New York's had a gay high school for many years and it doesn't cause much controversy.

One of the things we like to ignore about our founding fathers is that one of the religious freedom they came to these shores to enjoy was the freedom to enforce their own orthodoxy upon minorities unfortunate enough to be among them.

"Wild liberals" in Obama's cabinet = good. But segregating gays instead of focusing more energy into tolerance is stupid.

The Little Rock Nine weren't exactly liked when desegregation started, but it's the kind of thing that has to happen to move forward.

There are gay kids who get victimized and those who don't (like the gay guys on the football team). Requiring the former group to be subjected to torture just to get a high school education is wrong, and the establishment of an alternative school dedicated to ending such victimization is plainly right. Sometimes politicians are just too chicken to do the right thing.

I'm not a big fan of Duncan for this very reason.

It's silly to think that the way to remedy a problem like people feeling bullied and even fearful is to simply remove them.

That does nothing but justify the bad behavior.

If they must make a separate school, why don't they make a school for bullies and thugs so all of the kids who want to be there learning can do so free of harassment.

Yeah, the issue itself? Meh, could be a good idea, could be a bad one.

My biggest problem, living in another city with a non-educator at the helm is the lack of bottom-up effort in the education reform movement.

They aren't out there asking people what they want in a school, what the problems are and how they should be addressed, what programs are working and which are a waste.

Instead, they're sitting in conference rooms dreaming up all sorts of ideas. Many of them may be good ideas, even great ideas. HOWEVER, especially in education reform, if you don't have buy-in from teachers, parents and students, if those people aren't begging you to do what you're considering? It's not going to work. It can't work. It's a recipe for failure.

There are too many well-meaning people trying to reinvent education just by having really cool ideas. Implementing change is always hard, implementing change on people who haven't asked for your changes and haven't been given anything like the changes they've asked for? It ain't gonna happen.

I really encourage you to look into the successes and failures of the Chicago system (and NYC and...well, my system too if you happen across it!).

Also, for a site with a clear bias, but lots of great links to studies and info, try schoolmatters.org.

I tend to agree with Nautilator and doubtful; sexual orientation segregation in public schools seems anti-liberal and is likely to shift attention away from the situation of gay students left in the other high schools. Better to work on building tolerance within the system than trying to create an artificially sheltered environment for gay students which would surely leave them ill-prepared for life after high school in any case. That said I don't think this reflects very badly on Duncan; openness to new ideas and experimentation is something I generally want to see in administrative leaders.

I guess that's the problem I have with the concept, at least at first blush: segregation to protect a vulnerable part of the population just doesn't feel right somehow. taking the intolerant thugs out of the general population seems fair, though.

If you open a gay school, people will become gay. Just like hospitals, people were never sick before they opened those death traps.

"Duncan pitched the idea of an explicitly gay-friendly school, where half of the students were expected to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender."

a gay-friendly school? oh, horrors!

and Catholic School

NO one was catholic before those popped up everywhere.

Ultimately segregating gay high school students is a terrible idea. It rewards the homophobes in the student body, administration, and on the faculty, while seemingly creating a nurturuing environment for adolescents coming to grips with their sexuality. It buries the larger issue of tolerance and diversity. Safety is crucial, but society at large is not segregated by sexuality, and to give adolescents a false sense of the real world is not what education should be about.

This is just one of the festering problems - adolescents identifying as gay earlier than in the past - that needs to be addressed in our educational system as well as in society generally. As noted above, educational reform is largely driven by outsiders not those who use, run, or are part of the system. There may be great philosophers and thinkers who have ideas about reforming education, public or private, but unless they have spent sufficient time in a classroom or around students they frequently don't understand the complex dynamic involved.

Tenure, merit pay, teacher unions, phenomenally poor administrators, and increasingly unstable home situations may all play a role in the mess we call the American educational system, but the action is and always will be in the classroom. Between the student and the teacher. As a country we have never been able to agree on what it is we want from our public schools, or even how to fund them adequately. Until we have those discussions 'solutions' like gay high schools are a band-aid on a cancer.

I guess that's the problem I have with the concept, at least at first blush: segregation to protect a vulnerable part of the population just doesn't feel right somehow. taking the intolerant thugs out of the general population seems fair, though.

But as you figure out how to do that, you still have kids dropping out rather than continue to be bullied. Shouldn't they have someplace safe to go instead of being told, "Well, we're going to solve your problem as soon as we figure out how -- don't worry, I'm sure we'll be able to get rid of the bullies within the next 5 years!"

There is something to be said for protecting a vulnerable minority if they want it. I agree that gay kids who are doing fine shouldn't be shuffled off to the "gay" school "just in case," but kids who are having a hard time should have a refuge.

It's the difference between automatically segregating people based on a characteristic and giving protection to people who need it.

I'm with doubtful (@13:42); taking gay students out of the "normal" school and penning them up in a separate one seems like putting the cart before the ox. It seems to accept bullying as an inevitable fact of life, instead of trying to correct the situation in a way which profits society as a whole. Enforce zero tolerance for bullying (for whatever reasons, sexual orientation included) up to and including pulling the *bullies* out of the various schools and penning *them* up in a single "Borstal", where they can bully one another to their heart's content, if they're not willing to live and let live.

