Same-Sex Schools: An Answer to Problems in Education?

THIS THIS THIS THIS

Single-sex schools are schools that only admit those of one specific gender, believing that the educational environment fostered by a single gender is more conducive to learning than a co-educational school. Studies conducted have shown that boys gain more academically from studying in co-education schools, but that girls find segregated schools more conducive to achievement. However academic results are not the only criterion on which the success of the education system should be judged. In the United States, a long-standing controversy over the Virginia Military Institute resulted in a landmark Supreme Court ruling, in June 1996, that the institute must admit women. Nevertheless the Court left room for private (i.e. not state-run) single-sex institutions and other such schools, where needed, to redress discrimination. Proponents of single-sex schools maintain that, by removing the distractions of the other sex, students learn more effectively and feel better about their education. Opponents maintain that co-educational schools in contrast are important in that they prepare students better for the real world, and do not attempt to segregate students from the realities of adult life. This debate can apply both to secondary school and college level, but single-sex institutions are found more frequently at the former.

Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more in class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose ‘male’ disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers. In the USA Who’s Who, graduates of women’s colleges outnumber all other women; there are only approximately 50 women’s colleges left in the States today. Elizabeth Tidball, who conducted the Who’s Who research, also later concluded that women’s colleges produced ‘more than their fair share who went on to medical school or received doctorates in the natural or life sciences’, typically male fields.

Other studies have found that women in fact are not any better off in single-sex institutions. A 1998 survey from the American Association of University Women, a long-time advocate of single-sex education, admitted that girls from such schools did not show any academic improvement. That they are more inclined towards maths and sciences is of questionable importance to society as a whole. As the report noted, "boys and girls both thrive when the elements of good education are there, elements like smaller classes, focused academic curriculum and gender-fair instruction". These can all be present in co-educational schools. It has been argued that Tidball in her research made the mistake of not controlling for other characteristics, namely socio-economic privileges of those at elite women’s colleges.

Without a doubt, American schools are failing.  According to the Global School ranking released in December 2013, the United States dropped to 36th place - America might be considered a Super Power - but it lags dramatically in education.  Clearly there is a problem and some feel that drastic measures need to be made in order to correct the downward trend.  Those that advocate for same-sex schools make the argument, that not only is it beneficial to promoting the educational status of women, but that it also removes the social interaction between the sexes that many educators feel has become a major distraction.  "Students don't come to school for the academic stimulation or challenge, they come for the social interaction with the opposite sex," has been a long believed conception by many educators in this country today.

Blog Question:
Would same-sex schools be a good alternative to traditional co-ed public schools?  Even though it's not the only idea to help eradicate the growing problem in public education in the United States, could it be considered a good step forward?  What ideas do you have that could help alter the current trend downward in America's educational system? 

Abolitionist or Terrorist?

Talk about perfect timing!!!  This week's blog fits directly into what we are currently studying!!
****************************************

Historian Kenneth Gray once stated that there existed a thin line between what one can call a patriot and terrorists.  He basic argument was that those the advocate a change for what they honestly believe to be fundamentally "right" can indeed be considered a true patriot.  Did not Thomas Jefferson state:

"And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." 

Yet, one could, if one so desired, interpret the call to "...let them take arms" and "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots" to be a form of terrorism.  The Oxford dictionary definition of the word terrorism is, "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."  Therefore, one can clearly see Gray's point by stating that their exist that "thin line" between the two.

On February 14th of this year, a group of activists in Charleston, SC unveiled what has become a very controversial statue of the black abolitionists, Denmark Vesey.  The "New York Times" recently wrote an opinion piece on the controversy.  Click here to read the article and then fire away on the blog question for this week... should be an interesting one!!!

BLOG QUESTION:
First, do you agree with historian Kenneth Gray that there really does exist a thin line between what one may call a terrorists or a patriot?  After reading the article, what is your opinion on the statue of Denmark Vesey - should it be celebrated or does it glorify the wrong message?

Is Evil, evil?

Ok, let me start by saying that I need to do a little "lead into" for this blog topic - just to make sure that we're all clear on the actual topic - "Is Evil, evil?"  So I ask that each of you do me the courtesy of reading what I have written here prior to posting your comments.

