Worksheet—Readings

for Single-Sex School Debate

 

--A Humorist’s Look at Gender (2 Readings and Worksheet)

--Background Readings (Five Readings and Worksheet)

 

A Humorist’s Look at Gender (2 Readings)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Dave Barry: Turning Over a New Leaf Blower

The Miami Herald ^ [Sun Jan 11 2004]

Have you ever wondered why the entire world runs so smoothly? The answer is: Guys.

Don't get me wrong: I have the deepest respect for women. My own wife is a woman. But when things need to get done, you cannot beat the results you get when guys swing into action.

For an excellent example, we turn now to a news story from the Greenville (S.C.) News, written by John Boyanoski and sent in by alert reader Michael Ester. The story concerns a guy -- let's call him Guy A -- who had a problem: There were leaves in his yard. So he fired up his leaf blower.

Leaf blowers are the ideal guy tool, because they have engines, they're loud, and they enable you to blast debris, ray-gun-style, from one place to another without having to actually pick it up. I'm willing to bet that somewhere in America, there's a guy who, at least once, cleaned his living room by firing up his leaf blower indoors and blasting everything -- pizza boxes, beer cans, ancient potato-chip shards, underwear, deceased spiders -- into a less-critical area, such as the dining room. (This guy is not married.)

But getting back to our story, which I am not making up: Guy A, taking action, used his leaf blower to blow the leaves off of his property. Problem solved!

Except that the leaves wound up in the yard of another guy. Let's call him Guy B. He now had leaves in his yard. What do you think he should have done about this? Should he have asked Guy A, politely but firmly, to remove the leaves? Should he have avoided a potential confrontation by picking them up himself? Or should he have decided that life is too short to be bothered by this kind of petty annoyance, and simply ignored the leaves?

If you answered "yes" to any of these solutions, you are, with all due respect, a woman. What Guy B did, according to the Greenville County sheriff's department report, was the same thing that roughly 175 percent of the guys reading this column would have done: He fired up his leaf blower, and he blew the leaves back onto the yard of Guy A.

So now the leaves were back where they started. This was a crucial moment -- a moment when some people, realizing that nothing good was going to come of this situation, would have said the heck with it. But these were not "some people." These were guys, and when guys start a job, guys want to finish it, no matter what. That is how we got the pyramids, the interstate highway system, and World Wars I and II.

So Guy A blew the leaves back onto Guy B's yard. This left Guy B with no choice but to blow the leaves back onto Guy A's yard, leaving Guy A with no choice but to blow the leaves back into Guy B's yard, and so on. They played leaf-blower tennis for a while, until apparently it dawned on them how silly this was. And so, according to the sheriff's report, as recounted in the Greenville News, "they started blowing air in each other's face."

From there, things went downhill. According to the sheriff's department report, Guy B claimed that Guy A head-butted him. Guy A claimed that Guy B hit his leaf blower with a hammer and knocked his dust mask off, scratching his nose. (Yes: Guy A wore a dust mask. It's important to follow leaf-blower safety guidelines.)

Finally a sheriff's deputy was called to the scene of the dispute; after listening to the two sides, he shot both guys in the head, to improve the gene pool.

No, really, the deputy couldn't determine who was at fault, so he decided not to charge either guy. I don't know what the situation is now, but it would not surprise me to find out that both guys -- having learned a valuable lesson about how a stupid little dispute can escalate into a potentially dangerous situation -- have purchased bigger leaf blowers.

Speaking of which: A lot of leaves get blown onto the United States from Canada. When are we going to fight back? When will the Defense Department launch a project to develop a tactical nuclear leaf blower, code-named Screaming Wind?

Until that happens, I urge you guys in northern states to grab your leaf blowers, organize into units and patrol the Canadian border, intercepting incoming leaves and blasting them back where they belong. You should wear camouflage. Also, of course, dust masks. No point in taking chances.

DAVE BARRY is a humor columnist for the Miami Herald. Write to him c/o The Miami Herald, One Herald Plaza, Miami FL 33132.

 
________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Dave Barry: We've got the dirt on guy brains

The Miami Herald ^ | Sun, Nov. 23, 2003 | Dave Barry

I like to think that I am a modest person. (I also like to think that I look like Brad Pitt naked, but that is not the issue here.)

