Single-Gender Schools

This article titled “Stop Austin SchoolDistrict’s Flawed Proposal for Single-Gender Schools” was posted in the Austin American Statesman on Monday, November 26, 2012. The editorial was written by the “Editorial Board” which doesn’t give us much credibility since we don’t know exactly who wrote it or what makes them credible authors for this subject. The Editorial Board’s intended audience is people who care about Bradley’s proposal and those who have the ability to implement change; more specifically the four new trustees that have been sworn in and the new leadership team that has just been elected for the Austin Independent School District board. The Editorial Board wants the trustees and leadership team to “get rid of distractions that are dividing the community and diverting attention from the district’s primary goal of improving high school graduation rates.” They want the trustees and leadership team to stop a proposal that would turn Garcia and Pearce middle schools into single-gender campuses. The Editorial Board says they understand that Trustee Cheryl Bradley, who represents the East Austin community where the schools would be located, has a strong belief that single-gender schools would improve the performance of middle schools in her district, but it is wrong to gamble on such a belief when there are proven methods the district can employ to improve student performance. They say the proposal is deeply flawed and gives five reasons why this is so.

The first reason the Editorial Board gives is that is inefficient because there is a similar proposal that Bradley’s proposal is competing with that is already being partially financed by the Moody Foundation. There has been no collaboration between the two proposals and there is no data to show that the district could sustain two all-boys schools.

The second reason The Editorial Board gives is it is wasteful. If Bradley’s proposal was stopped, the program financed by Moody could share a space with Garcia’s co-ed program which would maximize the district’s facilities, but since it hasn’t been stopped yet, the campus is off limits. It would cost more money to have it at the Alternative Learning Center which is where it will be if Bradley’s proposal isn’t stopped.

The third reason they give is the plan is deeply flawed. The Editorial Board says there is no comparable model the district can point to regarding Bradley’s proposal. There is however a model for the Moody proposal. Successful all-male academies usually require students to apply for admission while Bradley’s proposal is relying on zoned attendance. The Editorial Board says that a merger of the two plans could offer both approaches, offering admissions first to Pearce and Garcia students and allowing the extra seats to be filled by application.

The fourth reason the Editorial Board gives is that Bradley’s plan would likely decrease enrollment at Garcia and Pearce. The Editorial Board says the district came up with figures saying that about 30 percent of students in the attendance zone already transfer out of Garcia and Pearce already and if they were converted to single-gender schools even more would transfer.

The fifth and final reason they give is the proposal would displace more East Austin schools. The Editorial Board says that if Bradley’s proposal was given the go-ahead there would be a huge displacement of students not going to Garcia and Pearce anymore but if the Moody plan was given the go-ahead there would be a huge boost of enrollment in those schools.

I agree with the Editorial Board’s argument that Bradley’s proposal is flawed and most likely would not benefit East Austin schools as much as a combination of Bradley’s proposal and the proposal that is being partially funded by the Moody foundation. I do not, however, agree with the evidence the Editorial Board gives to support their argument. The reasons they give are somewhat flimsy and don’t hold a lot of factual evidence. For example, the third reason they give to argue that the Bradley proposal is deeply flawed is just again that the plan is deeply flawed! The Editorial Board makes a good point that the combination of the Moody plan and the Bradley proposal would be a much better way of helping both Garcia and Pearce middle schools in having higher enrollment and possible bettering the schools themselves, but that is not what they said in the very beginning of the article. At the beginning they mentioned nothing of the Moody plan and just said they wanted the Bradley proposal to be stopped.

I agree with the argument that Bradley’s proposal is flawed and that it would not benefit East Austin schools without the combined efforts of Bradley’s proposal and the Moody plan, but I think the Editorial Board could have done a better job in staying constant throughout the editorial and having better, backed-up evidence supporting their claims.