With so much hype on same-sex marriages, there is yet another same-sex issue: education.

There are two separate questions to this topic:
(1) Is same-sex education legal?
(2) Is same-sex education beneficial?

------------------- MY VIEW -------------------

(1) Yes.

Same-sex education is completely legal and constitutional, which can and should be backed with federal funding. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 says, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal assistance.” However, in section 106.35[b] of the regulations implementing Title IX, same-sex education is legal “provided that comparable courses, services, and facilities are made available to both sexes.”

Same-sex education is also valid under the 14th amendment, which states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Same-sex education is merely an additional choice to parents and children. Therefore, no privilege is being taken away from the citizens.

(2) Yes.

When it comes to kids’ education, no one size fits all. Same-sex education has been extremely successful in the countries of England and Australia. Additionally, it has worked in the US. In a Washington Times article entitled "Single-sex eduction":
Also, same-sex education has academic advantages. Girls and boys at same-sex schools are more likely to take courses which run against stereotypes. For example, girls would be more likely to take courses in math, science, or computers; boys, on the other hand, would be more likely explore the arts, language, drama, and dance fields. As a result, it will help break down these gender stereotypes that are so clear in co-ed education.

Clearly, I am for same-sex education. What are your positions?

A case could be made that school desegregation cases have established that "separate but equal" is inherently impossible. Can we be sure that the female schools and the male schools will have exactly the same amount of funding per student, exactly the same facilities and supplies, and exactly the same courses and extracurricular activities? If not, I think you have a legal problem.

Let's assume it's legal. I tend to think it's not a good idea anyway. If one advantage is, as you say, to have less gender stereotyping (which would certainly please me) I fail to see why this could not be done simply by having all students take the same sort of program at a school with both sexes. Everybody has to take math; everybody has to take art; and so on, with some sort of reasonable choices allowed. Contrast this with my experience in junior high school many years ago, when all boys had to take shop and all girls had to take home economics. My experience with this one form of sex segregation was certainly not a happy one.

I was always a pathologically shy person, so I never dated or even flirted with members of the opposite sex in school, not even in college. Therefore, a single-sex school would certainly have had no effect on my social life. However, I still would have hated it, and felt that I was missing half of the human experience.

Middle schools and high schools are the most sexist places on the planet. (I can recall when a feminist came to speak at my high school. She was screamed at by the students with genuine hatred.) I fail to see how segregation of the sexes can fail to make this problem even worse. If you limit your contact with the opposite sex, you will have less opportunity to learn that we are all just people.

I'll make no comment on legality, as I don't know enough about the US constitution to form a view. In areas such as this I tend to prefer the UK legal and constitutional system, where, unless something is specifically illegal, it is legal.

Anyway, is it beneficial?

First up, I went to an all-boys private school. There was a "sister" all-girls school in the same town, together with a state mixed secondary school, so it wasn't as if girls were an alien species (or at least, no more or less alien than for other children & teenagers).

But I'd caution anyone looking at same sex education in the UK as a model for the USA, since almost all single-sex schools here, whether in the public OR private sector, are selective entry schools. In other words, one takes an exam, and only those scoring above a certain level can enter. So any measures of academic out-turn are fundamentally skewed upwards, because only the brightest kids are included in the sample to begin with.

I'd say that academically my school was excellent, though for the reason I just gave I can't tell whether this was because of being single-sex, or whether it was just the selectivity. I veer towards the latter.

For wider education, in matters "psychosocial", shall we say, it was more of a mixed bag. On the plus side, I think I find working with women as peers, colleagues or friends is somewhat easier, because I tend to treat them less differently than other men who were taught in mixed classrooms. On the minus, and it's a BIG minus for me peronally, I think almost all single-sex educated MEN find it rather harder to form close relationships with women than their co-ed colleagues. Mostly this is down to the initial phases of forming a relationship (flirting, dating etc.) being less familiar - I don't know many of my school friends who have had any trouble sustaining the relationships that they DO manage to form.

On balance, I think that the ideal would be a mixed school environment where some of the classes were gender-segregated. Most of the studies I've read show that the early teenage years are those that benefit most from single-sex classes, so maybe 13-15 years olds could have single-sex classes (in mixed schools) while the older and younger pupils (I hate the use of the word "student" for the years of compulsory education, as it implies a choice and a level of freedom that simple is not there) would probably benefit from mixed classes whe their hormones either haven't started yet of have calmed down somewhat.

As Victoria Silverwolf remarked, there could be a problem with keeping the schools equal, but for my post, I will assume that somehow there would be safeguards in place to make sure there was equality in the school.

The advantages I can see have mostly to do with hormones. Some of my worst experience in the middle school years stemmed from hormone-induced cruelty and competition amongst the females for male attention. Also, as the mother of two girls, I would like them to get a good foundation in their education before starting to worry about the opposite sex.