There comes a time, however, when a person must toot his own personal horn, and for me, that time is now. A new book has confirmed a theory that I first proposed in 1987, in a column explaining why men are physically unqualified to do housework. The problem, I argued, is that men -- because of a tragic genetic flaw -- cannot see dirt until there is enough of it to support agriculture. This puts men at a huge disadvantage against women, who can detect a single dirt molecule 20 feet away.

This is why a man and a woman can both be looking at the same bathroom commode, and the man -- hindered by Male Genetic Dirt Blindness (MGDB) -- will perceive the commode surface as being clean enough for heart surgery or even meat slicing; whereas the woman can't even see the commode, only a teeming, commode-shaped swarm of bacteria. A woman can spend two hours cleaning a toothbrush holder and still not be totally satisfied; whereas if you ask a man to clean the entire New York City subway system, he'll go down there with a bottle of Windex and a single paper towel, then emerge 25 minutes later, weary but satisfies  with a job well done.

When I wrote about Male Genetic Dirt Blindness, many irate readers complained that I was engaging in sexist stereotyping, as well as making lame excuses for the fact that men are lazy pigs. All of these irate readers belonged to a gender that I will not identify here, other than to say: Guess what, ladies? There is now scientific proof that I was right.

This proof appears in a new book titled What Could He Be Thinking? How a Man's Mind Really Works. I have not personally read this book, because, as a journalist, I am too busy writing about it. But according to an article by Reuters, the book states that a man's brain ''takes in less sensory detail than a woman's, so he doesn't see or even feel the dust and household mess in the same way.'' Got that? We can't see or feel the mess! We're like: ``What snow tires in the dining room? Oh, those snow tires in the dining room.''

And this is only one of the differences between men's and women's brains. Another difference involves a brain part called the ''cingulate gyrus,'' which is the sector where emotions are located. The Reuters article does not describe the cingulate gyrus, but presumably in women it is a structure the size of a mature cantaloupe, containing a vast quantity of complex, endlessly recalibrated emotional data involving hundreds, perhaps thousands of human relationships; whereas in men it is basically a cashew filled with NFL highlights.

In any event, it turns out that women's brains secrete more of the chemicals ''oxytocin'' and ''serotonin,'' which, according to biologists, cause humans to feel they have an inadequate supply of shoes. No, seriously, these chemicals cause humans to want to bond with other humans, which is why women like to share their feelings. Some women (and here I am referring to my wife) can share as many as three days' worth of feelings about an event that took eight seconds to actually happen. We men, on the other hand, are reluctant to share our feelings, in large part because we often don't have any. Really. Ask any guy: A lot of the time, when we look like we're thinking, we just have this low-level humming sound in our brains. That's why, in male-female conversations, the male part often consists entirely of him going ''hmmmm.'' This frustrates the woman, who wants to know what he's really thinking. In fact, what he's thinking is, literally, ``hmmmm.''

So anyway, according to the Reuters article, when a man, instead of sharing feelings with his mate, chooses to lie on the sofa, holding the remote control and monitoring 750 television programs simultaneously by changing the channel every one-half second (pausing slightly longer for programs that feature touchdowns, fighting, shooting, car crashes or bosoms) his mate should not come to the mistaken conclusion that he is an insensitive jerk. In fact, he is responding to scientific biological brain chemicals that require him to behave this way for scientific reasons, as detailed in the scientific book What Could He Be Thinking? How a Man's Mind Really Works, which I frankly cannot recommend highly enough.

In conclusion, no way was that pass interference.




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Worksheet

Learning Styles and Needs--Observation

 

       Of course, the humorist Dave Barry was in the above two readings, exaggerating and stereotyping gender differences. He was making gross generalizations for the sake of comedy, and social criticism. No one thinks the matter is really so simple—or so absurd! We do all have our own individual personality and character traits, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with gender. Our identities are incredibly complex!

        However, there is currently a national debate on whether, in some cases, females and males would, because of general gender differences, learn better if placed in separate schools, or at least separate classes. Before you read what others have to say on this issue, you can begin to make your own observations on the topic. This is “primary research.” When you read the articles that follow, you will be doing “secondary research.”

