No girls here, no boys there
School's single-gender classes show promising early results
By Diane Knich
Berkeley Middle School sixth-grader Matthew Desmond said he loves learning in a single-gender program so much that he'd recommend to fifth-grade boys that they sign up next year.
The Post and Courier
Tiffany Varner and Kaitlyn DeLong listen to a lecture in Jennifer Long's sixth-grade history class at Berkeley Middle School. In a girls' class, students sit in small groups, and the lights are dimmed.
"You can throw balls in class and stuff, and you're with your friends all day," he said.
Matthew thinks he's just having fun when he and his classmates toss a ball in class or do some other activity that gets them out of their seats. But he's really learning while moving, a technique single-gender advocates have said resonates with boys.
Berkeley Middle School joined a growing statewide trend when it began offering a single-gender program last fall.
South Carolina leads the nation in the number of schools that offer single-gender classes, said David Chadwell, single-gender coordinator at the state Department of Education. About 500 schools across the country offer some all-boy or all-girl classes or programs, and 216 of them are in South Carolina, he said.
Berkeley Middle School Principal Lee Westberry said her school's program is unique because it is comprehensive. Students take all four of their core courses — English, math, science and social studies — in a single-gender setting, she said. And only students, parents and teachers who want to be in the program are taking part in it.
About 140 middle-school students in sixth through eighth grades are enrolled this year, Westberry said.
Staff members spent the entire year last year developing the program, she said, and they regularly get training in how to teach in ways that work with boys and girls. The teacher's gender isn't important, she said. What matters is the teaching style.
Westberry, a strong supporter of single-gender education, said such programs are successful not because they separate boys and girls but because teachers use strategies that work with the gender they are teaching.
In a boys' class Tuesday, the teacher and students spoke loudly and everybody moved around. In a girls' class, students sat in small groups and talked to each other. Their teacher dimmed the lights and the slight smell of cinnamon wafted through the air.
Chadwell said the Berkeley Middle School program also is collecting data on how students are doing, which is very useful.
According to the data, Westberry said, the program is working. After one semester:
• Sixth-grade girls' average grade-point average in all four classes is 4 points higher than their peers in mixed-gender classes.
• Sixth-grade boys' average is 4 points higher in math and social studies and the same in English and science.
• Seventh-grade boys' and girls' averages are 5 points higher in all core classes.
• Eighth-grade girls' average is 2 points higher in English and social studies, but their average in math and science is slightly below that of their peers in mixed-gender classes. Program leaders attribute that, at least in part, to more students enrolling after the start of the school year.
• There is no group for eighth-grade boys.
Overall, Westberry said, "they're performing better and they're happier."
The Post and Courier
Alex Steirt (left) reaches as high as he can along with his fellow classmates to answer a question in science class at Berkeley Middle School. The school offers single-gender classes in core courses.
In the single-gender classes, discipline problems among the same students have dropped 72 percent from last year, and absences are down 50 percent, she said.
Those are impressive early statistics for a school that didn't set out to start a single-gender program, she said.
Westberry started as principal at the school last year and learned immediately that "our girls outperformed our boys in every subject area and at every grade-level," she said.
The idea for single-gender classes was born as a method to help boys succeed, she said. But it's worked well for girls, too.
Chadwell said many schools in the state offer single- gender options because they give public-school parents a choice about the learning environment in which they enroll their children. State Education Superintendent Jim Rex is pushing for more choices in public schools, he said.
More info
To find out more about single-gender education and a complete list of local and state schools with the programs, log onto the Office of Public School Choice - Single-Gender Education.
Chadwell also said the programs are easy and inexpensive to implement and don't require that schools purchase a lot of new materials. "There's no boys' curriculum or girls' curriculum," he said.
All that's really required is teacher training, Westberry said.
To help her teachers decide if they would be better at teaching boys or girls, Westberry tapped her pen loudly on her note pad throughout a meeting. At the end of the meeting, she asked teachers to raise their hands if they found it annoying. Those who did probably aren't well-suited to teach boys, who usually like to move and tend to fidget as they learn, she said.
Boys also tend to respond well to a fast pace, loud voices and competition, while girls often do better working face-to-face in a quieter, more colorful environment.
