Girl to attend 'boys only' school

sitstill

"Girl to attend 'boys only' school
Minister for Education Batt O'Keeffe has insisted a decision to allow a girl in Cork to attend the city's last 'boys only' VEC college does not 'open the flood gates' to single sex schools.

Mr O'Keeffe said that schools would now have to be clearer on their enrolment policy.

The girl's mother had appealed to the Department of Education to force Nagle Community College in Mahon to enrol her daughter.

The VEC had argued that it was understood that they did not enrol girls.

Speaking this afternoon, Mr O'Keeffe said that the Department would be writing to single sex schools over the next two days, warning that if they were not clear in their enrolment policies they could face similar challenges.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0806/cork.html"

What do people think of this story?

It was on LiveLine today too, and I have to say I don't agree with it. Fair play to the woman for standing up for her children, but it's not up to an individual parent to decide the ethos or admissions policy of a school. They are plenty of both Co-Ed and single sex schools to choose from. On LiveLine she argued that this school was closer to her home and was a "better" school, I can't accept this - a school is what the child and their parents make it. I do think it will cause problems for the child in question, being the only girl in an all boy's school - she's bound to feel awkward and left out.

spurious

Bizarre.
The only change will be that single sex schools will put a line in their enrolment policies to avoid this happening them.

Did I read in an earlier report that the child has autism?

sitstill

spurious wrote: »

Bizarre.
The only change will be that single sex schools will put a line in their enrolment policies to avoid this happening them.

Did I read in an earlier report that the child has autism?

Yeah she alluded to special needs alright. I'm still certain a better provision could have been made.

forestfruits

Wouldnt fancy being that poor child! Its difficult enough just being in secondary school without having to add special ed needs and as the icing on the cake being the only girl in the school!

Rosita

sitstill wrote: »

1) It was on LiveLine today too, and I have to say I don't agree with it. Fair play to the woman for standing up for her children, but it's not up to an individual parent to decide the ethos or admissions policy of a school. They are plenty of both Co-Ed and single sex schools to choose from.

2) On LiveLine she argued that this school was closer to her home and was a "better" school, I can't accept this - a school is what the child and their parents make it.

1) It is not up to an individual parent to decide the admissons policy of a school but it is fair to say that an admissions policy that discriminates against people on the basis of gender was always likely to be challenged at some stage.

Article 42.3 of the constitution states:

"The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State."

I suspect that every school that is single-gender is probably unconstitutional on one grounds or another.

2) Surely you do not seriously believe this? Are you saying that you couldn't care less what school a child of yours went to as "a school is what the child and their parents make it". What about badly-run schools with weak and unmotivated teachers?

I don't think anybody actually believes this in reality. The idea of what makes a "better" school may be subjective and moot but it is a very firmly held conviction for many people nonetheless.

TheDriver

For F*ck sake, talk about arguing for the sake of it. Anyone who is a teacher knows what this means, pure crap! The parent and child are causing themselves far more problems than triumphs, what parent would want their daughter to be the only girl in a boys school!

spurious

Slightly from another angle and mentioned by me on another thread -
Anyone else think this decision may mean schools who exclude on ability levels may have to now either take all the kids that apply or clearly state in their enrolment policy that they do not take kids with learning/behavioural/emotional problems?

Rosita

spurious wrote: »

Slightly from another angle and mentioned by me on another thread -
Anyone else think this decision may mean schools who exclude on ability levels may have to now either take all the kids that apply or clearly state in their enrolment policy that they do not take kids with learning/behavioural/emotional problems?

I think, if challenged, all schools would have to have an open enrolment policy (within the context of geographical considerations presumably) if that's not a contradiction. Or at least certainly an enrolment policy that does not discriminate against people on grounds which are unacceptable areas of discrimination in other walks of life.

The problem is that few people have either the resources or inclination to challenge schools plus you'll always get the "who wants to be the person?" attitude preventing such challenges.

TheDriver

Rosita wrote: »

I think, if challenged, all schools would have to have an open enrolment policy (within the context of geographical considerations presumably) if that's not a contradiction. Or at least certainly an enrolment policy that does not discriminate against people on grounds which are unacceptable areas of discrimination in other walks of life.

