New York Times Death Spiral Watch

Wow. Just wow:

Elizabeth Weil: In the girls' room, by contrast, the walls are yellow, the light bulbs emit a warm yellow light and the temperature is kept six degrees warmer, as per the instructions of Leonard Sax, a family physician turned author and advocate who this May will quit his medical practice to devote himself full time to promoting single-sex public education.... Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences... neurological diagrams and scores of citations of obscure scientific studies, like one by a Swedish researcher who found, in a study of 96 adults, that males and females have different emotional and cognitive responses to different kinds of light....

In his books and frequent media appearances, Sax holds up Foley Intermediate as an example of his theories put to good use.... Sax used to say that he was "uniquely unqualified to lead the single-sex public education movement," since, for among other reasons, he had never been a teacher. Now, he no longer says that, and he maintains that a school's teachers and staff need only 14 hours of training -- two 7-hour days with him -- to prepare to switch from coeducation to single-sex..... Speaking to a group of sixth graders, Sax explained his theory that girls' hearing ability is much better than boys', as is girls' sense of smell...

Why oh why can't wehavce a better press corps?

Comments

[Don't get it]

Brad, I don't get it. What should they have done instead?

[Aaron Baker]

Perhaps the mention, without comment, of a study of alleged sex differences that was based on 96 persons?

[Joe Gideon]

Leonard Sax seems like a pretty terrible researcher. On the Language Log Blog, Mark Liberman has debunked Sax’s claims a few times.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005422.html

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003284.html

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003487.html

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003561.html

[jerry]

Havceng committed the sin myself of not reading the Times article, even if Sax were an atrocious researcher, my question is if the trend exists or not. If it does, the article seems reasonable, if not, not.

Haveceng now read the article, as well as the first in Liberman's debunking series, I find that Sax' article has face validity, while Liberman's first article did not.

Brad if you have a point, I urge you to actually make that point.

[stanfo]

Perhaps the point is that the entire notion is silly...

[jerry]

"Perhaps the point is that the entire notion is silly..."

Why?

[Rishi M.]

the very notion is ridiculous because it probably would not pass constitutional muster (separation by sexes would require it to pass heightened scrutiny, which would not pass), not to mention how adversely affected childrens' development would be later on if they had little to no interaction with the opposite sex when they were growing up.

[Still don't get it]

Presumably the ACLU will indeed sue these schools all the way to the Supreme Court, but the outcome is not necessarily obvious.

Again from the much maligned article:
As the Supreme Court would rule in June 1996 ... the legality of single-sex schools depends on context. In United States v. Virginia ... Ginsburg’s opinion states that in some contexts, single-sex schools might be legal, as long as those schools worked to “dissipate, rather than perpetuate, traditional gender classifications.”

[jerry]

"the very notion is ridiculous because it probably would not pass constitutional muster"

So assuming the research and experience is correct, that separating the sexes is a better way to teach the kids, the notion is ridiculous because of a constitutional issue?

"not to mention how adversely affected childrens' development would be later on if they had little to no interaction with the opposite sex when they were growing up."

Huh?

[Gray]

At the workplace, men and women aren't divided, too, so obviously boys and girls should start to get comfortable with this as early as possible. Period.

[Gray]

"Huh?"
What part of 'on the job, men and women regularly have to interact with members of the opposite sex' don't you understand, Jerry???

[jerry]

I didn't see anything in the article to suggest the kids never have any interaction with the opposite sex from the time of birth until they are plopped out ready for their Wal*MART job.

I saw a suggestion that during instructional periods, presumably at certain ages or in certain classes, the kids would be separated by gender.

I didn't see anyone say anything about kindergarten, first grade, recess, lunch, PE, band, chess club, student council, dances, or outside of school. I don't see anyone saying this would be the norm for all classes K-12.

And news flash: there already are girls only and boys only schools.
And double news flash: schools aren't necessarily put on earth only to spit out future employees.

What part of taking an argument to it's illogical conclusion haven't you mastered?

It's still not clear what Brad DeLong thinks was so heinous about this article....

[larry davis]

But Brad, surely those pushing this same sex classroom idea must be concerned about producing more gays and lesbians!

thelrd in TEXAS

[Ponzi Q. Globalization]

jerry wrote: "And double news flash: schools aren't necessarily put on earth only to spit out future employees."

