Single-Sex Schools
June 27th, 2005 at 8:30 am by David FarrarAs I mentioned on Sunday, Bill English gave a superb speech on education with solutions, not just identifying problems.
He showed graphs which illustrated how single sex schools on average achieve much higher results for both boys and girls. Yet the state has not established any new single-sex schools since 1961. So he, as Minister, is going to change that.
No tag for this post.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Achievement in life is not solely based on Educational achievement & the cost of Single Sex schools in terms of relationships with members of the other Sex are far from insignificant, Divorce rates for Single Sex students vs Integrated anyone.
Also it would pay to compare Apples with Apples, Single Sex schools historically tended too atract elite students so is the difference in achievement the school or the pupils the school has, a far better measure would be the improvement a Single Sex School makes upon leaving relative to the students skill level entering the school.
I would argue returning to the past far too often means repeating the mistakes of that past, this is nothing short of a bizarre policy IMHO.
P.S. I did go to a Single Sex school, my daughters do not, their Academic Achievement is not outstripping mine ( better opportunities now though ), but their achievements as leaders and the balance they have in their life far outstrips my own at their age.
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 9:34 am
As much as I think single-sex schools aught to be a choice for women for safety concerns, your logic argues that academic performance would be better if all schools were segregated.
The plain fact of the matter is that there doesn’t even have to be an “elite” core to make segregated schools perform better.
Think about it – those apathetic about school will not care to which school they go, and going to a same-sex school is almost always a choice. Very few parents would send a child to a same-sex school under vehement protest.
I would tend to believe that academic achievers will achieve wherever they are put – that achievement is less a score of education and more a score of how much they care about learning. Now, there are two people who can affect that – good teachers and good parents. I was lucky – I had both.
Most of all, a student has to be convinced that their academic study matters – which is a hard sell to make, because, by and large, it simply doesn’t, except as possible practice for study which does matter later on.
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 9:49 am
You have got to be kidding me. ~This~ is Bill English’s answer to the shambles of the state’s school system? Unbelieveable. He has an unerring ability, doesn’t he, to ignore everything relevant and go straight to the deep heart of nonsense.
This is just idiocy, and explains why no-one voted for him three year ago except his mother.
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Well you can try to undermine the stats all you like, and of course it’s going to be a chicken and egg thing. Single sex schools are better, therefore they attract the best students, therefore they get better, therefore attracting the best students etc. But there is clear evidence that students in single sex schools do better than students in co-ed schools – even across decile bands.
Vote:Furthermore, I respect your personal experience about single sex vs co-ed schools, but I might venture to suggest it isn’t necessarily the norm. I know as many, if not more, maladjusted people who went to co-eds as went to single sex schools.
More fundamentally though, this policy is about respecting the wishes of parents (and they know their child best). If parents want more single sex schools, build them. Bill English is going to be the best education minister we have had for years!
June 27th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Peter – I suspect you would like more the funding and choice aspects of the policy which will also be hugely useful.
But apart from the fact you don’t think the state should actually own any schools, what is objectionable about making sure more of them are single sex, when they so obviously (on average) do better.
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
National increasing waste in Education ?.
This is such a barmy idea. The only place any new High Schools are going to be built are Auckland and very rarely Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch.
Land for a high school is hard enough to get as it is and the basic expenses will mean it will cost 50% more to build 2 new single sex state schools( it would be discrimination to build only one school) in the same area.
Well its only taxpayers money to be thrown at nationals idea of political correctness. No wonder Bill English made such a poor leader that he was dumped. If Jenny Shipley was still around this would never made it to the constantly changing list of national promises.
Vote:Even the Catholics don
June 27th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Bill English could quite easily achieve this in the Hutt Valley. Wyatt Creech closed Petone College, it is still owned by the state and could be converted to a single sex college.
See what falls out in terms of student numbers and then convert another in the valley.
No new buildings involved.
FTR, I am not convinced about the single sex school analysis. It seems to simplistic for me. I would want to the data, and see how many lower decile schools are single sex.
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
The point here is that it is about choice. National wouldn’t force anyone to send their children to these single sex schools. Labour by not building single sex schools forces parents to send their children to co-ed schools. So long as single sex is an option alongside co-ed, I can see only two potential issues:
1. Those who want to control what other people do with their children – i.e. if I want to mandate that all children go to co-ed schools this wouldn’t work for me
2. If the single sex schools create additional waste in the system, and therefore cost the taxpayer more.
Point 1 is a nonsense, and I won’t support it.