The problem is that few people have either the resources or inclination to challenge schools plus you'll always get the "who wants to be the person?" attitude preventing such challenges.

99% of parents will want their child to go to the school that suits them and they want to go to and have always suited for population of the area and not roll into town beating drums of claiming free rights to everything. I am still astonished what that parent is thinking, seems more are the principal rather than the best interests of their child having them in this spotlight.

Rosita

TheDriver wrote: »

99% of parents will want their child to go to the school that suits them and they want to go to and have always suited for population of the area.

Yes, but what happens when the school "that suits them and they want to go to" has an enrolment policy that prohibits them attending? Why should they attend a school that doesn't suit them and that they don't want to go to just because a school comes up with some uni-lateral and discriminatory enrolment policy based on gender which is considered an unacceptable and illogical discrimination in all walks of life? I think people are well within their rights to challenge this.

I doubt very much if there is anything other than the child's interest at the heart of the parent's thinking. It may be that the parent has no way of transporting the child to another farther away school. Who knows what the exact circumstances are? But I would be appalled if there is an implication that things will be deliberately made difficult for the child by either teachers or students as a result of this.

TheDriver

Rosita wrote: »

Yes, but what happens when the school "that suits them and they want to go to" has an enrolment policy that prohibits them attending? Why should they attend a school that doesn't suit them and that they don't want to go to just because a school comes up with some uni-lateral and discriminatory enrolment policy based on gender which is considered an unacceptable and illogical discrimination in all walks of life? I think people are well within their rights to challenge this.

I doubt very much if there is anything other than the child's interest at the heart of the parent's thinking. It may be that the parent has no way of transporting the child to another farther away school. Who knows what the exact circumstances are? But I would be appalled if there is an implication that things will be deliberately made difficult for the child by either teachers or students as a result of this.

. There is always the conspiracy theory that life will be made difficult by students or teacher whereas in fact, I would suspect the only person making life difficult for this child is the child and her parents themselves. Schools don't discriminate, life is tough in schools and policies are there for the better education for the community as a whole, not simply to annoy people who want to have a fight.
I find most parents won't take the advice of schools themselves as to the best interests for their children, how many times has a teacher advised they take a different level at junior or leaving cert but their parents wants them to do honours and subsequently fails. But then again, what would professional educators know about any of that. The nicer school building or winning an All Ireland can attract lots of children into a school, very fickle

Rosita

TheDriver wrote: »

.

I would suspect the only person making life difficult for this child is the child and her parents themselves.

Indeed. Sure it's all the parents' fault.

Though it is a remarkable claim that "schools don't discriminate". They disciminate all the time. They discriminate on the basis of geography, gender, student's perceived academic ability, students' parents' ability to cough up serious money for fees, religious grounds etc. You name it, and they discriminate on it.

TheDriver

Sure its all the schools fault.

djkeogh

What sort of concessions is this boys school going to have to make now that there is a girl pupil. They'll have to look into toilet facilities, seperate changing room etc in P.E. This poor child is gonna be seriously put upon. I'm not sure whether this is a primary or secondary school but going through puberty around the opposite sex the whole time will now be a walk in the park. Especially knowing how young boys are liable to act towards a girl.

I think it's a bad decision and the child will be the one to ultimately suffer. Now maybe the child will have a great time and there will be no discrimination by students but I would have my doubts.

yurmothrintites

djkeogh wrote: »

What sort of concessions is this boys school going to have to make now that there is a girl pupil. They'll have to look into toilet facilities, seperate changing room etc in P.E. This poor child is gonna be seriously put upon. I'm not sure whether this is a primary or secondary school but going through puberty around the opposite sex the whole time will now be a walk in the park. Especially knowing how young boys are liable to act towards a girl.

I think it's a bad decision and the child will be the one to ultimately suffer. Now maybe the child will have a great time and there will be no discrimination by students but I would have my doubts.