"It's all about strategies," Westberry said. "The kids love it and they're thriving."
Reach Diane Knich at 937-5491 or dknich@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
"South Carolina leads the nation in the number of schools that offer single-gender classes..."
So, can we cut the crap at The Citadel and get back to normal now? Or is it only 'separate but equal' which can now be applied?
March 18, 2009 at 1:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NativeSon (anonymous) says...
This is a great program. It is like the Boys clubs was supposed to be until a mentally ill parent forced their little baby girl into the mix. Now the boys and girls club is only a baby sitting group!
I hope this program can survive the whinning misfits who want to force their girls into the boy exclusive program.
March 18, 2009 at 4:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lois_Lane (anonymous) says...
Finally, hopefully, this finds something that works. Anything to make school and learning more interesting to keep them there!
March 18, 2009 at 5:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
4 to 5 points higher. Is that really a huge success? I really would have thought it was going to be much higher when I first saw the head line. Oh well it's a start for sure. You need to do this with the 8th graders and up too. That's about when the little head starts doing all the thinking.
March 18, 2009 at 6:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pavlovsdog (anonymous) says...
Native Son, don't be such a misogynist.
Single gender classes for boys are not exclusive. There are single gender classes for girls as well.
March 18, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
I, also, am skeptical whether 4 to 5 points is significant. Also, my knee-jerk reaction is for a concern that I have with home schooling. That is, they may suffer a lack of experience learning how to deal with people that are different from themselves. Of course, with females, I think that they really do have to come from outer space, but I love all of them anyway and get along fine with most of them. I definitely needed the early indoctrination to have survived this long among the aliens.
March 18, 2009 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
capnphil (anonymous) says...
I applaud thinking outside the box, however beware of the Pygmalion effect.
March 18, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
An increase of 4 to 5 points in one semester? Some of you may think that's low but I think that big an increase in a single semester is not just high, it's suspiciously high.
March 18, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NativeSon (anonymous) says...
As was girls clubs but some ignomaniac parent pushed the social agenda of their daughter to want to be "one of the boys" and both organizations lost out in the end.
Now as I mentioned previously the boys and girls clubs are just baby sitters.
Remember YMCA and YWCA? They were once great ICons of Americana each teaching their young charges how to become good men and women respectively. Now they are mostly social clubs with no significant contribution to society or the betterment of mankind.
The democraps continue to destroy everything American and we may one day see a one world government of socialist, marxist communism with the obama as its god.
March 18, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realredneck (anonymous) says...
Discrimination and prejudice and ignorance is discrimination and prejudice and ignorance.
What are we teaching our children?
They're no better than their gentials?
People are a different race are weird?
I'm sorry, darling, but there are reasons why greater United States think South Carolina is a breeding ground for bimbos and ignorant rednecks.
March 18, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realredneck (anonymous) says...
Oh by the way, Cid95, we need to kick all the black people out of the Citadel if you believe so highly in a white male society.
March 18, 2009 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realredneck (anonymous) says...
Native Son, I am that mixed-raced brunette misfit who got put into the Boys Club because all those white blonde girls used to pick on me for not being white.
What's next, kick out all the minorities even though they got the brains to do the job.
Looks aren't everything darling.
March 18, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realredneck (anonymous) says...
Single-sex education is bred out of insecurities and ignorance, not culture or intelligence.
March 18, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nochasgirl (anonymous) says...
References to SC being last in education seem to place all of the blame on the SC Dept of Education, CCSD, principals, or teachers. I will admit that my children have had a few bad teachers over the years, but they have had a lot of great teachers. They are in school to learn, and they make good grades. They were taught to respect their teachers, whether they liked them or not. When they were young, we (their parents) were there to help with homework or to study for a test. I wonder if maybe those who do not do well in school, and thus lower our testing scores, have this same attitude toward learning.
March 18, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
walterrhett (anonymous) says...
These posts shows the concerns--and slams--the broad community has about public education. I agree that 5 or 6 points in a single semester, just based on gendering grouping is high--but did the reporter omit, fail to research, or have edited, other changes in instruction and curriculum that supported the gender groupings? Also what were the numbers of students tested? The story provides too little information for more than a cautious celebration.