Point 2: The single sex schools are self-fulfilling in the quality of students they turn out, the point is that there are parents out there who would like to send their children to those schools and can’t. So there is demand for something not currently being provided – how can we end up with waste?
The only potential waste is the unfilled schools left behind if parents move their children to a single sex school. But then the argument boils down to “you cannot have these new schools, because we want to force you to use the existing, inadequate, schools.” In other words the same argument as for Labour’s zoning policy, and an argument that I think is unsupportable.
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Parents should be free to educate their children any way they like. Choosing whoever they like to be teachers and any curriculum that they consider to be valuable for their child. Parents – given the liberty – will on average will make far better choices in these matters than the state.
This is just a vague nod in the direction of parental choice from a sad pinko.
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
“I would argue returning to the past far too often means repeating the mistakes of that past, this is nothing short of a bizarre policy IMHO.”
And single-sex schools were mistakes, why?
“but their achievements as leaders and the balance they have in their life far outstrips my own at their age.”
Sounds like a personal problem. Seriously, “balance” and leadership are more likely to be achieved in co-ed schools? What rot.
“Well its only taxpayers money to be thrown at nationals idea of political correctness.”
Wanaga.
But the real issue here is that the science has been settled long ago. EVERYONE knows that people who go to co-ed shools are better citizens, and people that go to single sex schools have no idea how to deal with the opposite sex and are horribly maladjusted. I mean that is what we have all seen isnt it?
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Yep Kimble et al. It’s a shite simplification. It’s absolute crap to suggest that more single-sex schools will have a meaningful impact. Which is why I suspect that there’s more to it than a couple of graphs.
If you frame education as being the statistics that students walk out with at the end of 7th form (or earlier) then perhaps single-sex schools perform better on average.
What about social skills? Not everyone who goes to a single-sex school has the means to fill in that gap of their education outside the classroom. My Maths teacher put it best: The kids from single-sex schools struggle with the social life after secondary school (if at uni) and the kids from coeds struggle with the academic side of things. Which is of course to say, struggle, not fail.
I think the rot and the problems of the education system are somewhere else, not in the number of single-sex schools. Hell, my old school (boys single-sex) went progressively co-ed from when I was in 7th form – there’s no way in hell I’d send my kids there now – I reckon they did it for the money.
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
1. There is this myth that single sex schools are worse socially than co-ed schools. I suspect this myth has it’s roots in the days where boys aged 5 went to single sex prep schools in an isolated part of the country, and then son to single sex boarding schools in similar parts of the country and never had ANY social contact with girls until university. It’s a far cry from any modern single sex school in NZ.
If you doubt the statistics about the academic performance of single sex schools, that is one thing; to continue the myth that single sex schooled people are somehow social retards is silly (and completely unsubstantiated in this day and age).
2. I like (insert sarcasm here) the logic that says if private boys schools start taking girls, therefore they must have recognised co-ed education is better. My alternativel: they needed more money and didn’t want to integrate…And in fact I know this is true in at least one case, and probably more, if not all.
3. Not all students are the same. I can conceed that for many students an education in a liberal co-ed school is better. But for many it isn’t. That is a decision parents need to make, which is why Bill is saying that if there is demand for more single sex schools they should be built. That is a decision parents should make.
Vote:It’s about choice, and it is only ONE plank of Nationals education policy.
June 27th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
I’m not against more Single Sex schools if there is a genuine demand for that from parents. That is however not the case in Bill English’s own province, where both Southland Boys High & Girls High are struggling to get students, things might be very different in the main cities. Fine, if there is demand there, build more.
But I do however object strongly to building more Single Sex Schools simply based on the justification of improved grades, it’s an oversimplification of a very complicated situation.
Vote:June 27th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
I don’t know about SBHS but most single sex state schools have waiting lists, which Bill talked about in his speech. I went to a single sex state school and between my 3rd and 7th form years the school roll increased by about 200 and they were still turning away around a hundred applicants for third form every year.
Vote:As far as I know this is replicated in the vast majority of single sex state schools in the country.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting building single sex schools where there is no demand!
The very point of Bills speech was that the state needs to be more responsive to the wishes of parents.