Are we going to set up special schools for kids who are bullied because they're skinny, or fat, or ugly, or geeky?

The idea is absurd. Talk about your stereo typing, the weak gay kids are too frail to attend normal schools. Apparently there is no such thing as a gay bully.

I have a grand idea, how about we look around and get rid of the worse bullies and let the rest of the kids figure it out. I don't know anyone that wasn't bullied in school, but now the decision is not allow bullies in school. Talk about leaving kids unprepared for adulthood. Right now I would consider the whole republican party, bullies. Kids should be prepared for an unfair life, not sheltered from it until adulthood.

First off - what role should "evangelical ministers" have in anything to do with public schools? I mean, WTF???

And secondly, for those who dismiss or make light of the bullying/ostracizing situation - maybe you should educate yourselves on the issues of suicide amond gay youth - it is a very real problem.

Are we going to set up special schools for kids who are bullied because they're skinny, or fat, or ugly, or geeky?

Actually, that's the other half of the population in these schools -- though the gay kids who need protection are the largest segment, they're also for any kid who can't take the bullying anymore.

I'm really not getting why it's better for a kid to be forced to stay in a school where s/he's being bullied instead of being allowed to transfer to another, more tolerant one. Again, we're not talking about transferring all of the gay kids en masse to a single school. We're talking about allowing specific kids who are being terrorized to move to a safe learning environment if they so choose.

I'm with Mnemosyne on this one. The alternative should be there. I'm gay, and life in school was hellish. If I'd had an alternative you can bet I would have taken it.

The problem is the same for female students, almost all of whom are routinely sexually harassed in high school in ways that would be actionable if they occurred in a work environment.

People say, on the one hand, that the solution is to take the bullies out of the school -- confronting the alpha male students who set the standards of social behavior in high school.

On the other hand, people also say that such harassment and bullying is "preparation for the real world" for female and gay students.

So when it comes right down to it, adults are unwilling to confront these behaviors in high school age males, but will make excuses for it.

And then blame the victims for not having the courage to do what adults are not able to do themselves.

The same syndrome is going on in discussions about prison rape.

I propose that school districts be held liable in court for cash damages when students are sexually harassed in school, or are bullied. It is the responsibility of the school system to provide a safe environment for all students in the school, and if they fail to do so, they should have to pay. Turn the trial lawyers loose on them.

I'm still waiting for Gay High School Musical 3.

/snark

My sister's district has an 'arts' magnate which is tough to get into - unless you have been kicked out of one of the district schools or had other troubles. She went there for a high school where she'd be able to be involved in art, dance, and drama productions, and had to keep a high score to be there.

Many of my friends in the area attended that school after doing fairly artful things which got them suspended from a different district school.

Seems to me any magnate school should be a good place to put bullied kids.

Even so, I would think that knuckling down on bullying over all would be more productive.

I do know that my son was bullied because the kids THOUGHT he was gay. He actually isn't gay, he's just a very sweet, gentle brilliant geek, and well, not interested in girls yet. (It took his father and his grandfather until their mid 20s before they finally woke up). But that didn't stop the bullying.
Even tried the magnet school route, but because it was part of a regular school, and some of the reasons for the magnet went against who my son is as well, that didn't work either.
He dropped out, got his GED and is loving College, where being a sweet, brilliant geek doesn't scare anyone.
Still hasn't figured out girls yet, though. He's only 19.
High school can be Real Ugly if you don't fit into a proper little hole.
Would a school that was mostly for gays and other bullied kids have worked. Who knows? But we didn't get a chance to try that, it wasn't an option.

I'm really not getting why it's better for a kid to be forced to stay in a school where s/he's being bullied instead of being allowed to transfer to another, more tolerant one. -Mnemosyne

I don't think anyone is arguing that straw man argument. I advocate addressing the bullying problem, not ignoring it and not expelling the victim. If a school is established for a group of people who are being victimized and the perpetrators aren't punished, or punishment is given lip service only, it legitimizes the bullying.

If GLBT children are placed in another school, bullies will just pick on someone else. Who gets their own school and who doesn't?

And you're fooling yourself if you think there would not be bullying at a GLBT only school. It's part of human behavior, one that is especially prominent in large groups of children.

Do you think that segregating a minority into a special school frees them from intimidation by their peers? It never worked for African American people. Segregation actually drives the fear which becomes resentment. Doing this would actually increase the risk these students faced because bullying and intimidation do not stop at the school doors. All you'd do is give the malcontents an easy way to find their victims.

But we didn't get a chance to try that, it wasn't an option. -Lisa Harrigan

We've tried segregation in the past. It didn't work.

Please, people, let's be rational and let history be a guide. Hold the offenders accountable and do not punish the victims.

Wow, let's jump from can go to must go in a single leap.

And do any of you remember high school? Are you getting it confused with elementary school when bullying was during recess and teachers had adult authority?