As always, a post wishes a return to the past based on the "crap" of today. Well I have a "crap" meter, when I see the word "crap" I know it is a shortcut to limited thinking, angry indifference, narcisstic, self-absorbed self-righteousness! My "crap" meter weighs extra points when "crap" has a race or gender content, because that "crap" usually wants to take away an opportunity for a person or groups who have answered America's call for a more perfect union by acting upon the principles of freedom to pursuit happiness that everyone is entitled to. My "crap" meter always interprets the use of that word to mean that the principles of American liberty and of Christian charity are being reduced from their glory to "crap" by someone whose heart is closed and is filled with "crap." Sorry that the post above expresses a closed heart and mind.
Sorry too that the inclusion of girls is an excuse for non-progressive change.
Quit baby-sitting: swing a bat, dribble a ball, work out an equation, practice the times tables, plant tomatoes, collect rocks, read Walter Dean Myers, and find the hundred of activities that students--boys or girls--can share, learn from, grow with, and be filled w/ a love and awe and sensitivity to the world and people w/ which we live!
March 18, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WoodsideJohn (anonymous) says...
Does it really matter? SC has the second worst schools in the nation. It can't get much worse!
March 18, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Single-gender education has only been marginally successful in other areas of the nation, and in many areas has yielded either no change or detrimental effects. Personally, in single-gender classes I've taught I've seen girls braiding each others' hair and boys pulling the old "comic book/magazine inside the textbook" routine.
Other areas which have experimented with this have also run into socialization problems, where boys and girls will go through their formative years without significant interaction with each other, then hit puberty or finish puberty not having picked up on social norms and cues that inform behavior.
Still, at least it's a step toward trying to improve education in some manner. Now if only we would spend more money on textbooks that don't refer to the Marshall Plan as an ongoing venture.
March 18, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Clemsurf (anonymous) says...
I knew a bunch of girls who went to Ashley Hall. When I went to college and they came up there too, they went boy crazy and started sleeping around with any guy. When you're not exposed to something for so long and then you get to see it all of the time and like it, you go kind of crazy for it.
And to the kid in the article who likes going to all boys schools......you just wait until the hormones kick in when you're in high school. You'll retract that statement.
March 18, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UrGatorbait (anonymous) says...
Cut the crap at the Citadel...the insecure wanna-be soldiers need to be macho again...oh yeah and like the redneck chick said, kick out all the Asian, black, Hispanic, and gay cadets out of the Citadel too. Then people like Cid will feel better about themselves.
This state is apparently trying everything to try and educate, its a miserable failure so far. My tax dollars at work...sigh.
March 18, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MyView (anonymous) says...
realredneck-
Slow down "darling", appears as though you have some insecurity issues of your own with which to deal.
The point increase when compared to mix gender classes could be explained by the involvement of parents who care enough to elect single gender classes or by the fact that the instruction time increases because there are less discipline problems.
Boys & Girls do grow, think, and yes, learn differently. Anyone out there have a son & a daughter? If so then you know they are dramatically different. That does not make one bad, one good, or one smarter than the other, it just makes them different. Hooray for differences, for those willing to learn, we educate one another. I do not believe single gender classes are discriminatory, except to those who are ignorant enough to believe every one of us belongs in every group, regardless of our qualifications for the group.
March 18, 2009 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
This article, and my earlier comment, are about the benefits of single gender education in a taxpayer-funded environment. Don't project race issues where none exist.
That's an all too common failing in American society today, one which is costing us dearly compared to other nations.
Is state support single gender education ok or is it not? Transparency and consistency are too values which are important for good governance.
March 18, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dancingbackwardsinheels (anonymous) says...
If you'll notice, the article states the children will be in single gender classes for their core curriculum- it does not specifically mention the additional classes they will take : foreign language, pe, art, music, etc. You can infer that these classes would be co-ed. I'm sure you all remember middle school much like I do- full of chaos and turmoil as puberty hit. Cliques form, boys and girls really start to notice each other, and unfortunately- it is the time when girls' school performance begins to suffer. Self-esteem plummets and some girls self-censor because they do not want to appear too "brainy". The emphasis during this time is on popularity and fitting in.