 

     In your high school, begin to observe whether you think some female students would learn better in same-sex classes. Or some or male students. Also, observe your own behavior and learning style and needs along these lines.

 

Note: In your  notes below, do not give the names of teachers or students. Respect their privacy. Indicate “Teacher A” or B, or “Student A”, B, or C.

 

1. In two classes, note if the teachers tend to call on boys or girls more, or about the same. Maybe even count the times for a part of the class, (if you can and still pay attention!)

 

Class one: ____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Class two: ____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

2 In two classes, note whether there is a pattern of females or males tending to raise their hands more? Saying more—or speaking in a different manner when they do speak? Describe your impressions:

Class one: ____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Class two: ____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

3. In two classes, see if you find any patterns of behavior that would suggest that certain individual students, or groups of students, would learn better if they were in a same-sex school or class.  Include yourself, too! Explain what you notice; and what you conclude, and why:

Class one: ____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Class two: ____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Background Readings (Five Readings)


THE POWER OF ONE
By Joe Dolce

Ann TischNo stranger to privilege, educator Ann Tisch volunteers her heart, her soul, and her social commitment to a trend-defying girls' school in East Harlem.

From the street, the Young Women's Leadership School is almost invisible. Identified only by a tiny bronze plaque, it occupies five floors of an anonymous office building in a poor area of East Harlem. The absence of institutional architecture or a recreation yard may be the first clue that Young Women's Leadership School is no ordinary inner-city public school. The second is the steady stream of girls in uniforms, mostly African-American and Latina, laughing, squealing, or otherwise bouncing through its doors and off its walls.

Young Women's Leadership School is the brainchild of Ann Rubenstein Tisch, 47, herself a product of Kansas City, Missouri, public schools. The notion of reforming public education occurred to Tisch in 1985, when she was working as a news correspondent for NBC. An interview with a hopeless teenage mother made it blatantly clear that schools could do a better job. Tisch told herself then that she'd get back to this one day.

Four years later, when she was 36, her life took an unexpected turn. She met and eventually married Andrew Tisch, whose family who owns the Loews Corporation. Although she married into money, Tisch knew her dream couldn't be bought. She bristled at being repeatedly called a socialite in the press. Tisch felt that money without action wouldn't change anything. She was ready to get her hands dirty. As Andrew puts it: "A socialite goes to the lunch to honor a school in Harlem; Ann goes to the school."

In late 1993, having left her full-time TV job, Tisch laid the groundwork for her publicly funded all-girls school that would focus on math and science. At that point there were only two other single-sex public schools in the United States, both for girls—one in Philadelphia, the other in Baltimore. Tisch had to convince the fractious powers in New York City, who run the largest, most tumultuous school system in the country, that they needed the third.

Today, on the school walls are photos of Young Women's Leadership School's first class of graduates—every single one of them accepted into college, including such places as Smith, NYU, and Mount Holyoke, most with full scholarships. Of these 32 girls who got their diplomas last June, 90 percent are the first generation in their families ever to attend a university, 25 percent are immigrants, and almost three-quarters live below the poverty line. The five-year-old Young Women's Leadership School has, according to New York City school chancellor Harold O. Levy, "outshone everyone's expectations."

Asked how she took on such a behemoth project, Tisch paraphrases Mother Teresa: "If I look at the masses, I will never act; if I look at one, I will."


From the October 2001 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine.

 

WHAT YOU CAN DO

-- Write:The Young Women's Leadership School/ 105 E. 106th Street /New York, NY 10029

--Use your life to make a difference.-- Participate in the Ideas Exchange Message Board.

.
 (This article is from an Internet search. Did you notice the source above?)

______________________________________________________________________

BOY BRAINS, GIRL BRAINS

 

Author:  Tyre, Peg

Source: Newsweek (Atlantic Edition); 9/19/2005, Vol. 146 Issue 12, p60-60, 1p, 1c

Document Type: Article

Database: MasterFile

 

Boy Brains, Girl Brains

 

Are separate classrooms the best way to teach kids?

