Kayleigh+McClure

=[|Accountability and single-sex Schooling]= ​ Single- Sex All-Male Classes

Although there was, of course, a continuum of teaching and classroom cultures in the all-male classes, much of what we saw revolved around control issues. It was widely believed that teachers "couldn't let up for a minute" in the all-male classrooms or things would careen wildly out of control. This was attributed, in part, to the absence of girls in the classroom and the view that boys couldn't control themselves. One eighth-grade teacher observed:

The boys are free to be just as good or bad as they want to be,. . . but in many cases they are going to wind up being just as bad as they want to be. Because before, let's say that theoretically, you have half the class in the disruptive male influence, now you've got the entire class as the disruptive male influence. . . . So, for teachers, they have 35 kids potentially cutting up as opposed to 15, or whatever they had before. (Interview, 1/6/00, p. 4)

Many boys, too, agreed that the all-male classes were struggling without the girls in the classroom.

Like in elementary, when they used to put a boy between girls, I think the girls help,. . . 'cause there's, like, all boys now and there's, like, more of-everybody's rowdy. There's not somebody to keep us down a bit. (Interview, seventh-grade boy, 2/4/00, p. 3)

I think boys do some things they wouldn't do when they are around girls. They [the girls] keep us in check. (Interview, sixth-grade boy, 11/16/99, p. 2)

Actual classroom observations of the boys' classes revealed a range from "hyper-controlled" classrooms, where the teacher insisted on absolute obedience, to classrooms in wild disarray with none of the boys apparently paying attention. What the ends of the continuum held in common was an implicit, and often explicitly stated, belief by both male and female teachers that boys could not control themselves-that they were to be controlled.

After a day in which the all-male classrooms were totally "out of control," teachers often resorted to what McNeil (1986) has termed "defensive teaching": Teachers anticipated student resistance and simplified course content, demanding little from the students and reducing knowledge to a list of facts to memorize for tests. The following example is drawn from notes on an observation conducted in an eighth-grade, all-male classroom:

Boys come spilling into the room, some leaping over desks on their way in; Ms. R. insists they go back out and enter the room again. Once they are in the room she tells them that today there will be no warnings, that the first infraction will earn them a call home. She switches on the overhead where the word respect is written; the rest of the page is covered up. "Respect," she announces, "copy this definition in your notebooks." She unveils the rest of the overhead and reads aloud: "Respect is doing what the person in charge of you tells you to do." Boys are opening notebooks and looking for writing utensils. Ms. R. continues, "The first thing you've got to learn here is to respect the teaching going on and the learning of fellow students." She tells them they are not to question assignments and suggests that outside of class they confront those who are "pulling the class down-talk to them outside of class, tell them what they're doing." The room is now somewhat quiet and the boys are writing.

Ms. R. has written their assignment on the board-to copy pages of the science text into their notebooks. "The first thing I've asked you to do is a no-brainer. Hopefully something will stick in your head." Ms. R. went on to say that the second assignment will be a "bit more;" it involves looking up a word. The room is quiet. Some boys are not writing at all; they have their heads down on their desks, eyes closed. There is an occasional noise in the classroom but overall it is "peaceful." The boys continue to copy the science book for the first hour of class. (Fieldnotes, 10/21/99, pp. 1-3)