Several years ago I heard a speaker while in college speak about the importance of properly analyzing history.  The reason that I remember the core of his speech was that I found the topic to be interesting and the questions he raised to be thought provoking; and as most of you know, I love thought-provoking conversations.... the deeper, the better!  To my "sick" academic mind, a good evening would be to have a bunch of people sitting around and engaging in a great discussion on "deep" topics.  Anyway, moving on...

The professor was Dr. Demos of Yale University (btw, one of the most interesting history professors I ever had) and he was stressing how it is important for students of history, professors of history, research writers, etc., to learn to analyze history as history.  In other words, not give what they may conceive as clear-cut labels.  According to Dr. Demos, when we do that, we enter into a "wrong way to attempt to understand history."  History, of itself, has no unambiguously good actors or bad.  There are just actors.  In fact, good and evil should not factor in a historical analysis at all.  Properly done, history must be examined and analyzed from a dispassionate, almost other-worldly, perspective. Let me give you an example using the Civil War.

Lincoln fought a war to preserve the Union—a union that had been voluntarily, democratically entered by the various states and subsequent territories.  Take away the repugnant institution of slavery, and the Confederacy had the better democratic claim for what they wished to do, if the critical ideal for a democratic republic is self-determination.  Had Lincoln not been able to wrap his cause of preserving the Union in the flag of ending slavery, the 600,000 dead would have been an atrocious cost to pay in order to keep a voluntarily-entered union from being voluntarily and democratically dissolved.

Stripped of moral judgments, history abounds with irony.   Lincoln had to subvert the democratic will of the Southern state legislatures in order to preserve democracy.  He eventually used the greater evil of slavery as justification for his fight against Southern democracy, but it should never be forgotten that he didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863, well after hostilities had commenced.   He pinned his cause on eliminating slavery only when it appeared his cause of preserving the Union was in jeopardy.  One wonders, what rationale to hold together the Union would be available, if in the future some state democratically determined it wished to leave?  Considering that even client states like Iraq and Afghanistan have no choice about their limited participation in the Union, it would be outlandish to imagine that something would not be contrived if, e.g., Texas figured it would be better off going it alone, again.  Lincoln was lucky.  He had the abolition of slavery to steel the people’s hearts and minds to battle against their own people, and in some measure, against their own ideals.  Artfully leveraging slavery to his purposes was part of Lincoln’s genius.  It would take an even more astute politician to conjure such a compelling purpose today, if one of the several states sought leave to end its association.

Ok, continuing my example using the Civil War (yes, one of my favorite period so history to study), let's take a look at the Confederate General, Robert E. Lee.  Lee is perhaps the most mythologized and romanticized military leader in American history.  His tactical brilliance is routinely praised, though there is precious little evidence supporting the view.  In fact, Lee led tactical disaster after disaster, not least Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, which as any reasonably astute tactician understands, and all Lee’s generals at the time fully well knew, was nothing more or less than Confederate suicide.  In many ways, Lee was the Union’s best general.  History is always written by the victors, perhaps explaining the enduring myth of Lee’s tactical brilliance.  The victors would not wish to imagine that Lee’s defeat was anything other than the product of their own valor and determination against a formidable foe.

So, are we correct to label something as "evil" simply to justify our own desire to elevate our own "goodness" or to justify something we consider (or in history's case - the victor) to be morally good.  Could not one claim that Lincoln was an "evil" man for leading the country into a war that, as stated earlier, actually went against the very principals of the Declaration of Independence? If you don't think so, maybe you should take the time to re-read the Declaration of Independence, for it clearly stated:

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Would it not be equally justified to declare that Robert E. Lee was "evil" for leading the Confederate states into one disaster after another; only on the belief that for some reason the South was justified in it's succession?

What about other characters that we find throughout history?  Who is "evil"?  Why are they considered "evil?"  How will history look back at us 100, 500, or a 1000 years from now when they read that we aborted millions of unborn children (NO!!! THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-ABORTION MESSAGE!!!...but what if for some reason later on that it's discovered that a fetus at 1 week old can indeed feel pain...it would probably change the interpretations that some have about the "justification" of aborting a fetus...therefore the future may judge us completely different)?  Will we be considered an "evil" people?