I for one would be thrilled if my daughter and son could experience for a little while each week what it would be like in a single-gender learning environment. My son could be instructed in a way that more suits his learning style, and my daughter could be in a classroom where her ideas could be given a voice.
The other point to notice is that the parents chose this option for their children- the children were not separated without approval from the parents. While I would not send my children to an all-girls' or all-boys' school, this appears to be a valid way to encorporate the experience into a co-ed public school.
March 18, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
letsgab (anonymous) says...
Dancingbackwardsinheels hits the nail on the head. I have a daughter and a son in single gender classes. I chose those classes based on the research that has been done and I love it. And so do they. Their "special area" classes are coed. This is one way that the state is trying to better our education system and good for them! Let's try something for a while and see if it works before we shoot it down.
March 18, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
autjtg (anonymous) says...
Urgatorbait must have gone to the Coastal Center.
March 18, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GG (anonymous) says...
DancingBWSinheels- some great points that others needed to hear.
My first trial at SG classes was in 1997. I set up an all girls and an all boys class of HS Chemistry I in a SC high school where I was principal. The girls had a male teacher, and the guys had a female teacher.
I measured the success of this arrangement in several ways: end of course grades, attendance, teacher observations and how many signed up for a SG Chemistry II for the next year.
End of course grades averaged up for both classes in comparison to the other mixed gender Chem classes.
Classes had a higher attendance rate that others.
The girls' teacher observed an increased willingness to participate in class. They weren't reluctant to answer questions for fear of ridicule from some guy. In mixed classes this same teacher had seen how girls would sit back and let the guys sort of "take over the discussions."
The boys' teacher said she noticed that the guys seemed to stay on task longer than her mixed gender classes. They also seemed to work better together than her other classes. She seemed to think it was because they weren't having to "show off" for the females.
Finally out of the 24 girls and 28 boys, all but 2 girls and 1 guy signed up for the SG Chem 2 class for the following year.
An added bonus that we had not counted on was that each teacher was able to conduct over 5 more labs for their SG classes. We could only deduce that the SG classes didn't have the opposite sex to worry about when moving around in the less structured lab setting. They were better able to keep their eyes, brains, and comments on the lab tasks at hand.
If we could have had the numbers for physics, I would have tried the SG class there also.
I am a believer than in most of the core classes, it works to set aside some SG classes. Hormones are powerful things in grades 7 - 12. Some students are brain dead far earlier these days. If SG classes help reign in the hormones, then more power to them.
March 18, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Acecool (anonymous) says...
I learnded gooder in a single gendar clarseroom!!!
We are like #48 in education out of #50... NOT GOOD!
Maybe this is why?
March 18, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realredneck (anonymous) says...
We doing kids a great disfavor teaching them "We are nothing but our hormones and our reproductive parts."
There are plenty of students-whether it is in Asia or Europe-where both boys and girls in mixed class do equally and extremely well in beating the United States in math-and English.
If kids believe we are nothing but our body parts then they will fail in an increasingly global and competitive world where it is your merit, not your gender or looks, that matters.
March 18, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realredneck (anonymous) says...
Has anyone thought that girls are overtly sexualized or objectified in the South.
In other cultures or countries where girls are trained like the boys and never raised or valued for their looks or sexuality, succeed in male-dominated careers.
In a sex-single education, we are just reinforcing girls are valued for their looks and they, as females, can't compete or get along with males in any environment.
We are short-changing females and males that they are nothing but their hormones.
We just refraining that notion of a "Bimbo Nation."
March 18, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Realredneck, don't forget that this mentality can do just as much disservice to men. Sexism harms men just as much as it does women.
March 18, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TripleTasked (anonymous) says...
MyView, Dancingbackwards inHeels, letsgab- so nice of you to offer an educated point of view. Thanks for joining the conversation. It really gets so tedious and boring to read the same bigoted, uninformed opinions from the same bigoted, ignorant posters on EVERY SINGLE P&C story. Seriously, do you people even work?
On the issue itself- my daughter will attend St. Andrew's Middle in WA next fall and I couldn't be more excited for single-gender core curriculm classes. As has been mentioned, girls and boys learn and communicate differently- this is a scientific fact, folks. Why not try new ideas to help them achieve their potential? If you're tired of being 48th, start trying to be part of the solution instead of ranting all the time about the problem! I don't see any of you with any other bright ideas about how to change education in SC...
