Crescent should become co-educational.
In a truly gender-equal future, being used to female peers, competitors and collaborators will be a basic trait that should not be delayed until adulthood/university. This applies professionally and interpersonally. Additionally, and this should be obvious: the students will enjoy school a lot more.
Jim
shared this idea
-
Anonymous
commented
We disagree with this idea. Research shows that boys in a single-*** school make academic gains above their peers in co-ed schools. Boys in boys’ schools are more willing to take risks because they do not fear embarrassing themselves in front of the other ***. If parents do not want their son in a single-*** environment, then Crescent School is not the right fit for them. But for those of us that specifically chose Crescent because it was a top-notch single *** school, then we would not want that to change.
-
JP Boutros '90
commented
I am an Old Boy with a pre-teen son. I debated voting for this but chose to instead vote for "Understand the Value of Respectful & Fair Relationships With Women", just as we can choose schools other than Crescent.
I told Geoff Roberts several years ago that my wife and I were reluctant to have our son in an all boys learning environment prior to Grade 9, as long as he continued to thrive in a co-ed school. Rightly, the ability to work well and excel in a real world, co-ed environment is a trait far more valuable today than it was in 1990, when I left Crescent.
Crescent is an exceptional option but it is an option, not an obligation. If one wants the co-ed experience for her/his son it can be found at the south end of the Bayview bridge, or in many other independent schools. Crescent is special because of its traditions; co-education is not - and need not be - one of them. Teaching young men in a male-only environment about equality is paramount, and it should preferably be taught by both women and men, often. I assume that Crescent is already doing so.
-
Philip Smith
commented
I disagree strongly. In an age where boys are not being well served at all by the public system, making one of the few high quality schools available to boys co-ed would be a disservice.
-
Richard Prosser
commented
I disagree. I find the boys are far less prone to displays of preconceived notions of masculinity in the absence of girls. I am often impressed with the degree of empathy and sensitivity they display to each other. I am certainly a proponent of increasing the number of opportunities for the boys to have meaningful school-based interactions with the girls.
-
Anonymous
commented
Agree, we selected the school because it caters to Boys unique learning styles. Happy for more interaction with girls but no need to go co-ed! Defeats the purpose of the school.
-
Anonymous
commented
We know that boys learn differently than girls. Enhance meaningful interaction with girls? Yes. Co-ed? No
-
James Mason
commented
Disagree: boys learn better when they don't have girls around to distract them. Girls-only schools there are many, but there are only a handful of boys-only schools left. Appleby, Lakefield, Trinity, Ridley, LCC have all gone coed.