Junior High School Confidential

I was walking past one of the schools in my area, and it is one of those "new" schools; that is, it is a junior high school only for girls, and they wear uniforms there. So that led me to think about two topics that were worthwhile: one, the gender specific schools, and the the uniform issue. Today, I think I will deal with the gender specific issue.

You gotta keep 'em separated: Separate schools have shown to be better for the students, in particular girls. Girls who go to separate schools do better for a variety of reasons: they get more individual attention; they aren't competing with boys for funding, classroom, gym and lab time; they don't get distracted by boys. Boys do better in gender specific schools as well, for pretty much the same reasons. If keeping the students separate leads to better grades and performance for every one, then why shouldn't it be done? And what parent doesn't want all the advantages for their kids?

Socially, there is no difference in how the kids do. Sure, they may not be in a single sex environment when they get into the real world (or, in some cases, high school), but they will adjust; they always do. But just because they are not in a single sex environment, there is no reason to believe the kids will be socially retarded, any more that home schooled kids are. The rest of the world is non-gender specific; kids get plenty of exposure to the opposite sex when they are in the mall, at family gatherings, in life.

The only real issue is where the finding should come from. Single sex schools have always been available to those who were willing to pay extra for it. But if there s enough demand for it, then it should be an option for any parent who wants it, just as a school with a music based curriculum or sports based curriculum is available. Then those who can't afford the extra cost of private school can have the same benefits as those who can.

We got to live together: The studies that show single sex school students do better are flawed at best. They do not control for private schools, which traditionally score better than public schools due to increased funding. They also do not track post-school results, which is far more relevant than just in school results. Do students from single sex schools have better paying jobs? Are they happier? Would the students - not the parents - do it again? Would they send their kids to single sex schools? These are the real questions that the studies need to address, and the fact that they haven't suggests that the authors don't want to know the answers.

School is where people learn their social skills that they will use as adults. If girls don't learn to boys at an early age, they won't succeed later on. That's why we teach people to read: so they have the same skill set as their peers. And boys need to learn to compete with girls as well. Girls already score better than boys on most tests, right up to (but not through) high school, and boys will only catch up if they are in the same sex environment. Keeping them from each other is counterproductive for both boys and girls.

Funding is a moot issue. If people want to pay more for it, then they can go with private school. The same goes for the music schools and sports schools and every other specialty school. Sure, schools can have different focuses, but the curriculum is still the same: math, language arts, science, social studies. If you don't want to pay extra for it, then you see no value in it. And if you can't afford private school - well, that's the whole point of private school, isn't it?

What I think: I think that the studies that show better results for girls are important. And I think that if I was a parent of a girl, I might be really tempted to send her to an all girls school. But I also know that the absence of boys does not make a school clique free; and both boys and girls are not going to suddenly accept everyone just because there is only one gender there. But I think my real problem with same sex schools is that they are archaic and they tend to reinforce gender stereotypes, not minimize them. A boys school is pretty unlikely to have, say, cooking as an optional class, and a girls school is less likely to have an auto mechanic class. So a tomboy or nancyboy will be even more out of place. If some people wanted to do the other gender's stuff, they wouldn't even have the option. The social skills are I think are irrelevant. It's not like you can avoid the opposite sex in real life, so that doesn't matter. I also don't really agree with what the existence separate schools implies about boys and girls - that both will be so distracted by the other that they will be unable to get their work done. But it does imply that, which reinforces the belief, which reinforces the behaviour, which is moving backwards.

How I relate: Never had the "privilege" of attending a separate school. One year, we did have a boys entrance and a girls entrance, though. So I am really having an opinion here without the benefit of living through it. I have had friends who attended boys schools, but always private and often sports focused, so I can't really use them as a barometer either. So I don't know - ultimately, I think it has to come down to what the parent wants, but I don't think it will really make a difference one way or another.

It's the 28th today - will I make another post by the 31st? And thus maintain my 3 per month average? Only the next three days will tell!

What do I call you again?

Well, it's been over a month since I posted. I do have an excuse; and it goes back to a previous post about home ownership. My spouse and I have purchased a property, one unit of a four plex. It is lofty and pretty much exactly what we were looking for; and we didn't expect to find it. But that completely destroys my even more pathetic goal of 4 posts a month, and almost kills my 3 posts a month average as well. Maybe I can bring it back up, but I don't think so. This post is more of just a "get back into it" post, and so the post is going to be kind of weak. In fact, it is going to be about the terms for "significant others". 

I'll call you whatever I want: The term that people use to refer to their significant others is irrelevant. What is important is how they feel about each other, and what they want to be called. If a woman wants to be called "wife" and the other is OK with it, then that's what it should be - even if they aren't legally married. And everyone else should go along with their wishes, as well; especially if they are friends, then they will go a long with it. 

The same applies for all terms of this nature: spouse, significant other, common law husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, partner, better half, whatever. And this is applicable for same sex as much as opposite sex. Because the law now recognizes same sex relationships as well as common law ones, the designation should now be up to the couple. 

And lest you think this is unromantic, then just remember: there is nothing more romantic than addressing your spouse with a term of endearment that they like. 

Stick to the definition, please: Every single term has a specific meaning and a specific use. A husband is not the same as a boyfriend; a spouse is not the same as a partner. For better or worse, the words have different things attached to them - sometimes in terms of power, sometimes not (that is, a spouse is not necessarily equal, but a partner is). So each term should be used in the correct context; anything else is just going to confuse friends, third parties, and even the people involved. 

This is even more pronounced when you talk about legalities. The law may recognize same sex couples and common law couples, but it doesn't yet, in all places, recognize them on equal footing as a spouse. With this in mind, the terms used should match the legal terms. If you have been living together in a committed relationship for 10 years, call them your "common law spouse" not wife or husband. 

And maybe this isn't romantic, but it is the way the world is. And sometimes the world isn't romantic. 

What I think: I don't like some of the terms, because they are not very good descriptors. A spouse is clear; a partner is not. If you are 15, a boyfriend/girlfriend is clear; going out is clear. Teens may be confused, but they do have their labeling down pretty good. I think the only terms that should exist are husband/wife and spouse. It clearly defines the relationship, and if you have to put in qualifiers, fine (such as ex wife, common law spouse, or open relationship husband) but it makes things much clearer to just use the same terms that are as close to the legal ones as possible. And same sex couples should be entitled to use the same ones as well; two husbands or two wives in a relationship is fine with me. 

How I relate: I have to admit that when I got married, things did become easier. And I don't support the terms just because of ease of use, but it doesn't hurt, either. Some terms have always bothered me - partner, for example, seems too antiseptic; like the people don't want the true nature of their relationship coming out. I'm not saying you should use terms like "This is my bed buddy" but clarity is always a good thing. Even if only in the small things. 

See, that was kind of a cop out post. I've had a few good ideas for posts, such as whether or not parents should let their teens drink at home; if nationalism is a good thing or bad thing; if culture is real or just an excuse to do shitty things to other culture or if culture even exists in this global society.  But we'll see where the day takes me.