[|Single-sex education spreads] My Notes Section: News, Pg. 12a In Greenville, S.C., principal Vaughan Overman couldn't be more pleased with the single- **// sex //**  teaching experiment she launched this year at Taylors Elementary. Teachers embrace it. Parents like it so much there's a waiting list to get into the classes. And the number of discipline referrals has plunged. Similar experiments are springing up across South Carolina, which more than any other state has embraced a federal Education Department decision two years ago that allowed public schools to experiment with separating children by gender. Nearly 200 schools in South Carolina have single-gender programs, and another 192 are exploring the option. The movement toward single-gender **// classrooms //**  is based on theories that boys and girls learn differently and that they do better when not distracted by the opposite **// sex //** . Boys in particular have been lagging academically, and they are thought to benefit from programs that tailor reading to their interests and don't require them to sit still for long periods. In the long run, it may turn out that what's making principals, teachers and parents happy in South Carolina also helps children learn. The problem is, nobody knows, and no one is keeping very good track, of all the **// same //** - **// sex //**  experiments. When the Education Department gave its green light, it had no practical research to offer schools on how to set up the programs. Today, even though 442 schools around the USA have single-gender **// classrooms //** , the department still has no research in the works. Independent researchers are not filling that void. While university researchers have produced some findings that suggest academic gains are possible with single-gender classes, the rigor and scale of that research falls short. What's needed is a deeper federal assessment of what works and what doesn't. In South Carolina and elsewhere, schools are relying on the work of authors and advocates. In the gender-separated classes at Taylors Elementary, for example, you'll see girls working in groups on projects, facing one another under bright lights. In the boys' rooms, the lighting is dimmer, desks are side-by-side so boys don't face one another, and lessons are often combined with movement. All this is rooted in "brain-based" research purporting to show how boys and girls learn differently. While that may sound logical to parents, several neuroscientists with national reputations are raising doubts. The dearth of definitive evidence should not halt the single-gender experiments. In most schools, boys -- especially poor, minority boys -- are lagging far behind. Some all-male schools serving those boys, such as the Excellence Charter School in New York, appear to have discovered a key to making single-gender schools work. The danger arises when broad experiments with single-gender **// classrooms //**  move faster than the research. The schools in South Carolina, for example, have no way to absorb what has been learned in New York. And many of their teachers receive little training. If, in a few years, these single-gender **// classrooms //** <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 16px;"> achieve no academic gains, local educators will declare the experiments worthless and dismantle programs that might have worked -- if only they had been run wisely. (c) USA TODAY, 2008

<span style="color: #ff00ff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">This is an important and interesting historical moment in education. It is a time when there are persistent calls for the improvement of the public education system in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada and in the U.S. This goal has resulted in a plethora of reform agendas including efforts to expand school choice, both outside and within the public school system. In some locales, such as the province of Alberta and the state of California, single-gender schooling, a model from the private school system, has been considered as one possible choice and a vehicle to improve educational opportunities for studies in the public system.

Why single-sex schooling? A comprehensive review of studies of Catholic single-sex and co-educational schools find academic achievement benefits for girls and low-income and minority boys who attend single-sex schools. Some studies find that girls who attend all-girls schools are more apt to adopt leadership roles, to become engaged in math and science, and to show improvements in self-esteem. Single-sex schools are also looked upon as more comfortable spaces for girls to learn. Some research also suggests that boys' schools provide opportunities for male character development and bonding among students. For both boys and girls, single-sex schools are also looked upon as ways to better manage classroom behaviour by reducing distractions and adolescent peer pressures.

While some research finds in favour of single-sex schools, other studies have questioned the academic and social advantages offered by single-sex schooling, arguing that the findings are inconclusive at best. Some researchers have suggested that school factors, such as school size or organization, contribute more to positive outcomes than gender separation. Other researchers also argue that single-gender educational settings promote stereotypical gender roles and attitudes towards the opposite sex. A significant limitation is that most studies of single-sex schooling have been conducted in the private sector and therefore may not generalize to public schools. Our knowledge of public single-sex schooling in Canada and the U.S. is much more limited.

In this article, we report on an experiment with single-sex schooling in California. In 1998, California became the first state to experiment with single-gender public education on a large scale. Under California's legislation, each district received $500,000 from the state to operate equivalent single-gender academies at the middle and high school level for both boys and girls. Four districts operated single-gender academies as schools-within-a-school and two districts operated self-contained single-gender academies. A summary of some of our major findings follows.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The success of single-gender public schooling depends strongly on how carefully it is implemented. This includes a variety of factors, such as the level of state monitoring and ongoing support, state and local motivations for offering single-gender schooling, the level of teacher and administrator preparedness, the quality of the curriculum and teaching methodologies, and the extent to which the single-gender school is driven by a commitment to gender equity. A number of these conditions were not ideal in the California case, and thus the experiment with single-gender public schooling was not as successful as it might have been.

Benefits

Public, single-gender schooling has some benefits, including:

- It presents an opportunity for experimentation for public school educators, as well as a new option for students.

- Single-gender classes allow for more candid conversations about life lessons and certain issues particular to adolescent boys and girls, such as gender roles, dating, and pregnancy. These conversations occurred particularly with teachers who had the ability and the willingness to understand the lives of their students and the insight to know what and how to talk to students.

