Calvin White 's article "Our schools need to help boys become men" deals with doubting the school as they are failing in helping our boys succeed. This being stated, the article is not persuasive at all. Due to the article not being persuasive, it makes the readers question, is it the school 's duty to help the boys succeed in life or is it up to the individuals to make their own independent choices.
Abstinence is not an effective method of birth control. According to a study from Advocates for Youth, 95% of Americans have had premarital sex and teens who pledged to wait until marriage and 60% broke their promise after six years. In addition, the study also found that people who pledged virginity were more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than non-pledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active. Also, people who pledged were much less likely than non-pledgers to use contraception the first time they had sex and were less likely to know their STI status. Abstinence only education provides a false sense of security the first time people are having sex. They may think that they are safe when having sex for the first time not using contraception, but they are not. For example, condoms are effective 98% of the time. If students are led to believe that they are less effective, they won’t use protection during the first time they engage in sexual activity, leading to a higher risk of contracting an STD or becoming pregnant.
The debate about how to help young boys perform better in school is anything but simple. There are many different views and opinions on the matter. Some believe that it is very feminine environment that boys are introduced to in the classroom and making the classroom more appealing to boys is the best solution. This view is championed by the article How Boys Learn, written by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens. Others say that the idea of segregating boys and girls is part of the problem and that the best way to solve the problem is to stop looking at boys and girls as being so different and to look at them as individuals rather than as two groups. The view is represented
In “Boys Here, Girls There: Sure, If Equality’s the Goal”, Karen Stabiner writes an essay about same sex schools. In the first paragraph Stabiner opens the essay by saying, “Many parents may be wondering what the fuss was this past week, when the Bush administration endorsed single-sex public schools and classes.” (325) Stabiner is simply saying that many parents were probably surprised that the bush administration was for same sex schools. Stabiner then gives us her view on the topic by saying, “What I’ve learned is this: Single sex education matters, and it matters most to the students who historically have been denied access to it.” (326) Stabiner gives several examples and statistics in her essay to try and support her stand for same sex
The Illinois Family Institute is just as the name says. It’s a family-based organization with conservative views, who promotes “marriage, family, life, and liberty”. Among this organization is Laurie Higgins, the author of the article “Parents Should Fight ‘Comprehensive’ Sex-Ed”. Initially from the title, the article looks like she would be in support of abstinence-only education, since it’s the opposite approach of comprehensive sex-ed. However, Higgins takes the conservative approach one step farther and alludes to the idea that public schools shouldn’t even teach students about sex. She begins stating the problems with sexuality being introduced to the youth. Claiming that everyone is “immersed in a sex-drenched culture that giddily promotes
I’m going to be writing this book analysis over Schoolgirls by Peggy Orenstein. Originally published in 1994, this book’s main ideas include young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. Orenstein studied girls who attend two different middle schools located in California: Audubon Middle School and Weston Middle School. This book depicts how a young girl’s brain and self-image develop as she goes through the different stages of adolescence and puberty. Orenstein chose the schools that she studied in based on the amount of integration the school had gone through, as well as the levels of participation the teachers, students, and their families were willing to give. She wanted to give details on girls from multiple ethnicities, classes,
“Have sense or face the consequences.” This is the slogan that many Abstinence-only sexual education programs in the United States use to encourage teens to wait until marriage. Abstinence-only programs primarily discuss the positives of waiting while tending to leave out imperative information such as contraception use and what to do when people may have an STD. A research study performed in 2009 found that 46% of all high-school-aged students in the United States have already had sex. With the average high schooler losing their virginity at age 17 and the average marriage age of 27, teens and young adults are at risk for not only contracting STD’s but also unwanted pregnancy for 10 years. Abstinence-only sex education programs are ineffective
Ever wondered how much more productive students would be if classrooms were single-sex only? The mingling of boys and girls in a classroom setting can directly affect how each gender processes and learns new information. Authors Peggy Orenstein and Karen Stabiner, discuss two different learning environments (co-ed and single-sex) for students, and how these environments affect a student’s educational progress. Through their research they were able to show the importance of single-sex classrooms and the benefits it has on certain students. To explain their findings Orenstein uses a pathos appeal through direct observation, while Stabiner uses a logos appeal through research. Similarly, the author’s feel single-sex classroom settings are more
American education revolves around many core principles. You can boil them down to preparing students for the future. And that goal often means catering to cultural standards. Now, I realize that approach seems shallow on the surface. But sometimes, the most crucial part of knowledge is what you do with it. In essence, our education acts as a series guidelines that direct us. And our society can 't function without having an underlying sense of what 's appropriate. So as with anything else, gender reflects our need for polarization. And by looking at the educational environment, we can see some of the effects.
