Gendered classrooms promote stereotypes

I sort of stumbled into the women's studies department because I was looking for an upper-division GE class that would satisfy the cultural requirement here at SDSU. I took a class, enjoyed it enough and needed a minor — and my teacher happened to be the head of undergraduate studies — so I got myself signed into the minor.

In the many women's studies classes I've taken since then, we've learned about the sexism and bias in everything from science to media. For instance, in my "Women in Media" journalism elective, taught by Martha Lauzen, we learned that, initially, young boys and girls do develop different skills at different rates. This is why, generally, boys tend to be better at math than girls, who are usually better at English. This is only because they develop the skills necessary for those subjects at different times and often pursue what they're better at. But if girls were encouraged to keep practicing their math skills, for instance, there is no proof that men will always inherently be better at the subject.

You get the idea.

Now, in trying to find a story about Philadelphia middle schools switching back to the elementary-school-style, one-classroom-all-day model, I found a story instead about gendered classrooms. A man named David Chadwell thinks that boys and girls will learn better separately. He uses "theories" such as boys don't hear as well as girls as proof that this is a good thing.

This kind of separation in public schools seems ridiculous because it promotes the idea that girls and boys are different and that they can't learn the same things equally.