Co-ed or single-sex schools? Are all-boys or all-girls schools still relevant?

Christopher Scanlon gives below a pretty good summary of the evidence that the social background of the pupils underlies the  degree of success that different schooling types have in getting pupils through their final exams.  And that is true because IQ underlies socio-economic status.  As Charles Murray showed decades ago to great outrage, the richer are smarter on average.

Scanlon does however treat social class very gingerly and thus overlooks the one thing that DOES give private schools of all types an advantage.  Particularly for boys, the friends they make at school will be the core of their friendship group for life.   And they will tend to marry their friends' sisters. So they will tend to have both bright friends and bright wives.  And that is gold for an easy progression through life.  They really will have class "privilege"


As a parent of a school-aged daughter it feels like I’ve engaged in, or overheard in playgrounds and kids’ parties, roughly a million conversations about the pros and cons of single sex schools vs co-ed schools.

The angst-ridden nature of these conversations would make you think that school choice is one of the most important decisions a parent is ever going to make for their child. Many of these conversations feature “facts” about the benefits of single-sex schooling.

But how well do these facts stand up to scrutiny? While single sex schools typically outperform co-educational schools in terms of academic results, it’s unclear whether this is due to the absence of the opposite sex or other factors, such as socio-economic status of parents.

Kids who attend well-resourced schools tend to do better academically than kids at poorer schools, unfair as that may be.

As most single-sex schools in Australia are private schools or select-entry schools, the benefits may have more to do with the socio-economic backgrounds of the kids, rather than the gender make-up.

Yet the results factor is most often brought up by parents in terms of gender exclusivity, fuelling anxiety about school choice.

One particularly entrenched view is that single-sex schools are good for girls’ science and maths education. Girls, it’s suggested, will “dumb down” to fit with persistent gender stereotypes about girls not being innately good at these subjects. But the evidence is hardly compelling.

Sociologist Dr Joanna Sikora from the Australian National University found that while girls at gender-segregated schools are slightly more likely to pursue science in their final years of schooling compared to their peers who attend co-ed schools, it’s unclear whether this has to do with the absence of boys.

Other factors, such as coming from a wealthier family and, in the case of physical sciences at least, being born overseas and speaking a language other than English at home, appear to be important factor in girls’ selection and performance in science subjects (not the gender of fellow students).

And even accepting that girls from single sex schools are more likely to opt for science subjects in their senior years, it doesn’t seem to have a lasting impact.

Dr Sikora found that while boys attending single-sex schools are likely to express an interest in careers in medicine or physiotherapy compared to boys at co-ed schools, girls attending single-sex schools don’t aspire to careers in science any more than girls who share classrooms with boys. How lasting the effects of single-sex schooling are is a theme that comes up in other research.

Dr Katherine Dix from the Australian Council of Education Research compared NAPLAN literacy and numeracy results for boys, girls and co-educational schools at years 3, 5 and 7 and found that while students attending single-sex schools start out strong, the benefits declined over time.

In Year 3, for example, students at all-girls schools start out 7.2 school terms ahead in reading compared to their peers at co-educational schools, while students at all-boy’s schools are 4.6 terms ahead of their co-ed peers.

But by Grade 7, girls at all-girls schools are only 1.9 terms ahead and boys at single-sex schools are than half a term ahead of their co-ed peers. Similar results apply to numeracy. Students in Grade 3 at an all-boys school start out 4.3 terms ahead of their peers at co-educational schools while girls start out 3.1 terms ahead.

But by Grade 7, the boys from single-sex schools are only 2.8 terms ahead and girls are less than a term ahead of their co-ed peers.

“The most important outcome of having single-sex schools in any educational system”, says Dr Dix, “is not that they may be better, but rather that they offer families choice.”

Schools, however, do more than provide academic outcomes. They also play a role in the development of children’s identity and socialisation. And when it comes to single sex schools, that includes a strong pitch to parents about how the school will inculcate gender identity.

