▲ | bjourne 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
Wow, you really are a crazy person, aren't you? Attacking my character to win an internet argument. There is a metric shitton of evidence proving that: 1. Girls do better than boys in school. 2. The more girls the better the results. 3. The more boys the worse the results. Denying 1, 2, or 3 is the equivalent of climate change denial. "All the research shows single-sex schools are good for girls but bad for boys – both in terms of academic performance and socialisation." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that grouping students by educational achievement exacerbates the problem. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07380... https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022976 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/... | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | jadamson 3 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> All the research shows single-sex schools are good for girls but bad for boys We're not talking about single-sex schools. Even if we were, that line is simply not true. > Bottom line: based on this analysis, single sex schooling may provide a modest boost to grades for female pupils, but doesn’t seem to make any difference for male pupils. https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2024/05/do-pupils-in-sing... As for your links, the first is very tenuous data, finding effects in "Mathematics and English but not Chinese". The second (about mental health rather than academic performance) doesn't support your claim: "without negative effects for boys". Not exactly crashing out, is it? The third is simply old and doesn't control for the differing properties that boys' and girls' schools tend to have in the UK for historical reasons. My link corrects for that. There may be some negative effects on socialization in a single-sex environments, but we're not talking about single-sex environments, nor about socialization. > Attacking my character to win an internet argument. You implied you had teaching experience. You do not. You've invented insane splits like 80/20 when the data don't suggest that at all. You're now having to scraping the bottom of the barrel for a link to prove your claim while simultaneously suggesting the effect is as well-established as climate change. Instead of wasting my time with this nonsense, maybe spend some time proof-reading your CV. | |||||||||||||||||
|