June 27th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
auto-de-fe – Glendowie College is co-ed dear!
As a Private School gal I have nothing but praise for the school I attended. I think blaming single sex schools for turning out emotionally and socially stunted individuals is drawing a long bow. My parents were vigilant about me and my sibling interacting with the opposite sex and instilled positive ideas of men from within our family and from our male friends. School is a secondary player in forming opinions of the opposite sex. My school pushed girls to consider non-traditional jobs and tertiary courses. Speaking to the girls from my local co-ed the aforementioned Glendowie College, they did not ,in that time, have the same progressive view of teriary education for women.
My first real experience of in-my-face-sexism was at university tutorials when young male students dominated discussions, talked over the top of women speaking, undermined female students viewpoints by mimicking and mocking. I was so pissed off about the behaviour, I confronted these men and told them to pull their heads in. Most looked so shocked to see a female fighting back that most of them backed down.
Vote:I also confronted the other feamles and asked them what was with the meek and mild bit. All of them had come from Co-Ed schools and were so used to the bullshit and bravado of the males that it was like water off a ducks back. My family, friends and school had instilled that respect, tolerance and manners were a two way street, so I was prepared to confront these obnoxious men safe in the confidence of my self-belief in simple decency. I got 100% support for bravery from my fellow female students and most asked as to my background. Upon hearing I was a Private School/Positive parents gal most said they wished they could have had the same education and confidence instilled in them.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Maybe Bill English could bring in single-sex workplaces too, if it’s such a good idea. Or is this something you guys would prefer to inflict only on your children?
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 12:22 am
If the goverment owned 90% of the workplaces and there were waiting lists for the single sex workplaces, then yes, “psycho milt”, I would advocate the government making more single sex workplaces.
Vote:It is a stupid analogy.
June 28th, 2005 at 8:51 am
With all that is apparently wrong with the NZ education system, this is the best that English can come up with?
Laughable, really.
What is English proposing to do about the problems with NCEA? Single sex schools.
What is English going to do about the shortage of really good teachers? Vouchers.
What is English going to do about the problems of education in rural areas? Compulsory Bulk Funding.
Totally devoid… no idea at all.
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 11:26 am
I’ve no problem with the idea, but the implementation looks hard.
Consider what setting up a new school is really like. You’ve got 300 more kids than the current schools can cope with in an area. So you set up a new school.
Bill’s plan would be – what?
Set up two new schools for 150 pupils each? This really is much more expensive – especially for secondary (where the evidence says it matter) because you need specialist teachers for secondary.
Or force a current co-ed school to go single while setting up another single school down the road? Not easy to accomplish if the new school’s catchment covers several old school’s areas (as is usual with new schools). And if you’re forcing co-ed schools to go single, why not do it nationwide instead of just for areas with new schools being set up?
As I said above: not a bad idea, but the devil’s in the details.
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
PaulL:
You write: “National wouldn’t force anyone to send their children to these single sex schools.” I agree.
But, interestingly, Labour does just that. In some parts of Auckland and Christchurch and in some small provincial towns, people are only zoned for single sex schools! Even if some parents want co-ed, they can’t choose it for their kids!
So, all the lefties can go on about co-ed schools being better than single-sex for a wide range of reasons (some of which I agree with), but why does Trevor Mallard force some families to use single-sex?
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
rightkiwi,
Why is it that some people blat their jaws endlessly about “Supreme Wastemaster” and other such ad hominems, but then turn around and suggest that Invercargill should have been given both single sex and co-ed schools?
This whole debate is a farce, and it is doing the Nats no good at all.
There are, as English knows only too well, far greater problems within the Education system.
Some are of the making of the Labour Government, some are not.
Let’s start with NCEA.
Where is the Nat policy on NCEA?
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Don’t know what the NCEA policy is. Hopefully it is to abolish it and leave the provision of qualifications to industry and the private sector.
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
There are waiting lists for single sex schools? And presumably the people on these waiting lists are the same ones quacking on about how awful it is that other people want the govt to pay for things for them out of taxes instead of getting off their arses and doing it themselves? Leaving aside the question of what kind of wierdo wants their kids to familiarise themselves only with their own sex, there is the fact, already noted above, that plenty of parents right now are forced to send their kids to these wierdo schools. I was subjected to two years worth in Blenheim, because there was no co-ed secondary schooling there. A very unpleasant place it was too, you could smell the testosterone from out on the street.