They actually mentioned on Liveline that the school already had adequete toilet and changing room facilities for the girl.

I think this case is disgraceful. The mother seems like the type of person who just wants attention and because of this desicion, she will possibly ruin the girl's school experience.

The girl's best interests are really not considered by her mother. Discrimination and bullying could possibly emerge from this case and school life might be lonely for the girl (if she remains the only female student in the school) The enrolment policy was changed yesterday, therefore no other girls will be permitted to enroll, including the girl's friends who applied.

It was also mentioned that school curriculum would have to be altered to suit that of the girl in subjects such as P.E., Religion, S.P.H.E. etc...

Rosita

yurmothrintites wrote: »

It was also mentioned that school curriculum would have to be altered to suit that of the girl in subjects such as P.E., Religion, S.P.H.E. etc..

I imagine this is gilding the lily just a bit in all honesty. I mean, come one, how gender specific is the curriculum in any subject? I can't imagine altering the "school curriculum" in P.E. is exactly splitting the atom. I doubt it's more complicated than "the girl goes in goals".

FICOCO

I feel sorry for the poor twelve year old that has been caught up in her mothers crusade. I just hope Megan's mum will let her change schools in the near future before this "equality crusade" makes the poor girl isolated and probably bullied. How can any parent put her child into this situation. Interestingly the mum tried to get into the same school herself when she was in TY.... now she is finally realising her ambitions through her child. tragic.

FICOCO

Rosita wrote: »

I imagine this is gilding the lily just a bit in all honesty. I mean, come one, how gender specific is the curriculum in any subject? I can't imagine altering the "school curriculum" in P.E. is exactly splitting the atom. I doubt it's more complicated than "the girl goes in goals".

Don't know what your background is but clearly you don't have experience of teaching. e.g. there's a big difference in dynamic when teaching RSE (relationships and sexuality education) with a bunch of boys versus boys and one girl in the room. You just wouldn't do it to that girl. puberty can be tramatic enough. P.s. RSE is mandatory.

white crowe

FICOCO wrote: »

Don't know what your background is but clearly you don't have experience of teaching. e.g. there's a big difference in dynamic when teaching RSE (relationships and sexuality education) with a bunch of boys versus boys and one girl in the room. You just wouldn't do it to that girl. puberty can be tramatic enough. P.s. RSE is mandatory.

Since when? I got one awkward class in Junior cert science and was told learn the diagrams of the reproductive system.

FICOCO

white crowe wrote: »

Since when? I got one awkward class in Junior cert science and was told learn the diagrams of the reproductive system.

Poor deprived you..obviously like myself you were around before RSE (in SPHE) became mandatory..i have similar memories!!

Rosita

FICOCO wrote: »

Don't know what your background is but clearly you don't have experience of teaching. e.g. there's a big difference in dynamic when teaching RSE (relationships and sexuality education) with a bunch of boys versus boys and one girl in the room. You just wouldn't do it to that girl. puberty can be tramatic enough. P.s. RSE is mandatory.

I don't think anyone needs to be a "professional educator" - to use the affected term someone used earlier - to cop on that girls and boys are different. But you are talking about a 'dynamic'. Mr Bean with a mallet up his rear end would cop that one on. What I find ridiculous is this idea that a whole new curriculum would have to be set up which is what was suggested.

I imagine it's just about possible that relationships and sexuality education may have been done at some stage before in a co-ed school. Some teachers might get embarrassed at the whole business but I imagine any clued in teacher might be able to adapt quickly enough - like how graphic exactly does it get in a single-sex situation? Nothing more complicated than a bit of common sense should do the trick.

TheDriver

FICOCO wrote: »

Don't know what your background is but clearly you don't have experience of teaching. .

+1, maybe you could enlighten us Rosita as you appear very anti school, where and when have you worked in a school

Rosita

TheDriver wrote: »

+1, maybe you could enlighten us Rosita as you appear very anti school, where and when have you worked in a school

My experience is neither here nor there. For what it is worth I have done a fair amount of substiutute teaching and gave serious consideration to going into teaching until my current career (which deals significantly with education) took some shape. If it's okay with you I might decline to name the schools (unless you are willing to give your own details of course) - in fact I consider the request quite bizarre, except for the fact that it is clearly a "who do you think you are" question rather than a genuine request for information.