- The elimination of classroom distractions from members of the opposite sex is of academic benefit to certain students, particularly girls.

- In some instances, single-gender classes are more comfortable places for students to learn. In some classes, students appeared to be less inhibited and more comfortable speaking out in class.

- In some cases, teachers find teaching single-sex classes to be more satisfying than teaching co-educational classes, as they are able to former stronger bonds with their same-sex students.

Disadvantages

These benefits were blunted in the California case by disadvantages, including:

- Policies were implemented in such a way that some students were strongly encouraged to join certain single-gender academies, rather than selecting them by choice. White, average or high-achieving students were more likely to choose freely to attend. A number of the single-gender academies became a mechanism by which districts could educate low-achieving, low-income and/or minority "at-risk" youth.

- Despite educators' interests in offering equal opportunity, discipline and instructional practices differed for boys and girls, and these differences were often based on the gender stereotypes of educators. Boys were, for example, often subjected to a more disciplinary environment while girls were treated in a more nurturing, open manner. Girls tended to be given more opportunities to work in collaborative groups and engage in discussion, whereas boys were taught in a more traditional, individualistic fashion.

- Students received mixed messages about gender. For example, while both boys and girls were told that women can do anything they want, girls were also made aware of restrictions on their behaviour, reinforced through expectations about clothing and appearance. Definitions of being a man included the assumption that men would be the primary wage earners in their families, as well as the assumption that men are emotionally stronger than women.

[Graph Not Transcribed]

- While opposite-sex distractions were eliminated in single-gender classrooms, there was some evidence that single-gender classes exacerbated teasing and disruptive behaviour among boys and cattiness among girls. Opposite-sex distractions also continued in the co-educational spaces of single-gender schools-within-a-school.

- An unexpected type of harassment for students in single-gender classrooms came from peers who were in co-educational classrooms. Harassment came in the form of homophobic comments, following the assumption that enrolment in a single-gender academy either meant a student was gay or posed the threat of "becoming" gay. Being gay, or perceived as gay, was seen by students as a grave insult; most teachers did little to address the repercussions of homophobic comments.

PRIVATE COMPARED TO PUBLIC SINGLE-GENDER SCHOOLING

There is an assumption that lessons and results gained from single-gender, private schools translate to single-gender, public schools.

In reality, the California public single-gender schools were very different from their counterparts in the private school system. We found a number of factors that made implementing and sustaining the public single-gender academies quite complicated and beyond the realm of what might occur in the private system. They included:

Vulnerability to Political Forces

Following a change in the governorship of California, the single-gender public schools no longer had state support and no longer received special funding. Most of the schools suffered from lack of district support as super-intendents struggled to respond to more pressing interests, such as improving students' test scores or financial concerns. Four of the six districts in the pilot program closed after two years and a fifth closed after three years. (The sixth continues to operate.)

Implementation Challenges

Educators were hampered at the outset by short timelines to propose and begin operation of the academies and an absence of legislated state support and monitoring. They had little time to plan for the academies, engage the support of constituencies, recruit qualified teachers, and advertise the new option for students. Once the academies were operational, they continued to suffer from implementation difficulties, including staff and leadership turnover, administrative burdens, and student recruitment difficulties.

Absence of Commitment

Most administrators were attracted to the generous grant that was offered by the state to start single-gender academies, and their commitment to single-gender education was secondary to meeting the pressing needs of students in their communities and/or expanding educational offerings. Alternately, private single-gender schools often have an identifiable mission and purpose, though admittedly not always oriented towards increasing gender equity (e.g., all-boys military schools).

Level of Interest Among Parents and Students

Many students and their parents elected to attend the single-gender academies because the schools offered smaller classes and increased resources, not because of the single-gender environment. In some districts, the academies operated under capacity due to insufficient public interest or due to difficulties in advertising the choice option.

IMPLICATIONS

Our findings lead us to offer the following implications for policy and practice in single-sex public schooling. These implications are particularly important as experiments with single-sex schools are likely to grow in number due to the changes in federal regulations and the funding now available to support them.

1 POLICIES FOR SINGLE-GENDER PUBLIC SCHOOLING NEED TO BE MORE CAREFULLY CRAFTED.

The policy for single-gender public schooling in California could have better enabled the successful implementation of single-gender academies in the following ways:

- expanding the time in which educators had to prepare applications

- carefull planning for implementation

- advertizing of the new option

- most importantly, the state legislation could have provided for school and district staff to receive state-sponsored staff development assistance geared toward gender equitable practices.