Single sex school marketing often includes statements about the type of young men and young women schools will produce.

Forget “gender whisperers” as Prime Minister Scott Morrison labelled strategies to support transgender students in schools, many single sex schools use a gender megaphone to tell the world how they will shape student’s gender identity.

While many parents might regard that as a plus, the ideal of gender they promote — sport-loving future male CEOs or community-minded, forthright yet agreeable, young woman leader —may not suit every student.

What about the artsy boy, with little interests in sports? Or the young woman who feels constrained by "traditional feminine" expectations of behaviour?

While the benefits or otherwise of single-sex schooling may be up for debate, what is clear is that single-sex education is in decline in Australia, and has been for some time.

According to Dr Katherine Dix’s work, data shows that that the proportion of students from independent schools attending single-sex schools fell from 31 per cent in 1985 to just 12 per cent of students in 2015.

If your head is spinning at the research results, a better approach might be to consult another kind of expert.

Rather than worrying about the advice of educational consultants, school marketing departments or, dare I say it, the academic researchers, my wife and I have decided when the time comes, we will consult the experts in our own house.

I’m talking about our children. Involving them the question about school choice is about empowering them to think about the kind of learning environment they want.

It’s about finding out who’s in their friendship network. If you daughter has many friendships with boys or your son socialises with girls, then these friendships may well be key to their engagement with schooling — and their academic success.

Ask them about what subjects they like best, and about what they do. Do they take opportunities to show leadership, or do they work best when they’re supporting and following?

If nothing else, including your child in this discussion and really listening to and observing them during it, show them you take their views seriously, and help them to begin a lifetime of making important decisions for themselves.

After all, they’re the ones who are going to be most affected by your decision.

SOURCE 





"The Cup". And the winner was ....

The Melbourne Cup horse race was exciting as usual -- with the winner coming from behind at the last minute -- but the ladies made a mark too. The "Fashions on the Field" contest is the only fashion show I ever look at at all -- as the fashions there usually seem street-wearable. And it's particularly pleasing to see that the winners often come from humble backgrounds:

While some sipped Champagne in the Birdcage and others tried their luck with betting trackside, hopeful fashion lovers turned up the sartorial heat by going head to head in Myer's Fashions on the Field.

Hundreds of fashionistas took to the catwalk in their racing best on Tuesday in a bid to take out the daily title.

After a bold and bright display of brightly-coloured gowns, sky-high headwear and fascinators, the Daily Finalist title went to Jordan Beard, who will battle it out for the Victorian state title on Oaks Day on Thursday.


Queensland flight attendant Jordan Beard in the middle above. Sleeves were "in"

Jordan won against two other finalists, in green sequins and a one-shouldered dress by Cult Gaia.

Jordan's elegant dress nodded to countless race day trends for 2018, including bold colours, straw hats and exaggerated sleeves.

She completed the chic race day look with statement earrings and an elegant clutch bag before posing for photographs with the second and third place entrants.

SOURCE 






'I didn't steal it, that happened in the past': Pauline Hanson says she's sick of people saying Australian land belongs to Aboriginal people

Pauline Hanson has accused Aboriginal people of joining the land rights 'bandwagon', and suggested they are 'milking' the argument for all it was worth.

The controversial One Nation leader told Sky News she believed she had the right to feel a connection with the country in the same way as its traditional owners because she and her children were born in Australia.

'When people claim I don't have any connection with this land, I'm sorry I do. There's no other land I feel I would fight for, defend, that I am so proud as I do Australia,' Ms Hanson said.

'I get really upset when people say we have no connection with the land, that this is Aboriginal land, that we stole it. Well, I didn't steal it.'

'This is what's happened in the past and has happened throughout the world with many countries.'

She added many migrants had moved to Australia and embraced its values and culture, and they too should be feel able to call Down Under their rightful home.

'See people that have jumped onto the bandwagon, the Aboriginal industry, to milk it for what it's worth, and that's what I get annoyed about.'