Three years ago, Jeff Gray, the principal at Foust Elementary School in Owensboro, Ky., realized that his school needed help--and fast. Test scores at Foust were the worst in the county and the students, particularly the boys, were falling far behind. So Gray took a controversial course for educators on brain development, then revamped the first- and second-grade curriculum. The biggest change: he divided the classes by gender. Because males have less serotonin in their brains, which Gray was taught may cause them to fidget more, desks were removed from the boys' classrooms and they got short exercise periods throughout the day. Because females have more oxytocin, a hormone linked to bonding, girls were given a carpeted area where they sit and discuss their feelings. Because boys have higher levels of testosterone and are theoretically more competitive, they were given timed, multiple-choice tests. The girls were given multiple-choice tests, too, but got more time to complete them. Gray says the gender-based curriculum gave the school "the edge we needed." Tests scores are up. Discipline problems are down. This year the fifth and sixth grades at Foust are adopting the new curriculum, too.

Do Mars and Venus ride the school bus? Gray is part of a new crop of educators with a radical idea--that boys and girls are so biologically different they need to be separated into single-sex classes and taught in different ways. In the last five years, brain researchers using sophisticated MRI and PET technology have gathered new information about the ways male and female brains develop and process information. Studies show that girls, for instance, have more active frontal lobes, stronger connections between brain hemispheres and "language centers" that mature earlier than their male counterparts. Critics of gender-based schooling charge that curricula designed to exploit such differences reinforce the most narrow cultural stereotypes. But proponents say that unless neurological, hormonal and cognitive differences between boys and girls are incorporated in the classroom, boys are at a disadvantage.

Most schools are girl-friendly, says Michael Gurian, coauthor with Kathy Stevens of a new book, "The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life," "because teachers, who are mostly women, teach the way they learn." Seventy percent of children diagnosed with learning disabilities are male, and the sheer number of boys who struggle in school is staggering. Eighty percent of high-school drop-outs are boys and less than 45 percent of students enrolled in college are young men. To close the educational gender gap, Gurian says, teachers need to change their techniques. They should light classrooms more brightly for boys and speak to them loudly, since research shows males don't see or hear as well as females. Because boys are more-visual learners, teachers should illustrate a story before writing it and use an overhead projector to practice reading and writing. Gurian's ideas seem to be catching on. More than 185 public schools now offer some form of single-sex education, and Gurian has trained more than 15,000 teachers through his institute in Colorado Springs.

To some experts, Gurian's approach is not only wrong but dangerous. Some say his curriculum is part of a long history of pseudoscience aimed at denying equal opportunities in education. For much of the 19th century, educators, backed by prominent scientists, cautioned that women were neurologically unable to withstand the rigors of higher education. Others say basing new teaching methods on raw brain research is misguided. While it's true that brain scans show differences between boys and girls, says David Sadker, education professor at American University, no one is exactly sure what those differences mean. Differences between boys and girls, says Sadker, are dwarfed by brain differences within each gender. "If you want to make schools a better place," says Sadker, "you have to strive to see kids as individuals."

Natasha Craft, a fourth-grade teacher at Southern Elementary School in Somerset, Ky., knows the gender-based curriculum she began using last year isn't a cure-all. "Not all the boys and girls are going to be the same," she says, "but I feel like it gives me another set of tools to work with." And when she stands in front of a room of hard-to-reach kids, Craft says, another set of tools could come in handy.

70% of all school-age children who are diagnosed with learning disabilities are boys