2 CAREFUL CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO HOW SINGLE-GENDER, PUBLIC EDUCATION IS IMPLEMENTED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

Single-gender, public academies need to guard against becoming a new form of tracking or resegregation. Segregation might lead to a safe or comfortable space for some populations, but they clearly create tensions for race and gender equity. Consideration needs to be given as to why such programs are important for students, what is gained as a result of their implementation, and what students might lose from not attending a mainstream educational program together. Questions also remain about how long students must participate in single-gender schooling for it to have desired effects.

[Graph Not Transcribed]

[Graph Not Transcribed]

[Graph Not Transcribed]

3 IMPLEMENTING SINGLE-GENDER SCHOOLS AS "SCHOOLS-WITHIN-A-SCHOOL" CAN UNINTENTIONALLY THREATEN EFFORTS TO ENSURE GENDER EQUITY.

Educators must be aware that when single-gender schools or classes are housed on the same campus as co-educational schools and/or are staffed by the same teachers, students can be subjected to stereotyping, comparisons, and interactions with the opposite sex that lead to harassment and distractions that would normally not occur in self-contained, single-gender schools. If girls and boys are separated for instruction but combined for social activities, there is also the risk that girls and boys will see each other only in social, rather than intellectual terms.

4 EXPERIMENTS WITH SINGLE-GENDER PUBLIC SCHOOLING NEED TO BE DRIVEN BY A STRONG THEORY OF EQUITABLE EDUCATION.

Educators need to have a strong sense of why they are implementing single-sex schooling, both for girls and for boys. Teachers need access to relevant training and administrative support in order to become aware of and to address critical issues facing students' lives, including gender and racial bias, harassment, sexuality, and homophobia. Single-gender settings offer the potential to advance gender equity but the organizational arrangement alone does not ensure it. Deliberate efforts must be taken in both single-sex and co-educational classrooms to break down gender stereotypes, as findings from this study clearly show that gender bias still exists in schools and society, and it negatively affects both girls and boys.

DR. AMANDA DATNOW is an Associate Professor of Education at the USC Rossier School of Education. She was formerly a faculty member at OISE/UT and at Johns Hopkins University. Recent books include Extending Educational Reform: From One School to Many (2002) and Gender in Policy and Practice: Perspectives on Single Sex and Coeducational Schooling (2003).

LEA HUBBARD is Visiting Faculty in the School of Education at the University of San Diego. Her work focuses on educational inequities, as they exist across ethnicity, class and gender. She has written numerous articles on the academic achievement of minority students. She is currently involved in a comprehensive study of the educational reform of a large urban school district. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"> [|Single Sex Public Schooling: California]

While some research finds in favour of single-sex schools, other studies have questioned the academic and social advantages offered by single-sex schooling, arguing that the findings are inconclusive at best. Some researchers have suggested that school factors, such as school size or organization, contribute more to positive outcomes than gender separation. Other researchers also argue that single-gendereducational settings promote stereotypical gender roles and attitudes towards the opposite sex. A significant limitation is that most studies of single-sex schooling have been conducted in the private sector and therefore may not generalize to public schools.

- Policies were implemented in such a way that some students were strongly encouraged to join certainsingle-gender academies, rather than selecting them by choice. White, average or high-achieving students were more likely to choose freely to attend. A number of the single-gender academies became a mechanism by which districts could educate low-achieving, low-income and/or minority "at-risk" youth.

- Despite educators' interests in offering equal opportunity, discipline and instructional practices differed for boys and girls, and these differences were often based on the gender stereotypes of educators. Boys were, for example, often subjected to a more disciplinary environment while girls were treated in a more nurturing, open manner. Girls tended to be given more opportunities to work in collaborative groups and engage in discussion, whereas boys were taught in a more traditional, individualistic fashion.

- Students received mixed messages about gender. For example, while both boys and girls were told that women can do anything they want, girls were also made aware of restrictions on their behaviour, reinforced through expectations about clothing and appearance. Definitions of being a man included the assumption that men would be the primary wage earners in their families, as well as the assumption that men are emotionally stronger than women.

