Single-Gender Confused?

Friday's P & C contains a cheery article on the single-gender education being pushed by State Superintendent Jim Rex [Single-gender Classes Garner Good Results]. Never mind that the reporter doesn't say that these single-gender classes have been made possible by a relatively recent ruling allowing single-gender education in public schools. Never mind that we're simply returning to what was more common before such classes were ruled thirty-or-so years ago as "biased." As I've blogged before, everything old is new again.

But the Jim Rex's pick as leader-in-charge of forming these single-sex classes sounds a bit confused about what goes on in them. To wit,

"David Chadwell, the state's single-gender coordinator, said [. . .] another factor [explaining why improvement in student behavior got the weakest results] could be the manner in which teachers are approaching single-gender lessons, he said. A teacher instructing only girls needs to be prepared deal [sic] with the conversation and issues they bring into class, and a teacher of an all-male class needs to make sure students who are up and moving aren't out of control, he said.

Oh, no! Girls have "issues" and boys don't? Boys don't converse? Girls don't get out of their seats? Boys should be "up and moving"? All-male classrooms are chaotic? What is he suggesting?

By the way, the article's positive points concern how teachers, parents, and students FEEL about the classes, not whether the classes have affected ACHIEVEMENT.