Watching status-quo folks scurry to defend failure is so much
fun.
Especially when theyıre working super hard to stem a tide
they canıt stop, such as the probable creation of more
single-sex public schools.
In a stunning break with how governmental bureaucracies
normally work, the behemoth U.S. Department of Education is
considering offering choice by changing how the 30-year-old
Title IX statute is enforced. Because Title IX outlaws
discrimination based on gender, single-sex schools have been
discouraged. Law currently allows federal funds to be used for
single-sex education as long as comparable opportunities exist
for both sexes. "Comparable" is the key, because how that's
defined can make single-sex efforts expensive and difficult.
But now, the ed feds think they just might allow local
districts more latitude to determine what comprises a comparable
education. Still no firm details, though, because we're waiting
for new regulations. As Education Secretary Rod Paige told The
Washington Times in May, "This is a complex and sensitive issue
that requires a considerable amount of consultations."
Translation: Special-interest groups must be conferred with
repeatedly, and governmentspeak takes time to draft.
But positive behavior must be enforced, so kudos to officials
who pay attention to the benefits single-sex education provides.
In a public-education world where -- to name only a few
appalling examples -- Baltimore's abysmal schools were taken
over by the state in 1997 and the same might happen in
Maryland's Prince George's County; Philadelphia's public schools
will undergo privatization this fall after repeatedly producing
some of the worst-educated students; and half of New York's high
school students fail to graduate on time and almost a third
never graduate, some parents seek options.
And they've found single-sex classrooms are a solution. So
have educators.
Examples abound, even if the actual number of single-sex
programs is only about a dozen. The Young Women's Leadership
School in East Harlem, N.Y., began in 1996 and serves mostly
minority girls from low-income families. Attendance rates hover
above 90 percent, higher than any other school in the district.
Teenage pregnancy is rare. Most graduates are at four-year
colleges, many on full scholarships, and most are the first in
their families to attend college.
Last year, Thurgood Marshall Elementary School in Seattle
began a pilot program in which boys and girls were separated in
some classrooms. Suspension of boys dropped, and their test
scores rose. Behavior problems have dipped, and stability and
security are better. Seventy-three percent of boys in the pilot
program passed the state standards, whereas 25 percent would be
good in the school's co-ed classes.
Behavior and grades have improved among students who study
separately at San Francisco 49ers Academies in East Palo Alto,
Calif., and they are less likely to skip school or drop out. And
since Jefferson Leadership Academies in Long Beach, Calif.,
split classrooms by gender, its overall standardized-test score
has improved 16 percent. It's still below state average for
middle schools, but higher among urban schools with similar
demographics.
That's important, because research suggests single-sex
schools especially benefit certain students. Cornelius Riordan,
Providence College sociology professor, recently told The
Washington Post that the consequences of single-sex schooling
are "significant for students who are or have been historically
or traditionally disadvantaged -- minorities, low- and
working-class youth and females (so long as the females are not
affluent)."
In other words, many of the children we've admitted to
leaving behind in the very name of the recently passed No Child
Left Behind Act. Children for whom choice doesn't exist.
Objections to single-sex education, of course, are many,
mostly from gender groups that cry separate can never be equal
and whine that we'd never tolerate such separation based on race
all the while ignoring that race doesn't determine learning
differences but gender most certainly can. It's why boys tend to
the rowdy physical and girls the chatty social. It's why boys
choose to read "All's Quiet on the Western Front," and girls
pick "Pride and Prejudice."
The folly of the separate-can't-be-equal protestation is
wonderfully illustrated in the comment of a National Education
Association spokeswoman, who told The Washington Times that the
NEA wants co-ed classroom equality for boys and girls with
special "attention paid to making sure that the curriculum does
not dumb down." Ha! That happened years ago, lady. Any more
dumbing down, and we should keep our kids home.
My favorite objection, however, has to be that putting
students in same-sex classes doesn't prepare them to interact in
the real world, implying that co-education automatically does.
Which it doesn't. The world is full of people of both genders
who are easily threatened and thrown off by confidence and
conviction. Co-ed schooling doesn't make dealing with such
people any easier. Trust me.
Single-sex education isn't for every student. But it does
work for some, and blocking their access to any opportunity is
wrong.
Defensive status-quo folks illuminate just how wrong.
Tresa McBee is a columnist at the Northwest Arkansas Times. She
can be reached at
tresam@nwarktimes.com.