In “Negotiating Power in the Classroom,” Linda Briskin provides several examples of the positive use of gender separation in the classroom. Several studies done through the years have drawn similar conclusions, the most recent example being the article in the Toronto Star just a few years ago. The separation allows for students of both genders to work to their best, while circumventing the difficult prospect of teaching a balanced, mixed classroom, and on the surface, seems to be a great idea. It is so simple, so easy, just separate classes by gender, and it will solve so many problems. At the same time, I cannot help but think that this is in direct contrast to the teaching we have received throughout the course. Do I wish the best learning environment possible for my students? Of course. Do I think that division, with all that the word implies is the best way to do this? No. Well, perhaps not.
In the article, Briskin states “Proactive interventionist practices lead to consciousness through naming, and openly negotiate about the power dynamic in the everyday life of the classroom; this strategy takes the social, albeit shifting, meanings of gender, race, class, sexual orientation, ability, and age into account.” It is the tool of naming, so important to the concept of Critical Pedagogy, which seems to be the key. Although Briskin feels that naming these sexist practices can be “very unsettling for those who benefit from them,” I see no viable reason why those people should NOT be unsettled. In as much as dealing with racial bias can have problematic aspects for a person dealing with them (for example, the Disintegration stage, with it’s discomfort, guilt, shame, and anger at the recognition of one’s advantage because of being white, and the Reintegration stage, wherein a person has the desire to be accepted by one’s own racial group, and the belief in white superiority is so prevalent that it may lead to reshaping of the person’s belief system to be congruent with an acceptance of racism, as well as guilt and anxiety redirected as fear and anger). If these can be the side effects of Racism, I cannot help but think that teaching for gender equality, although difficult, would be a worthwhile endeavour. In some ways, gender separation seems to be little more than putting on blinders, and if separating a class by gender is effective, why not see how effective splitting classes by race, economic status or measured ability would be. Perhaps I seem an alarmist, assuming that divisiveness will spread through the schools, but I truly believe that a democratic classroom, wherein differences are actively critiqued, will in the long run be a far more effective classroom than one ruled by division.