'Until we actually accept and recognise each other as Australians and start working together on an individual needs basis not based on race, we are going to be more divisive as the time goes.'

Her comments were met with a mixed response, some agreeing the land should be equally shared and others slamming her 'immoral' views.

'Pauline has been living off the proceeds of crime for so long she's forgotten it's immoral,' someone wrote on Twitter.

Another wrote: 'All throughout history man has fought over land. When you defeat the opposition that land became yours. That's how it worked back then.'

Many agreed with Ms Hanson's view that immigrants should be accepted as Australians after adapting its culture and values.   

Figures within the Aboriginal community slammed Ms Hanson following the inflammatory comments she made on Sunday, SBS News reported.

Co-chair of National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and native title claimant Rod Little described her words as 'unhelpful' and 'pathetic'.

'First Peoples have been calling for equality from day one. We need to be discussing resolutions and solutions ... How do we work together to achieve real equality in this country,' he said.

ANTaR president Peter Lewis agreed, stating 'thousands of non-Indigenous Australians that support reconciliation and truth-telling don't share Pauline Hanson's fears and sense of threat.'  

SOURCE 






POLICE ADMIT: SUDANESE 44 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BREAK LAW

After years of evasions, Victoria Police reveals the full catastrophe of the Howard Government's decision to let in poorly educated Sudanese refugees from tribal war zones who'd struggle to fit in.

Sudanese make up just 0.11 per cent of Victoria's population but 4.8 per cent of aggravated burglary offenders.

That makes them 44 times more likely to break the law.

Then there are these statistics:

But Sudanese youths were vastly over-represented in the 2015 data, responsible for 7.44 per cent of home invasions, 5.65 per cent of car thefts and 13.9 per cent of aggravated robberies, despite Sudanese-born citizens making up about 0.11 per cent of Victoria's population.

Nearly 70 times more likely, then, to commit a home invasion than are Australian-born youths.

Yes, most Sudanese do not break the law. Yes, it is nice to help the victims of war. But why have we put so many Victorians in danger by letting in people who so plainly would struggle to adapt?

And why the years of falsehoods and coverup?

Remember the falsehoods once spread by then Chief Commissioner of police Christine Nixon, after Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said Sudanese crime rates were too high and he was cutting the immigration intake?:

But worst was the reaction of Victoria Police, led by Labor-appointed Christine Nixon.

Nixon claimed Andrews was wrong about Sudanese crime rates: “They’re not, in a sense, represented more than the proportion of them in the population.”

A police multicultural liaison officer agreed: “There’s an under-representation of the Sudanese in crime stats.”

Those police claims were false. Figures let slip by Nixon the following year revealed crime rates for Sudanese youth at least four times the state average.

And that's now got dramatically worse.

But remember also how the multicultural lobby and media Left vilified Andrews for telling the truth and trying to stop us from importing even more danger?

The ethnic lobby predictably denounced him as a racist, as did Labor politicians.

“It has been a long time since I have heard such a pure form of racism out of the mouth of any Australian politician,” sneered Queensland premier Anna Bligh.

We had a “leadership which allows divisiveness”, stormed the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.

And the elite media pack-attacked.

The Age accused Andrews of making “unpleasant and inflammatory” comments to provoke “a predictably base reaction from those sensitive to immigration on racial grounds”.

Where are the apologies? Where's the acknowledgement that the Left made a terrible mistake?

The ABC has also consistently tried to ignore, hide or diminish the problem with specious arguments like this:

Commentators have linked a recent spate of crimes to the so-called Apex gang, heightening anti-migration rhetoric, but police statistics show most home invasions, car thefts and aggravated robberies are committed by people born in Australia.

Of course most such crimes are committed by the dominant demographic, but note the evasions. First, how many of those born in Australia are actually born to Sudanese parents? Second, and more relevant: what is the crime rate of each ethnic group?

Yes, the born-here cohort commit crime, but why are we adding to the problem by importing people 44 times more likely to bash, rob and smash into your home?

SOURCE 

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here