- While opposite-sex distractions were eliminated in single-gender classrooms, there was some evidence that single-gender classes exacerbated teasing and disruptive behaviour among boys and cattiness among girls. Opposite-sex distractions also continued in the co-educational spaces of single-gender schools-within-a-school.

- An unexpected type of harassment for students in single-gender classrooms came from peers who were in co-educationalsingle-gender academy either meant a student was gay or posed the threat of "becoming" gay. Being gay, or perceived as gay, was seen by students as a grave insult; most teachers did little to address the repercussions of homophobic comments.

In reality, the California public single-gender schools were very different from their counterparts in the private school system. We found a number of factors that made implementing and sustaining the publicsingle-gender academies quite complicated and beyond the realm of what might occur in the private system. They included:

Vulnerability to Political Forces

Following a change in the governorship of California, the single-gender public schools no longer had state support and no longer received special funding. Most of the schools suffered from lack of district support as super-intendents struggled to respond to more pressing interests, such as improving students' test scores or financial concerns. Four of the six districts in the pilot program closed after two years and a fifth closed after three years. (The sixth continues to operate.)

Implementation Challenges

Educators were hampered at the outset by short timelines to propose and begin operation of the academies and an absence of legislated state support and monitoring. They had little time to plan for the academies, engage the support of constituencies, recruit qualified teachers, and advertise the new option for students. Once the academies were operational, they continued to suffer from implementation difficulties, including staff and leadership turnover, administrative burdens, and student recruitment difficulties.

Absence of Commitment

Most administrators were attracted to the generous grant that was offered by the state to start single-gender academies, and their commitment to single-gender education was secondary to meeting the pressing needs of students in their communities and/or expanding educational offerings. Alternately, private single-gender schools often have an identifiable mission and purpose, though admittedly not always oriented towards increasing gender equity (e.g., all-boys military schools).

Level of Interest Among Parents and Students

Many students and their parents elected to attend the single-gender academies because the schools offered smaller classes and increased resources, not because of the single-gender environment. In some districts, the academies operated under capacity due to insufficient public interest or due to difficulties in advertising the choice option.

Educators must be aware that when single-gender schools or classes are housed on the same campus as co-educational schools and/or are staffed by the same teachers, students can be subjected to stereotyping, comparisons, and interactions with the opposite sex that lead to harassment and distractions that would normally not occur in self-contained, single-gender schools. If girls and boys are separated for instruction but combined for social activities, there is also the risk that girls and boys will see each other only in social, rather than intellectual terms.

Conclusion Research
[|Advantages/Disadvantages of Public Schools]

** What are the advantages & disadvantages of public schools? **
<span style="color: #008000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">When you're looking for the right school for your child, consider the many advantages of public schools. Although they do have their own disadvantages, a public school education might still be the right choice for your child. First and foremost, a public school education is free. Although sometimes this means the quality of the academic programs are not as high as those of private schools, this is not always the case. If you check with a realtor in the area where you live or are planning to move to, they can inform you of the standard of the schools in your area. Public schools vary widely in academics and extracurricular programs. Classrooms are usually larger in public schools, meaning that there are more students and less individual attention from teachers. High enrollment rates in public school, however, are not always a bad thing. Students are exposed to more people from differing socio-economic backgrounds. This teaches children how to get along with one another regardless of differences, and can provide a more complete educational experience. In a public school, you will know what to expect in terms of curriculum and philosophy. All public schools adhere to state and federal regulatory standards and the curriculum and grading are standardized. If you prefer that your child's education be secular, public schools do not introduce theological or religious studies into curriculum. Although dropout and violence rates are generally higher in public schools, such statistics do not apply to all schools. Look at your local school system and find out how your schools rank statewide and nationally to get a better idea of what your local public education programs have to offer. Scheduling a tour and meeting with the principal may also help you and your child get a better feel for the schools.

Imagine sitting in a same sex school day after day. You wouldn't know much about the opposite gender. You might see them as weird or alien. What about when you get into the real world and you have to talk to them? What would you do? You wouldn’t have any social experience with the opposite gender. Coeducational schools prepare you to deal with the social situations of everyday adult life. Same sex schools are negatively effective on students because of gender stereotypes, they're not effective, and a lack or research.

