Though some studies support the supposed advantages of single-sex education, others suggest that there is no real academic benefit.  Furthermore, the ACCS claims that single-sex classrooms tend to be structured according to a stereotyped understanding of gender, such as that boys are active and boisterous while girls are passive and obedient.  Single-sex classrooms thus have to potential to perpetuate the influence of stereotypes and have a detrimental impact upon children's socialization; in single-sex classrooms, some boys become more aggressive and some girls become more likely to conform to a stereotypical and disempowering model of femininity.  There is of course great variation among the type of single-sex environment created by different schools, but in general, the single-sex approach to education seems to have just as many, if not more, potential negative effects as it does positive ones.


The question of whether single-sex or coeducational learning is more effective remains unresolved and is hotly contested by education experts and policy-makers.  Because public schools are funded by the government, the question of whether or not to provide single-sex education opportunities within these schools remains highly controversial and will no doubt continue to be debated for many years to come.



讨论:你认为男女分校有利还是不利?为什么?Discussion Question: Do you think that single-sex education is beneficial or detrimental?  Why?




Sources

Lewin, Tamar. "Single-Sex Education Is Ineffective, Report Says." The New York Times 22 Sept. 2011: 

     n. pag. The New York Times. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. 


Weil, Elizabeth. "Teaching Boys and Girls Separately." The New York Times 2 Mar. 2008: n. pag. 

     The New York Times. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. 


Image

By Peter Rimar.Chitrapa at en.wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia) [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons

 






  评论这张
 
阅读(3145)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017