Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some years ago now but I was sent along with my younger brother to the convent 3 miles away instead of the local boys college. Most of my teachers were nuns and as they had only started taking in boys, I was just one of 5 in a class of thirty. The school got the best results in the area. However after 3 years of it I asserted my authority and told my parents I wanted to leave and both of us moved to the boys school for the rest of our secondary education.


After three years of nuns I began to hate the place. At the age I started there I probably would have enjoyed myself more in a boys only school. The only plusses were sitting next to Geraldine Daly and admiring boobs. Alas I was too immature to do anything about it. Then came two funfilled years in the less well respected boys school. I probably didn't learn much but I enjoyed the boyish banter with both the kids and the male teachers which just didn't exist previously.


Thus I would say that if it had been the other way around (boys school first, then the convent)I may have got the fun bit out of the way earlier and subsequently gained a decent education. Having experienced both I know which I enjoyed most though.

This is a very good link Magpie - thanks for the info.


'Pupils' subject and course choices are influenced by a range of factors: their own views and expectations, those of their peers, parents and teachers, and the media'. This is what I was trying to say - it's not just about whether the school is mixed or not, there are a range of other factors that influence outcomes for girls achievements.


'Some words of warning:

Most single-sex girls schools are in the independent sector; this makes for difficult comparisons with a national picture, as it is likely that any differences are artefacts of the independent/maintained split rather than the gender difference'. Again here gender doesn't seem to be the issue but instead whether it is a state or private school


I found this research on single-sex teaching which although conducted in mixed schools is relevant to separately educating boys and girls:

'The evidence on the benefits of single sex classrooms is inconsistent and inconclusive, especially in showing any impact on attainment. Single sex classrooms have often been introduced for a number of different reasons and so it is difficult to reach an overall conclusion on their merits'.


'Disadvantages of Single Sex Teaching

Researchers have also noted some disadvantages of single sex teaching. Sukhnandan et al. (2000) argue that tailoring lessons to the different learning styles of boys and girls can be problematic:

" ?'matching' the learning styles of boys and girls can be perceived as an approach that simply reinforces the different learning styles of boys and girls by exploiting the areas where they are strong and by ignoring their areas of weakness. Although this may lead to increased pupil achievement in terms of examination performance, it may have detrimental effects on pupil achievement at a broader level." (p.28)'. http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/46133?uc = force_uj


'Riordan (2002 cited by Smithers and Robinson, 2006) argued that the academic culture and ethos of the school is the key to success' This is the point I mentioned in my previous post. It's about the school and your child and not about her gender


However: 'Pupils are almost always in favour of single-sex groupings, especially girls'. http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/46121?uc = force_uj Based on this evaluation I would ask your daughter what she wants and go with that! :)


I would be interested to hear what she thinks.

I agree with overserver mum and esme - esp for a girl, mixed for primary, single sex for secondary. Don't know about about boys as much, but my male friends who went to boys' schools def don't seem as 'balanced' about the opposite sex. From their tales boys' school can be quite intense and competitive places that could do with a bit of estrogen kicking about!!!


I went to a girls school in secondary and, contrary to many people's experience, it wasn't bitchy and we did well academically (small school). The only downside was that in my gap year and at uni, I probably could have done with being a bit less excitable about boys (but at least I was getting up to mischief at 18 not 14 and I had had the benefit of a good education - not to say I wouldn't have had as good an education at a mixed school, but I definitely would have been more, shall we say 'distracted' during those critical years). If you have mixed sex children, I really can't see any downside to single sex education as they will get plenty of exposure to the opposite sex via siblings' friends.


In the end though, I would choose what in my estimation was the better school available, and whether it were single or mixed sex would be the less important variable.

My daughters went through mixed primary and secondary schools. I asked if either would prefer single sex both refused although I asked them 3 years apart.


Both had the same answer, they preferred mixed because when it all got to bitching time at school, as it inevitably does, they felt they could always hang with the boys, who were obsessed with other more important things, like who was going in goal.

I went to a mixed primary, loved it, went to a mixed secondary school which I liked but the distance was too far for travelling so I went to a single sex school and hated it. There was so much bullying, bitching etc it was unbelievable. Lots of my friends were also boy obsessed because there was none ( instead of the male teachers became the focus of their attention!) and some of them still today have problems forming a relationship with the opposite sex as they had no experience whilst growing up of mixing with boys.


It is a very personal thing, and it does depends on the personality of your child. My sister wants to send her girls to a single sex school as she thinks mixed schools will provide too much distraction, so we both think differently about it!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thank you, I will be vigilant
    • @Sue said: nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? This is the point. Adults are meant to teach their children by example. It sounds as though the adult guardian/ father in this case did not react appropriately. Had a truly sincere apology been given,  I suspect the OP would not have posted on here. It is possible the OP snapped in the heat of the moment, but they were possibly startled because they were hit from behind? If we are startled it can be instinctive to initially react with anger. I also agree that it would be highly irresponsible to let any very young child ride or walk or do anything on a busy public street without supervision- most of all to protect the child. If in this case the child was out of the adult's line of sight that is perhaps another indication that the father needs a refresh in appropriate behaviour around a child, as well as his manners.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...