March 18, 2009 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kave79 (anonymous) says...
If you have ever argued or fought with the opposite sex you know that males and females are different in so many ways. As much I hate to say it, but there may be something to this Mars or Venus idea. We as teachers are tapping into those differences. We are NOT promoting, homosexuality, discrimination, bigotry, sexism, racism or any other horrible "ism" you can think of. We are TEACHING! Students today are nothing like the students 10 or even 5 years ago. They are not growing up like you or I did.
Business are forced to adapt to their clientele:guess what so are the schools! Our clients are the students and parents and we are trying new ways to adapt to their needs. We are creating different choices for parents to make with the input of their child. And one of these choices is single gender. Yes there are many students that this will not work for. But for most, especially in the hormonal awkward years of middle school, these single gender programs seem to work.
These teachers spent a year studying teaching strategies!!! These same strategies can also be used in a co-ed classroom. No wheel has been recreated. The state dictates what we teach, not how it's presented. That is up to the teacher's discretion. So the teachers are carefully planning strategies that will work best for student learning.
March 18, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kave79 (anonymous) says...
I understand that South Carolina is listed in the bottom of the rankings but another major point is being forgotten. South Carolina has not played the educational games that other states have to make themselves look better on the national stage. Many are quick to point out scores and rankings but forget that South Carolina is among the leaders in state standards. In other words we ask more of our children than most states would even dream of. These educational rankings everyone is so quick to quote are based on the individual state's standards and not on a national across the board standard, often times like comparing apples to oranges. If a national standard were applied SC rankings would greatly rise. Based on the fact that we ask more, is it wrong to say that a lower score on a harder test is equivalent to or I dare say better than that of a higher score on a much easier test.
Everything cannot be seen from the same point of view. Much like the old adage is the glass half full or half empty, we are just trying to add a little more to each child's glass. By creating an environment where each child is free to learn, express themselves, and determine their own path based on an educational format that they and their parents have chosen to lead them into their futures, we are hopefully doing a little more to insure their success. It may seem mundane to those of us who grew up in the "contemporary" educational system, but if there is ANYTHING we as educators can do to give the advantage to even one child then this program has been a success.
Before you complain about SC schools you better be in one! Volunteer, mentor, and help a teacher. Actually see what is going on before you pass judgments. Do you part before you start pointing fingers!!!
March 18, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
An earlier post about the possibility that the scores reflect more parental involvement and deeper relationship with the students makes sense to me. Under threat of jail time for wagering, I bet that they have almost 0 discipline problems in these classes.
March 19, 2009 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
C1085 (anonymous) says...
I live in SC and can speak to how SG is playing out in our state and why we need to be cautious about touting the benefits of SG education without critical examination. Let me begin by confessing that I went to an all girl's school in high school and enjoyed a very empowering education for young women, so I am not entirely opposed to SG education. However, at a local middle school, SG has proven--at least on one level--to be less than empowering. David Chadwell explained all the benefits of SG education and "brain research" to parents. For many parents his talk was very convincing, after all, who can argue with science? This "science" suggests--roughly--that the "typical" boy is more active than the "typical" girl and that the "typical" girl is more calm, sensitive to sound, smells etc. than the "typical" boy. This science played out in one school by boys being sent on a school trip to a ropes course and girls being sent on a trip to the local pottery studio. The girls were outraged. Parents complained and girls were subsequently included on future "active" outings. I don't know if boys were included in future art field trips. As long as SG "science" limits what girls OR boys can be to stereotypes, I cannot support such programs. My youngest daughter who is athletic and won't sit still for a minute might love the freedom of roaming the classroom like the boys do in this article. And, if I had to sit in a room with cinnamon wafting through the air for any period of time, I'd be sick. Single gender classes in some situations might be justifiable, but not on the basis that boys are inherently "active" etc. and girls are inherently "crafty" etc. We have to get beyond essentializing people and suggesting boys or girls that do not fit into certain ideas of what it means to be male or female somehow are "atypical."
April 7, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Off campus
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