PHOTO (COLOR): Move it: Sixth graders at Foust take a break

~~~~~~~~

By Peg Tyre


Copyright of Newsweek (Atlantic Edition) is the property of Newsweek. Copyright of PUBLICATION is the property of PUBLISHER. The copyright in an individual article may be maintained by the author in certain cases. Content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Source: Newsweek (Atlantic Edition), 9/19/2005, Vol. 146 Issue 12, p60, 1p
Item: 18290454

 

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

CRIICS ARE TOO HASTY: ALL-GIRL’S SCHOOLS MAY HELP

Source: USA Today; 05/10/2002. Section: News, Pg. 14a

Document Type: Article

Database: MasterFILE Premier

_______________________________________________________

Today's debate: Improving public schools

Our view: Girls and boys learn differently. Schools could develop strengths .

As early as elementary school, the different learning styles of boys and girls are obvious. Most girls catch on to reading and writing skills faster than boys do. In fact, many boys never catch up in literacy skills.

Those differences are not a result of unfair educational opportunities. Gender-based learning differences are a fact of life. But they're overlooked by groups objecting to the Department of Education's decision this week to relax rules limiting same-sex education in public schools.

Many education experts believe that same-sex schools offer a promising alternative for boys who are easily distracted or intimidated by girls. If successful, they may offer a partial remedy to the sharp decline in the number of boys going to college.

Likewise, single-sex schools present a way for girls to develop self-confidence and leadership skills without being fearful of showing off their brains. Every educator knows girls who were brilliant in elementary school and then became cowed when competing with boys as a teen.

In many cities, however, expensive private schools are the only options for parents interested in single-sex education. The Bush administration wants to encourage more experimentation by removing the legal barriers that restrict all-boys and all-girls public schools. The Department of Education sees the move as a way to expand school choice.

But some civil-rights groups and women's organizations oppose the plans and argue that the changes are unnecessary and dangerous. The National Organization for Women, for example, maintains that separate schools will lead to unequal schools that discriminate by gender. Their worries have a legitimate historical basis, considering the nation's sordid history of providing inferior education to blacks while hiding behind the "separate but equal" mantle.

But the Education Department appears to be laying out tight rules to ensure that comparable courses would be offered for boys and girls. And same-sex schools must still comply with the equal-protection clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Done right, same-sex public schools could actually create opportunities and solve some problems in inner-city districts, where parents have the fewest school options.

Consider the success of the Young Women's Leadership School in New York's East Harlem, one of only 10 public same-sex schools in the country. The students at the all-girls school talk about the clean bathrooms and dearth of graffiti. Parents cite the safety. Everyone talks about the 100% passing rate on the challenging New York graduation tests and 100% college enrollment.

Critics say there's no reason those girls can't be just as successful in a well-run, mixed-sex school. Maybe not, but too often they're not. Critics also say those girls aren't learning the lessons they need to get along with men later in life. But they may be gaining valuable leadership opportunities and self-confidence that will prove even more valuable. At all-girls schools, the class leaders and yearbook editors are girls. Those same leadership advantages exist at all-boys schools. Plus, educators say boys in single-sex schools are more likely to try activities such as drama and choral singing.

Same-sex schools aren't right for all students. But for some students, the separation can lead to greater equality.

--------------------[TEXT OF INFO BOX BEGINS HERE]---------------------------------

Profile of Young Women's Leadership School

* History: All-girls public school formed 6 years ago.

* Location: East Harlem, N.Y.

* Enrollment: 365 girls, grades 7-12.

* Racial/ethnic mix: 59% Latina, 40% African-American.

* Student profiles: 67% fall below the poverty line; 25% are first-generation immigrants; 90% will be the first in their families to attend college.

* Academic background: Most test below grade level when entering.

* Academic performance: 100% pass state Regents exams; 100% of seniors accepted at four-year colleges.

Source of chart in info box: The Young Women's Leadership School

_ BOOK REVIEW:  ALL GIRLS: Single-Sex Education and Why It Matters

by Karen Stabiner
     Riverhead Books, 320 pages, $25.95.)

Author of Review: David Ruenzel

Database: MasterFile

_____________________________________________________________________

Stabiner, an acclaimed journalist and author, spent a year following students at two very different all-girls schools: the private and prestigious Marlborough School in Los Angeles and the public Young Women's Leadership School in East Harlem. Based on the title, the book purports to be an argument in favor of single-sex education for girls, but it never really gets around to supporting, much less proving, this premise. It does, however, offer a fascinating, highly entertaining portrait of two very different girls schools and many of the teenagers who attend them.

Indeed, by delving into the girls' personal backgrounds, Stabiner shows that their single-sex educations are not terribly significant factors in their lives. Most of the girls at Marlborough, for example, come from wealth and privilege—true defining factors—and would probably fare just as well academically at a coed equivalent of their elite school.