Last but not least - the question must also be asked - is an individuals actions "evil" or is it the results of a given action that are evil?

Trust me, the topic is difficult to nail down and granted, the interpretations are just as varied as the events in history itself.  So here's the blog topic for this week.....

BLOG QUESTION:
Is Evil, "evil"?  Can we effectively and justifiably declare someone or something in history as being "evil" - if so how or why? 

The Term Game.... #1

IT'S HERE!!!!  IT'S FINALLY HERE!!!

WHAT YOU ASK???? OMG!!!!! IT'S ONLY THE MOST AWESOME GAME IN THE WORLD!!!!
THAT'S RIGHT.... THIS GAME IS KNOWN WORLD WIDE AND HAS A LOYAL APUSH FOLLOWING!!!  PAST STUDENTS BEG ME TO ALLOW THEM TO PLAY - BUT THAT JUST WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO YOU...... ROOKIES!!!

Ok, so let me explain to you once again (since I did this in class already).  I will start the game off by giving you a historical term of which you have had since the beginning of this year.  The person responding to me, must give the HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE of that term and then that person names the next term, beginning with the next letter. Here is an example (not related to the subject, just so none of you really smart children decide to try and rip mine off....):

EXAMPLE:
I post the word "APPLE"
John Doe responses with: "A fruit of which fell from a tree and hit Isaac Newton in the head; thus launching the Scientific Revolution"  NEXT WORD: BATS.....

And thus the game would have begun.  Again, remember that my example is NOT one of your historical terms.  You can use ANY of the terms you have from Chapter 1 through 13.  If you get lost, you can always refer to the APUSH 1 Term list on my website - but you should be able to pull them directly from your notebooks.

Dealing with X, Y, and Z words.  True, there aren't many of these in your APUSH historical terms, but to make the game interesting - when you get to any of these three letters, you must use any that does exist.  If there are no more words that begin with X, Y, or Z (x & z will be the hardest), then you can declare a "SKIP" and move to the next letter.  WARNING:  if the person responding to your next letter finds a word that has not be used - then they can declare a FOUL and YOU (the one that declared the "SKIP" will lose point.

When you reach the end of the alphabet - you just start back with the letter "A"

How to win at this game.  Post the most historical significant definitions and new words.  The winner gets a free homework pass on any homework assignment they choose!!!

The game stops at mid-night on Friday!!!

GOOD LUCK!!!!


FIRST WORD: Articles of Confederation (AOC)

Strict vs. Loose?

Hopefully by now many of you understand the importance and relevance of understanding history (especially for this class - American History) and that you remember one of those key rules of history (that wonderful 3rd rule!).

Therefore, the question of how we should interpret the United States Constitution is still a valid discussion (or debate, depending on how you want to look at it).  Just as it was in the infancy of the nation, the question as to the divisional of governmental power continues to have a direct effect on how we often view the role of government.  Should the Federal government have the greatest power or should the States maintain the majority of the power?  We know from our study of the Constitutional Convention, that question was one of the major questions that, to some degree, never really gets answered (at least for some) and is still being debated today.  Example, some would argue that the debate over gay marriage should not be a federal issue since the Constitution does not address marriage (that would place it under the 10th Amendment - a power that lays with the States).  That's only one such example and of course, this blog topic is NOT about gay marriage.

For this week's blog, I'd like to hear your opinion.

BLOG QUESTION:
Should the Constitution be interpreted in the spirit of a Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian? Strict vs. Loose.  Is Big Government the answer to America's current problems or should the role of the federal government be reduced?

School "Holidays"?

I'm sure that most of you have heard the phrase "Separation of Church and State."  Unfortunately, it is one of the most mistakenly used phrases when attempting to connect it to the United States Constitution.  Trust me, if you were to ask a 100 people what part of the US Constitution would you find "separation of church and state," nearly 90% would claim that it is in the 1st Amendment.  The truth is, it is NO WHERE in the Constitution, for the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the United States Constitution.  The reason that 90% of Americans believe that is is located in the 1st Amendment (or somewhere else within the body of the Constitution) is do to, in large, a major campaign by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to have "God" removed from all public institutions (both federal and state).  As a matter of fact, it is one of their most repeated phrases since their foundation.  This isn't to say that the ACLU is a bad organization.  As a matter of fact, they have done a lot of good helping citizens protect their rights and have been involved in a number of important landmark Supreme Court cases, yet they are known to be more to the "left" than "center" when it comes to a number of  issues and often are in the center of some extremely controversial topics.