Julian made a good point in his post:


I would support same sex education for students 10 - 15 (even as young as 10 here are hormonal issues), and mixed education for the younger and older years, as this can have some benefit as well and makes for a good balance. This is all assuming, of course, that the all girls school and all boys school have equal funding and opportunity.

I believe so, and from what I saw in skap's post it is.

No, I don't think so...I think it should be left up to the child's parents to educate there/his/her child about sex. I don't think that is the job of a school really. It also isn't the job of a school to force homosexuality on its students.

CP

I think you misunderstood the question ConservPat.

This is not about teaching homosexuality, it is about whether it is beneficial for the genders to be separated into different schools. I think it would be a lot less misleading if we titled it single-sex education, as was done in Skap's quote.

1) It is legal because it is a choice whether or not a student wants to attend that school. There really isn't an argument that it is segregating girls from going to any school they want, because freedom like that could become unchecked. If a girl can go to any school she desires, including "all-boy" schools, why can universities deny students entrance? Why can businesses reject applicants? I think it is perfectly legal; the althernative is a horrible slippery slope.

2) As I am a high school student who just recently transfered from an all-boy school to a co-ed school (freshmen and sophmore years at an all-boy school, junior year at co-ed school), I will say that it has both benefits and deficits. I think it had benefits because it allowed me to be completely relaxed when I was at school. I didn't have to worry about how my hair looked or my clothes. It's also better because there is less stress about relationships. On the flip side, a person must eventually learn to deal with the stress of relationships and my stint at an all-boy school prevented that.

I go to an all girl's school and I ha.te it. First of all, most girls don't choose to go to an all girl school. Most of their parents force them to go, because they think a same sex school offers a better education.

It does, actually, but that is not because the school is same sex. The school is better because it is private. If my school became co-ed, it would still offer the same education as it would if it remained same sex.

But anyways, I'm going off subject. I don't think same sex schools should all become co-ed, because then where would the fat and ugly girls and boys go? I don't mean to be mean, but seriously, If I was fat or ugly, I wouldn't want to be judged by the opposite sex!

I think that the parents should not be the ones to make the decision. It should be the student. I have this opinion purely because I was forced to go to a school where I cannot be with the opposite sex! It sucks, just plain and simple.

This makes me so sad. The idea that those of us who were never attractive should have been segregated, for our own good, from the opposite sex, just appalls me. Would it not be better for young women and men to learn that they are all people, with the same fears and frailties, than to "protect" them from being judged?

I oppose single-sex schools because I think that boys and girls should be peers. They should be taught to respect each other, not to think of each other as aliens.

1. As to the legality, I don't see anything illegal with it, though I would caution that I'm sure eventually there would be something similar to Title IX erected because someone will get her panties in a wad and think that this is not equal. But the facts are this: boys and girls learn differently, which brings me to...

2. By and large boys as a whole learn differently than girls. The education system in many places stress a "sit down and do your work" mentality that does a disservice to many of this nation's young males. It is my opinion shared with others that the reason there are so many females in colleges and universities is not because either gender is superior in mental capacity but because of the system in which we are educated better suits the female mind and manner. And because many teachers are not so adroit in understanding (or are better apt at misunderstanding) the differences between boys and girls, there is obvious inherent bias in the system. So I do believe as a result that perhaps it would not be a bad idea to have gender-segregated classes. But I wouldn't have same-sex schools. Have some classes that incorporate both boys and girls, but have most classes focusing on boys-only and girls-only.

For those who area interested, Kansas senator Sam Brownback and Heritage Foundation president Ed Fuelner have an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor basically stating that for every $4.00 spent on safe sex programs, $1.00 is spent on abstinence. Take from these two what you will, but both state the majority of Americans want their kids to receive a no-sex style of sex education. Anyone agree with these guys?

Same sex schools are not beneficial for several reasons:
1. Same sex schools would cause transportation problems. Boys and girls would most likely be transported miles across their cities to schools perhaps even to other cities. This would take much time away from their learning and would increase traffic and cause more gasoline to be spent on transportation thus causing more taxes on school transportation and on parents fuel to go up.

2. Same sex schools would prevent boys and girls from seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends during their lunchtime and other breaktimes. This would cause morale problems amongst boys and girls. They would feel sad and this sadness would cause them to perform less effectively in school.

3. Same sex schools prevent boys and girls from learning how to relate to and work with members of the opposite sex. This is bad for boys and girls especially if they are going into the military because they must learn how to work with one another.

4. Same sex schools is the beginning of a dictatorship and are unconstitutional. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peacably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. What right should the government have to decide which people students should be allowed to peacably assemble with?

I firmly believe that abstinence is the best form of education. I never had sexual intercourse during my years at school. For that matter, I still have not had sexual intercourse, period.

I believe the topic is more along the lines of "optional" rather than "mandatory" same sex schools.

also, your point #2



seems like it would make the real reason for being in school -- learning -- better.

I think the problems of same-sex schools is 1) would they be equal and 2) what you mentioned in you #3 point