The girls at the YWLS, on the other hand, are plagued with problems associated with urban poverty. They lack basic academic skills and confidence and are saddled with such tasks as spending long hours looking after younger siblings. While the girls at Marlborough worry about the SAT and whether to attend Brown or Stanford, these girls worry about making it through a semester of algebra.

As Stabiner herself acknowledges, it is almost impossible when examining the impact of single-sex schools to disentangle the deep effects of race and class from those of gender alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

INTERVIEW:  Boys at School: Q&A with Dr. William Pollack

This story was printed from FamilyEducation.com located at
http://familyeducation.com  [This is an online source. No date was given. The source which  this website with this  interview is given at the end of the article.]

____________________________________________________________

                                              Excerpts from:

                         Boys at School: Q&A with Dr. William Pollack

 

A National Crisis
Q: You have alerted the entire country to a "national crisis of boyhood." From the evidence in your book Real Boys, we also have a "national crisis of boys' education." What are the facts behind this crisis?

A: The statistics about boys' education are startling. Eighth-grade boys are 50 percent more likely to be held back a grade than girls. By high school, 67 percent of all special-education students are boys. Boys receive 71 percent of all school suspensions and are up to 10 times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder.

. . . .As the study reveals, girls, due to our special efforts, have made steady gains in math and science while outperforming boys in reading and writing. The study found such large differences in boys' and girls' writing that it concluded that males are at a major disadvantage in what is a basic skill. That is a disparaging conclusion, to say the least.

"The Condition of Education," issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 1997, says much of the same. For the last 13 years, females have significantly outscored males in reading and writing. Boys have fallen behind.

. . . .

"Guy-ifying" Schools
Q: In Real Boys, you refer to "guy-ifying" schools. How do boys learn differently from girls, and what can schools do to make the classroom a more comfortable and effective place for boys to learn?

A: I firmly believe that – depending on how curricula are structured, how classrooms are run and what attitudes about boys prevail – a school can either shape boys positively or confuse them and lead them terribly astray. By addressing who a boy really is and what he really needs, a school can make a difference in helping him do well academically, feel positive about himself and develop a healthy sense of masculinity. A positive school experience, in short, can bolster a boy's self-esteem.

Boys have a unique learning style that is different from that of girls. Research suggests that, whereas many girls may prefer to learn by watching or listening, boys generally prefer to learn by doing, by engaging in some action-oriented task. I've observed boys who are so resistant to reading books in class that they'll literally toss them aside to pursue more hands-on activities. Yet some of these same boys have been motivated to read on a computer, which allows them to have fun scrolling through the pages using a keyboard or mouse. I've also seen boys who, though identified as "lazy readers," became active, proficient readers when given material on subjects that interested them, such as sports, adventure stories and murder mysteries. Most critically, I believe we must make absolutely sure that for every boy there is a "good fit" between what makes him thrive as an individual and what his school actually provides for him.

. . . .How Can We Change?
Q: Taking these examples and advice into account, where do parents and educators go from here?

A: Ten years ago girls lifted their heads and raised their voices that schools needed to address the ways in which they learn. Naysayers said at the time that there couldn't be change. In 1999, girls have all but caught up with boys in the critical areas of math and science where for so long they lagged behind.

It is completely possible in the here and now to make positive change for boys, and we can start by doing for boys what we have done for girls. We can teach teachers about boys' learning styles and help them adapt their teaching methods and curricula accordingly. We can help parents and teachers learn to connect with boys. Boys communicate and express in their own ways. The more we understand this, the smaller a unit is in which a boy participates, the better he is known in his group, the more clear the connection he has with his peers and his teachers, the more likely a boy is to be successful in school and in life.
                                                      *          *          *
Dr. William Pollack is a Harvard Medical School psychologist and director for the Center for Men and Young Men at McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School. His recent book is Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood.
Source: Henry Holt Publisher

___________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Worksheet

Same-Sex Schools Debate—Pro and Con

 

     As you read the above five articles on the subject of Same-Sex Schools or classes,, underline pro/con points. 1) In the margin note either ”+” or “–“ to indicate “pro” or ” con” points and/or evidence. 2) When you have finished reading, review your annotations (notes) on the texts and  pick the three strongest points on each side. Write these points below, with the title of the source/s in which you found them.

 

Pro

1. _____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

 

2. _____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

 

3. _____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

 

Con

1.. _____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

 

2. _____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

 

3. _____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________