I assume you're not an economist. If economics has taught us anything, it is that there is no room for 'education' that is not geared towards spitting out future employees. How could you possibly justify real education in our supercapitalist ultra-competative world? As globalization guru and pompous imperialist Thomas Friedman has said: the Chinese and Indians are starving for our jobs. Notice he didn't say they are starving for our knowledge of civics, Schopenhauer, or the battle of Actium.

Propaganda and jobs training. This is enough education for a productive society.

[Sonia]

The NTY article made me cringe at first. On second thought it seemed a decent presentation of the fact that the notion of seperating fairly young children by gender at an early age is gaining support, particularly for disadvantaged children. The article should have provided information on just how widespread this idea is. The article did point out that the information supporting the concept is weak. My observation of a boys 3rd grade class and a mixed gender 3rd grade class leads me to two hypotheses: First, there may be differences in the distributions of the williness to sit still at that age and Second, the presence of girls at that age calms the boys. We would need random selection into each situation and a large number of tests because other variables are most likely far more important than gender integration.

[Matt]

I'm missing the point here. The article itself takes a somewhat skeptical stance on the issue. (The observation that average sex-linked differences, along any dimension, are no more than one standard deviation relative to total population variability would seem to settle the issue.) There is a trend toward sexual segregation, accuragely described. There is a view and an opposing view, accurately presented. What's the deal?

By the way, the town I live in (cross the Hudson from New York) is old enough that the local elementary school has entrances marked "Girls" and "Boys"--it once was that way.

[Wes]

Two of my kids attend a boys-only high school. It is rated as one of the top fifty Catholic High Schools in the US. The atmosphere is supportive, the academics excellent, and the sports superb. My observation is that these boys feel less pressured to behave in "macho" fashion, and can express themselves more fully.

Don't worry about their ability to interact. They are surrounded by young ladies outside of school, which, if anything, is a babe magnet. Perhaps because the young men it produces are balanced and appealing.

My observations for what they are worth ...

[save_the_rustbelt]

Reporters are supposed to report

[Exactly. Does this story contain information from which a reader learns anything about male-female differences in cognitive development? No. Does this story report on the size or e enthe existence of a same-sex education trend? No.]

and let us draw our own conclusions.

Columnists and editorialists are supposed to offer opinions.

Brad wants reporting colored by opinions that match his opinions, otherwise it is bad reporting.

[jerry]

Note to Ponzi Q. Globalization, Sadly, just last week I heard the leaders where I work praising the world is flat. Somewhat odd since the company I work at absolutely relies on great circle paths for much of their business.

[Paul G. Brown]

So I read this piece. I wasted 15 minutes of my life. And THAT'S the problem.

The only 'data' is buried in a section titled "A deluge of Data" and that data suggests that - yes - boys and girls have measurable cognitive differences (yawn), develop at different rates (yawn) and that these developmental differences disappear by high school (yawn). Such educational comparison data as their is suggests that (yawn) gender segregation in education makes no difference in outcomes.

Look - at the same time that this non-story leads the NY Times magazine, Vanity Fair (a fashion mag, for pete's sake!) puts out a lengthy and detailed piece that lays out how the Bush Administration totally and utterly screwed the pooch in Gaza (not once, not twice, but three times, each time repeating an error from a previous administration's treatment of the people's of the region).

Is it news? OK. Let's allow that it is news. Is it news of such importance that it deserves all this real estate?

[stanfo]

Ironically, although the gender differences disappear by high school, students seperated by gender perhaps gain the most from that seperation in high school. All in all, this article simply shows that the paper is too big content-wise if it is struggling so much for articles that it resorts to this.

[Maynard Handley]

"not to mention how adversely affected childrens' development would be later on if they had little to no interaction with the opposite sex when they were growing up."

Gee, how, oh how, do all those other countries with gender-segregated high schools survive?
Do we actually have REAL evidence that this is a real problem? After all, it's not like there aren't gender-segregated schools even in the US, not alone the rest of the world.

Leonard Sax may be a nut, I've no idea.

[Game. Set. Match. Elizabeth Weil's was a truly lousy article.]

But in what way is he different from the people opposing his ideas for the most stupid of reasons? I'm sorry, Brad, but your gut reaction here strikes me as no different from the deliberate idiocy of the "abstinence-only sex education" crowd.
We constantly hear about how schooling in the US is not working. If this is an idea that has a chance of helping, it surely makes more sense to investigate it than to pretend it doesn't exist.