Single-sex classrooms open students up to making stereotypes about the other gender. In single-sex classrooms, girls and boys were treated very differently, resulting in stereotypes. In the article, __Single Sex Public Schooling: California__, it says, "Despite educators' interests in offering equal opportunity, discipline and instructional practices differed for boys and girls, and these differences were often based on the gender stereotypes of educators." Single-sex classrooms caused the gender stereotypes instructors believed in to show in the classroom environment. Girls and boys were treated very differently, not because of how they acted as an individual but because of how their gender acted as a whole. Classrooms were set up in such a way that gender stereotypes were emphasized by the environments the students were in. Not only would the teachers practice gender stereotypes, but stereotypes would be fostered in the minds of the students.In a single-sex classroom you would only have limited engagement with the opposite sex and most of your understanding would be based on what your told and not what you've experienced. Thus the students would begin to hear the stereotypes and to them they would become truth. Coed schools allow for interactions between the sexes and students are able to gain experience dealing with the opposite sex and gain social skills that are necessary for a successful life.

Single-sex schools have proven to be ineffective. There is no solid conclusive evidence to support they’re claims of superiority over mixed gender educational facilities. As the article, __Same-sex education spreads__, says "Today, even though 442 schools around the USA have single-gender classrooms, the department still has no research in the works." No research has been done for single-sex schools to show it's effectiveness. There has been research however, that has proved that same-sex schools have a negative effect on males. There have been studies that support the idea of single-sex schools having no effect and even in some cases having a negative effect on males. As stated in the article __The Pros and Cons of Single-sex education__, "The research I'm familiar with actually shows a null effect for single - sex education for men. And there have been shown to be disadvantages, one of them being the intolerance for difference fostered by excluding women, the lack of female role models--very important for young men being educated to join a coed world." Males need females in classrooms to keep the class on a forward moving track. Even the young boys in single-sex classrooms realize how important it is to have female role models in the classroom setting. In the article, __Accountability and Single-Sex Schooling__, a sixth grader states, " I think boys do some things they wouldn't do when they are around girls. They [the girls] keep us in check." Males are more focused and and controlled in a classroom setting with girls. = = Research has shown that many schools have not been well planned. As classrooms are making the switch from coed to single-sex, they are losing the support of government funding, causing financial hardships for the schools. In the article, __Single Sex Public Schooling: California__, the article says, "Following a change in the governorship of California, the single-gender public schools no longer had state support and no longer received special funding." Many schools, such as this school in California are losing state support and therefore, the financial aid of the state. Short timelines also cause difficulties in same-sex schools. The rapidly constructed academies have many holes and errors leaving out fundamental knowledge and skills for fully developed adults. Also from the article, __Single Sex Public Schooling: California__, it says, " They [educators] had little time to plan for the academies, engage the support of constituencies, recruit qualified teachers, and advertise the new option for students. Once the academies were operational, they continued to suffer from implementation difficulties, including staff and leadership turnover, administrative burdens, and student recruitment difficulties." Many coed schools, after being switched to same sex schools have difficulty functioning due to the lack of organization, preparation, and finances.

In conclusion, coeducational facilites help improve a student's ability to learn because it is more effective, has decreased gender stereotypes, and is better researched to help students do the best they can. Same sex schools cause children to leave with a lack of social development, so they cannot face the real world. Where would a child be if they didn't approach the opposite sex each day in class? How would they be able to cope in the real world? Same sex schools do not have good structure, and are not able to best educate the next generation of students that will one day be the leaders of our country. =[Ok eva the conclusion needs a little bit of work maybe? But it's probably ok the way it is.. the intro def needs work though! And I added one more quote to go in the works cited and if you could maybe just find one more piece of research to put in the paragraph about gender stereotypes? Maybe something more specific? But if you can't we can make it work w/o something more. And for the works cited make sure you click on the links so that you get the full title of the article and everything you need for the page and dont forget to alphabetize!! :)] [Call me if you need help]=

To create a page...
>
 * 1) Click on the edit button [[image:edit.jpg]]
 * 2) Type the title of the page. Use a descriptive title not just "notes 1."
 * 3) Highlight the text and click the link button in the menu bar.
 * 4) In the Page Name text box **__add your name to the end of the title of the page__** and press add link.
 * 1) This will create a hyperlink to a page that doesn't exist. When you go to the page you will be prompted to edit this new page. **__Make sure that you choose the Notes page template.__**