But I am not anti-school. I am anti stupid hidebound-with-bullsh*t red-tapish behaviour whatever the source. Unfortunately you are trying to turn this into a 'school versus everyone else' debate happy in the knowledge that you'll have plenty of like-minded peoole on this forum.

I have a number of college friends who are teachers and with whom I am regularly in contact and I have noticed in schools, a tendency among teachers to 'go native' and see any even reasonable change as unacceptable/unworkable and a massive challenge. A good friend of mine's school is working an extra 40 minutes on a Monday next year and it's like someone chopped of her right hand.

The point I simply made is that discrimination on the grounds of gender is unconstitutional and out of date. The pillorying of the mother for her "crusade" is unfortunate considering nobody here knows her I presume, as is the the notion that the child in heading for Armageddon.

The "show me you medals" quip to myself is equally defensive and ridiculous (like I couldn't possibly have a point if I am not a teacher) as if the schools system is so esoteric and byzantine that nobody except a regular teacher could possibly understand the nature of it all.

One doesn't have to be Einstein to work out that accommodating one girl in a school is hardly putting a man on the moon in logistical terms irrespective of the ridiculous and ill-thought out objections put up on this one.

spurious

When a school I was working in first enrolled girls, there was one class with just two girls in it. It was no big deal. We didn't need to change any subjects as there was no reason they could not do the same subjects the boys did. Our school (VEC) never saw any subjects as 'for' boys or girls.

meglome

One girl with potentially special needs to in an all boys school... seriously did her mother think this through. The poor girl is in for a terrible time, leaving aside any other considerations.

Rosita

spurious wrote: »

When a school I was working in first enrolled girls, there was one class with just two girls in it. It was no big deal. We didn't need to change any subjects as there was no reason they could not do the same subjects the boys did. Our school (VEC) never saw any subjects as 'for' boys or girls.

That would be my thinking. Teachers and students will face far bigger challenges than......shock...horror...a girl in their midst.

I think the capacity of teachers and students to just get on with it is being under-rated. Also in my experience in school bullying tends to be a same-sex business in so far as one can comment on that with any confidence.

FICOCO

Rosita wrote: »

My experience is neither here nor there. For what it is worth I have done a fair amount of substiutute teaching and gave serious consideration to going into teaching until my current career (which deals significantly with education) took some shape. If it's okay with you I might decline to name the schools (unless you are willing to give your own details of course) - in fact I consider the request quite bizarre, except for the fact that it is clearly a "who do you think you are" question rather than a genuine request for information.

But I am not anti-school. I am anti stupid hidebound-with-bullsh*t red-tapish behaviour whatever the source. Unfortunately you are trying to turn this into a 'school versus everyone else' debate happy in the knowledge that you'll have plenty of like-minded peoole on this forum.

I have a number of college friends who are teachers and with whom I am regularly in contact and I have noticed in schools, a tendency among teachers to 'go native' and see any even reasonable change as unacceptable/unworkable and a massive challenge. A good friend of mine's school is working an extra 40 minutes on a Monday next year and it's like someone chopped of her right hand.

The point I simply made is that discrimination on the grounds of gender is unconstitutional and out of date. The pillorying of the mother for her "crusade" is unfortunate considering nobody here knows her I presume, as is the the notion that the child in heading for Armageddon.

The "show me you medals" quip to myself is equally defensive and ridiculous (like I couldn't possibly have a point if I am not a teacher) as if the schools system is so esoteric and byzantine that nobody except a regular teacher could possibly understand the nature of it all.

One doesn't have to be Einstein to work out that accommodating one girl in a school is hardly putting a man on the moon in logistical terms irrespective of the ridiculous and ill-thought out objections put up on this one.