Recently, the ACLU has launched a campaign to have any and ALL recognition of ANY type of religion displayed in public schools.  In part, their argument is that if you element all references to all religions in public school, it would prevent anyone from being offended.  In other words, public schools could not display ANY form of religious icons within their schools.  Furthermore, they would not be permitted to close their schools down for religious references if those closings "...occur in collation to a known religious holiday."  Translation: Public schools could not close around Christmas or Easter (as we currently do) because those days off correspond to a known religious holiday.  In addition, public schools would not be permitted to display any symbols that relate to a given religious holiday...regardless of how they attempt to reword it to make it appear as if they were being unbiased (i.e., no "Holiday Trees" - another name for a "Christmas" tree, no Santa Clauses - St. Nick..., nor any Menorah, Kwanzaa, etc.)  Not to mention that public schools would also be prevented from singing any type of religious songs during "Holiday Concerts" or at any other time during the year.  In all likelihood they probably would object strongly to Dr. Bob's playing of holiday music.  The supporters of the ACLU's proposal do agree that students should be permitted to be absent due to their religious beliefs to celebrate their given holiday and that the absence should not be counted against them, but the school, as a whole, should not be closed or recognize any religion.

Those that are fighting the ACLU argue that the Supreme Court has upheld on a number of occasions that school districts are allowed to recognize whichever religion which is dominate in the majority of their given demographics.  So, if the majority of your community is Jewish, the school's are allowed to close for Jewish holidays (i.e., Paramus school district) or if the majority of your population is Christian, then they can close for Christian holidays.  Furthermore, those that oppose this current move by the ACLU state that they are incorrectly inserting something into the Constitution that isn't there ("separation of church and state) and that if the majority of the parents of a given school district do not have a problem with the school's recognition of any given religious holiday, then there isn't a problem.

THIS WEEK'S BLOG TOPIC: Should public schools stop recognizing any and all religions?  Would doing so finally create a "religious free" environment and improve the overall learning atmosphere of public schools?  Or is this just simply "political correctness" going too far?  Furthermore, is this even a "real issue" that needs to be addressed?

Stop and Frisk: A Debate

New York City has a new mayor - something you may have heard about.  His name is Bill de Blasio and one of his key campaign promises was that he was going to put a stop to the practice known as "Stop and Frisk" - a program that the NYPD claims has been responsible for NYC seeing a dramatic drop in violent crime.  Opponents to the program, like the city's new mayor, argue that the program is nothing more than "racial profiling."

As with all great debates, there are excellent points on both sides of the argument.  Click the Huffington Post article below and read a great debate on this topic.  Carefully examine both sides of this debate and then, let's debate this topic here, in our blog.  While you form your opinion or "refine" your point-of-view, if you already had one on this topic, keep in mind the basic principals of the United States Constitution.  Before you think that makes it a much easier debate - THINK AGAIN.  The fact is, the Constitution is an interpretative document; therefore, laws can be passed which help protect the citizenry of a state.  It truly is a difficult topic and I'm sure that many of you will have different viewpoints, so make sure that you are respectful of each other's point-of-views.

Again, let me remind you - it is NOT YOUR JOB in these blogs to critic each others writing - in any form. So, don't waste time informing someone that they didn't support their "thesis" or their argument with enough facts....blah, blah, blah...  Debate each others point-of-views, only.

ARTICLE: STOP AND FRISK: A DEBATE

Blog Topic Question:  After reading the above article and of course, using your own opinions, argue for or against the Stop and Frisk policy.  Is the mayor elect, de Blasio making the right move in doing away with the existing policy?

Happy Blogging!!!

SPECIAL NOTE: This week's blog topic was suggested by one of my APUSH 2 students.  If you have a topic you'd like for us to discuss, drop me an email.  If I like it, I'll post it!!!