For a child to grow up having a bright future, it is necessary that from a young age, he or she develops a healthy childhood as well as being raised in a healthy family structure. Every child should have the right to be raised in a healthy family structure and the ideal one is being raised by a mother (female) and a father (male). Being raised by the same-sex parenting is harmful, complicated, and confusing for children, although it is already confusing for them the idea that people of the same-sex are getting married. Children can be comparable to little sponges that absorb everything they observe or hear, especially by their parent’s actions. Their earliest exposure to what it means to be male or female comes from their parents; for example, they see their father shaving as well as their mother applying makeup on her face. Parents’ genders teach children the gender role they have in the world. Children with an ideal family have the opportunity to relate to both sexes. On the other hand, same-sex parenting is harmful to children because it is very limited for them and also they tend to be more likely to be sexually confused and the psychological help must be required for them.
The era in which men need to fight and women need to breed has already faded. We should made the boundary between men and women more obscure especially in their young age and more focused on individuals. The logic behind is to maximize the advantage of individual and give “outliers” equal chance as others. Not all the boy like to play sports. The evidence of Walker shows that some boys might have interests over the so called “girlish stuff”. They could like reading over gaming, enjoy flower rather than basketball, and engage in emotional fiction rather than military magazine. However, under the uniformed education, Walker’s boy was certainly was repulsed. The outliers do not have the right to choose and to be respected (Walker). If the concept of “reading is girlish stuff” is removed, Walker’s boy definitely would not question his own interests and even feel natural to pursuit his hobbies. Also, the recent trends shows that the mathematic and scientific subjects are not something exclusive for boys. Some girls can perform far more well than boys in the scientific field. However, the educational system still stubbornly recognized female students as artistic and literary. According to the statistic of Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT), famous tech school which encourage female scientists, only 35 percent of students who study in scientific field are female.
The goal of NCLB is that, “Educators, while not abdicating their responsibility to educate each child to high standards regardless of their background”. However, it is impossible to achieve the objective because of gender difference. People intuitively define the future developmental trend of a person according to his gender. They believe that a girl should be obedient, and girls unable to understand advanced mathematics, science, or engineering; on the other hand, a boy should follow boy codes to be a real man. But, does gender really matter to influence a person’s future trajectory?
The question about whether or not an individual’s identity is innate or acquired, has always been a debatable issue. Some people argue that gender identity is a result of the social context they live in, while others believe a person is born into it. Gender identity is a “person 's subjective sense of themselves as masculine or feminine and is exhibited by the degree to which they act upon their gender roles” (Whalen & Maurer-Starks, 2008). However, based on the current society people live in, it is more likely that an individual’s identity, such as their sexuality, education, and social status are acquired as a result of the social context they live in.
Co-ed schools versus single-sex schools: which will provide a better learning experience for students? The debate over whether or not the genders should be separated in the classroom still stands today. In a society where both men and women have to work together harmoniously, a co-ed education initially seems to be the more viable option since it prepares students for real-world experiences. Although every student has different learning styles, a student would, however, ultimately benefit from the tailored curriculum and comfort of a single-sex educational environment.
Single-Gender Schools Should not be Tolerated in this Day and Age. Single gender schools affects are gender stereotyping, inability to work with the opposite gender, and inhabits opportunities for the different genders to learn from each other (Elliot, 2016). Although single-gender schools have benefits it might not be from differing the genders (Ancheta , 2018). Research also shows no evidence that single gender schools boost in achievement.