Simple answer, waiting list people. Don’t demand our tax money for a nice new school – just move to Blenheim.
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Helen Clarke went to a single sex school.
Vote:‘Nuff said.
June 28th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Milt, what kind of wierdo wants their thirteen year-old daughter to mix with pubescent boys?
And testostrone increases in boys when there are girls present.
B.J. – which sex?
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
I have heard others on this thread nominate single sex schools in Invergargill that amalgamted as to seem that Co-Ed schools are naturally superior. I wonder if that is more due to the de-population occurring in the place and economies of scale kicking in to make amalgamtion the only viable option to ensure local teens have a High School . Likewise someone also mentioned Tamaki Boys and Girls in Auckland which almalgamated as evidence and demand for the superiority of co-ed schooling. In fact both Tamaki schools had such shocking reputations and the neighbouring Glendowie College was flooded with out of zone applications that the schools had Commissioners in to sought them out and make them over. Eventually the school opened as a new Co-Ed. Under a new Principal, who is listening to the parents and not to Wellington’s Chardonnay Socialists in the Education Ministry, the school is run on traditional lines, there is a compulsory uniform, firm discipline, high behavioural and academic expectations. Apparently morale is very high and local parents look forward to sending their kids there.
Again, I believe it is more important to have a school be it Private, Single Sex or Co-ed , that reflects the needs of the community and gives parental choice. The Govt should be there to guide and fund schools not to dictate that they know what’s best. While people sneer at Private and single Sex schools, I notice the PC crowd don’t list Kohanga Reo’s and other Maori language schools funded 100% by the govt, in the same breath as ‘exclusive’ or’racially homogenous and monocultural’ or ‘not reflecting the broadness of the community’ as they are keen to do for other school styles.
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
“Don’t know what the NCEA policy is. Hopefully it is to abolish it and leave the provision of qualifications to industry and the private sector.”
I like that, and it sounds about “right” (pune there if you missed it).
Do away with all education, let businesses train their own slaves the way that they want them…
Nope, English is back to his best at obfuscation and everyone is buying it. HE DOES NOT HAVE A VIABLE POLICY He is creating smokescreens so that he will get his little pets of voucher education and bilk funding before anyone notices.
I for one am not misled.
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Sally, just how do you give parents in a rural community of 5,000 the choice between two secondary schools?
Do you build another college, no make that three, to overcome the disadvantages of the existing “state-style co-ed”?
Why three?
Well you need “traditional” and “something new”. The you need single-sex for both those alternatives.
Three new schools for perhaps 600 kids?
Nah, just make them travel by bus for two hours to the next town down the road. Build three new colleges there instead…
What stupidity…
Vote:June 28th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Probligo – Fair comment about the rural kids and parents and their lack of choice regarding schooling. Some rural kids go to Boarding Schools both State and Private but I know it is not always financially a choice. No matter where you choose to live in NZ you have to take the rough with the smooth and unfortunatley rural folks don’t have schooling choices that city folk have, it is just pure economics with thin pockets of population spread over large areas.
That is why we made the choice to stay in a city,and yes, we have lived in small town, rural NZ but we declined permanent settlement due to a lack of schooling choices and flow-on resources eg sports clubs, museums, libraries, the Arts, that are available to our kids.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 12:27 am
“…what kind of wierdo wants their thirteen year-old daughter to mix with pubescent boys?”
Vote:How else are they going to do their sexual experimentation? With each other? (Cue another comment about Helen Clark from B. J. Melville)
June 29th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Aren’t you lucky, Sally, to have had that choice and the “freedom” to be able to move where you can suit lifestyle to “resources”. Unfortunately, there are many in my home town who do not have that choice. I was one of the fortunate ones.
Vouchers are not going to provide the choice either. These families have a hard time of it just living, without having to pay boarding fees for three kids. I am not talking beneficiaries here; farmers on marginal land, rural self-employed, forestry workers, shearers, sharemilkers, probably 60% of any rural community. THEN start thinking about the other 40% who are most probably unemployed, or unemployable.
So, sad but true, they all will be relegated once again to the dustbin of second class education, second class life, irrespective of current standing.