High School is filled with proto-adults and pseudo-adults, and is a social pressure cooker. And the predators as well as the victims by that point are perfectly aware of the spces and blind spots of official authority.

Parental support? Zero tolerance? With high schooolers? The best and nicest kids are wrestling with sex and drugs and the outside world. Many of them have jobs, some of them have kids, some of them have criminal records. Do you think that official policy about bullying is going to help in high school?

I was fat and smart, and high school was hell. I realized back then that the only important aspect of high school for my fellow students was the social typing they underwent, and the social aspect was all pervasive, before, during, after school.

I escaped by graduating in three years. I wanted nothing more in life than to leave. God help me if I had been gay.

School Administrators can't govern that life. They never have. Escape sometimes really is the best option, and sometimes the only one.

Sheesh, with all the disdain for Duncan's scheme, it's clear most posters here were the cool kids in high school who never got hassled by the jocks.

Who knew?

I advocate addressing the bullying problem, not ignoring it and not expelling the victim. If a school is established for a group of people who are being victimized and the perpetrators aren't punished, or punishment is given lip service only, it legitimizes the bullying.

So what's your plan to end bullying in high school so that all kids are safe there?

None of this "All we have to do is stop the bullying" bullshit. Tell me your plan. Because otherwise, I'd rather let the kids being bullied remove themselves from the situation than tell them, "Yeah, it sucks that you're being bullied. I'm sure someone will figure out how to stop it someday."

When you have kids literally DYING because they can't stand it anymore and commit suicide, I'm not comfortable standing back and saying, "Sorry, you have to wait for us to figure out how to end bullying." To do otherwise is, frankly, heartless.

My guess is they're scared the teen pregnancy rates will suddenly look much higher in most schools. But, it could be some people just don't like change.

Everybody gripes about 'bad schools', but who is comfortable with trying new ideas?

So much for 'separate but equal.'

As a gay, I truly respect Duncan's impulse to protect lgbt students. However, as someone already pointed out upthread, this idea is hardly new and almost a little dated. Ultimately I think there have to be other ways to go about minimizing bullying in all schools in general regardless of the target.

That being said, I'm personally happy to hear that the new Dept of Ed is going to be headed by someone who isn't afraid of considering things that may not be popular or orthodox. Heaven forbid he recoginzes that bullying has a truly negative impact beyond day-to-day abuse-- I had a good friend in high school that was so targeted by other kids that he had to leave the school for fear of his life.

I doubt anyone will read this because it's so late to the game, but here goes:

So what's your plan to end bullying in high school so that all kids are safe there?

None of this "All we have to do is stop the bullying" bullshit. Tell me your plan. -Mnemosyne

It is silly to demand that I solve the problem of bullying because I think segregation is a bad idea. Recognizing that one solution will not work as intended is not the same as solving the problem.

Bullying is incurable and ubiquitous, to be sure. I'm not absolving it, but it will exist in all situations in which groups of people are present. It will happen in grade school, high school, GLBT only schools (what, you don't think any of the GLBT children are or would become bullies?), college, the work place, everywhere.

And not once did I suggest we shouldn't address the issue of suicide rates among GLBT children, but segregating them isn't going to make that better. Just as I said above, it will actually make things worse for them. We absolutely know that about segregation because of our history.

By removing them from the general student population you will only create more fear and less understanding. Bullying doesn't end when the school bell rings.

I may not have a step-by-step plan to address bullying, but I don't have to support a doomed-from-the-start bad idea in it's stead.

I wonder if there is any evidence segregation has ever led to a decrease in a maligned minorities suicide rates? Could it be possible that bullying is not a factor in driving up these suicide rates? I haven't seen proof that it is.

Perhaps the money is better spent on rule enforcement and counseling. No matter what the right way to solve the problem is, segregation is not an answer to bad management.

Sheesh, with all the disdain for Duncan's scheme, it's clear most posters here were the cool kids in high school who never got hassled by the jocks. -Cash

Suffice it to say my disdain is not borne of my previous and nonexistent popularity.

That doesn't mean I have to embrace a stupid idea or that you should try to undercut my well laid out argument with an ad hominem.

Attack the argument, if you can, not the presumed past of the commenter.

Totally support it. It makes hooking up SOOO much easier when you weed out all the metrosexual but straight guys.

I understand the feeling to try to 'protect' the GLBT community. Especially in a place like highschool, but I think the idea is just crazy. You cannot shelter and group people this way. It just reinforces segregated thinking. If we are always considered THOSE people and treated differnelty instead of being part of the community as a whole, it will further deteriorate progress.

Secondly, I don't believe that grouping together the city's GLBT highschoolers and shipping them to one building IS the best way to protect them. There are terribly homophobic people in the world. Therefore, concetrating a group of GLBT students in one place at one time makes it easier for those people to a)find them and b)plan an attack against them.

Thirdly, if Duncan was really serious about tolerance he could add some books/stories to the city's curriculum written/about the GLBT community. Incorporating these writings would boost tolerance from a young age.