What ever your reason for arguing the case against so called discimination, you certainly come across as a person with an enormous chip on her shoulder. I didn't want to get personal but I think you're taking the debate far too seriously Rosita. I don't see the point in engaging any further. I wish that girl good luck because regardless of what anyone believes, imo she will have a "different" and lonely time as the only girl in a boys school. regardless of the constitution.

Rosita

FICOCO wrote: »

What ever your reason for arguing the case against so called discimination, you certainly come across as a person with an enormous chip on her shoulder. I didn't want to get personal but I think you're taking the debate far too seriously Rosita. I don't see the point in engaging any further. I wish that girl good luck because regardless of what anyone believes, imo she will have a "different" and lonely time as the only girl in a boys school. regardless of the constitution.

A 'chip on my shoulder'? Taking it too seriously?

Of course, you're right. Only someone with a chip on their shoulder could not have seen a topic predicting (and almost wishing it for having the impudence to challenge 'the system' - from what I can see) bullying for the bit of light-hearted banter for what it was.

I'm just glad you didn't want to get personal.

Trotter

Play fair everyone, Im on my holidays so Ive no intention of dealing with annoyed posters til next week.
My opinion? Teachers are in a good position to give opinions on this because we spend our time working with parents and children. If 4 architects say a building design decision isn't right, the country listens. If 4 teachers say a school related decision isn't right, we're criticised as circling the wagons for our own interest. We as teachers see the effects of teenage group dynamics all the time. Some hate to acknowledge it but that makes the majority of experienced teachers experts in the area and very qualified to advise and comment. Personally Id never send my daughter to a boys school.

Getting my moderator hat back on, can we all chill a little, and can we all realise also that on a forum of teachers and lecturers, comments will clearly be made from the point of view of mostly... Teachers and lecturers. That doesn't mean the educators are ganging up.

gaeilgegrinds

My only contribution to this is that I feel sorry for the girl in question. Whatever the reason, she will now most probably be the only girl in an all boys school. Difficult is not the word! Having taught in a predominantly boys school for a few years I realise that having only a handful of girls in the class is very difficult for them. I'm all for mixed schools but when one is strongly in a minority at that age it can prove very difficult. Best of luck to them because, in my opinion, they will need it.

FICOCO

Trotter wrote: »

Play fair everyone, Im on my holidays so Ive no intention of dealing with annoyed posters til next week.
My opinion? Teachers are in a good position to give opinions on this because we spend our time working with parents and children. If 4 architects say a building design decision isn't right, the country listens. If 4 teachers say a school related decision isn't right, we're criticised as circling the wagons for our own interest. We as teachers see the effects of teenage group dynamics all the time. Some hate to acknowledge it but that makes the majority of experienced teachers experts in the area and very qualified to advise and comment. Personally Id never send my daughter to a boys school.

Getting my moderator hat back on, can we all chill a little, and can we all realise also that on a forum of teachers and lecturers, comments will clearly be made from the point of view of mostly... Teachers and lecturers. That doesn't mean the educators are ganging up.

Well said. No need for anyone to get agressive in an informal setting like boards. Good luck to the student affected that's all.

the_syco

A question: does the male brain work any differently than the female brain, in regards to teaching? Also, will a girl in a class of boys cause disruption to the line of thought for the boys? Finally, will a girl with autism learn in the same way as a boy without autism?

She may be given her own special-needs tutor in the school, and although this would be great, as she could learn well, it'd may also mean total segregation from the rest of the school?

spurious

Without knowing the exact details of her learning needs, it's probably true she is in the best place educationally. Vocational schools tend to get way more than their fair share of kids with problems, partly due to (up to now unwritten**) enrolment policies of some voluntary secondary schools and have a great deal of experienced and highly-trained staff to help the kids that need extra help.

According to studies, boys do better in mixed situations, girls do better in single-sex. Males tend to demand more teacher attention and tend not to do as well as girls until later on in their school life. From a personal point of view, boys are much easier to manage, behaviour-wise.

She won't be the only child in the school with special needs. By the second week of September the novelty will be gone. I wouldn't be surprised if the school reconsidered and opened its doors to girls.

**this may have to change as a result of this case, which will be very interesting indeed.