And that truly is what the likes of English and the Nats are preaching…
I wonder, how much of that part of the education vote he would consider “waste”. Probably quite a bit.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Touche, Milt.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
“How else are they going to do their sexual experimentation?”
13, Milt. I said 13.
Probligo, when there are a greater number of people living together it is cheaper, per capita, to provide group services. Get over it.
There are benefits and costs to people who decide to live in the city, just as there are benefits and costs to those who choose to live in the country. There is no rule saying that the benefits and costs should be similar and equal for both places.
Vote:June 29th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Kimble, thank you for your words of wisdom. You confirm one of my basic precepts of politics.
“When you really get to the foundation of politics, you will find simple minds being led by schemeing minds.”
That leads to a second which runs along the lines of -
“Making political promises is easy – never try to explain a problem or a solution, just find a simple and easily remembered six word slogan and the electorate will buy it. Hook line and sinker they’ll buy it.”
So, when we get to Nat’s Education policy what have we got -
“Single Sex schools, vouchers, bulk funding.”
There y’go. Bill has solved the all the problems in our education system by simplifying them to six words.
You and so many others buy it. That is what amazes me!
Vote:July 1st, 2005 at 12:49 am
probligo – I was no more “lucky” than you in deciding not to waste my time and my kids future in a small, rural town. You obviously felt the same way and departed as well. Stop the moral one upmanship by somehow implying my decision to go was morally inferior compared to your loftier reasons.
I am well aware of the rural workers such as the share milkers etc that are essential to the running of our country and in fact are the engine room of NZs rural commodity exports and by golly I was well aware of the umemployables and the beneficiaries who use rural towns as a bolt hole to refrain from working or upskilling, as conviniently there isn’t a Uni or Polytech nearby.
I don’t recall making any comments about voucher use. Interestingly when I lived in the USA, the biggest users of school vouchers locally were those in the Black community wanting to rid their schools of the combination of low expectation, drugs, teen preganancy and the worst excesses of White Liberal guilt programmes which only served further to further entrench the idea of victimhood. (Gosh, doesn’t sound a bit like some aspects of NZ education).
Sorry, just gotta fact facts, ther are many folks in the rural community no doubt looking to ship their kids out to the cities or bigger towns for better opportunities and there are many rural folk who are more than happy with the status quo and probably miffed that city folk patronise them with the idea that there kids somehow miss out. I think experiences are simply different for rural and city kids.
Vote:July 1st, 2005 at 6:49 am
“You obviously felt the same way and departed as well”
Wrong.
I was given a large suitcase, a one way bus ticket and five pounds (1966 this was) for my birthday. Oh and some good advice like “Find somewhere to sleep”.
“I don’t recall making any comments about voucher use” No, Bill English did… miss that?
The point that I was making (and you will be pleased to hear that I am getting tired of trying to get small minds to see it) is this -
LIKE SO MANY OTHER POLITICAL “POLICIES”, BILL ENGLISH’S STATEMENT FAILS ON THREE GROUNDS -
IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEMS IN EDUCATION.
IT IS OVERLY SIMPLISTIC – IT HAS TO BE IN ORDER TO ATTRACT VOTES.
IT IS TUNED LIKE A SITAR; STRIKE ONE STRING AND SEVERAL OTHERS RESONATE. WHERE DOES NATIONAL WANT TO ATTRACT VOTES? THE CITIES… SO SINGLE SEX SCHOOLS PLAYS THE RESONANCES OF THE CITIES. LOOK AT THE COMMENTS HERE. HOW MANY ARE LIKELY TO HAVE COME FROM RURAL AREAS? NONE. ZIP. ZERO…
MOST PEOPLE DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT IS LONGER THAN SIX WORDS.
Vote:July 1st, 2005 at 9:33 am
Probligo – Do you feel better dear? If not go to your room for time out for your hissy-fit.
Vote:July 1st, 2005 at 10:49 am
Sorry lovely Alice. Only the Mad Hatter has hissy fits. That just aint me.
I will just have to endure for the next three years whatever bunch of idiots the rest of NZ gets duped by or bought all of the luverly promises and decides to put into power.
My vote will go the ones I believe will do the least damage. At the moment that is an open question. On the basis of the education policy alone it will NOT be National.
Vote:July 1st, 2005 at 11:04 am
um..if what bill said was the answer..what was the question again..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 5th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Get rid of Brash and bring back English!
Vote: