You are not asking a naive question at all, Mary. The problem with this
proposal is that it legitimizes and pays for gender apartheid with public
dollars. It is simplistic to think that single-sex schools/programs will
"solve" all the ills that racism and sexism have caused. Actually, the
proposal stereotypes males/females Good teaching that is culturally
responsive (as Geneva Gay points out) can exist in a co-ed setting. Mostly
what I see are proposals to open single sex schools to "benefit" African
American urban males. This is scary to me. It looks like resegregation.
Further, research has shown that stereotypes may abound in such settings
We already know how to make schools more effective for students. Bleeding
dollars away from the schools to set up these segregated enclaves weakens
already financially-strapped public education system.
There are other reasons to stand back and carefully think about this
single-sex solution in terms of what it says about teachers. It is a
cop-out to say that teachers can't teach well or effectively in a co-ed
setting. I've attended both co-ed and single sex schools. Believe me-
of the worse teaching I saw was in the single sex setting. Some of the
was in the co-ed setting. It depended on the teacher- not the setting.
This reply only touches on a few reasons to be suspicious of this proposal.
I could go on and on with others.
Great question, Mary!
-- Original Message -----
From: "Mary White" <email@example.com>
Subject: [EDEQUITY Equity Now] Title IX and single -sex is not so bad
This may be an awfully na´ve question, but I wonder why is it all so bad
that the potential changes in Title IX that would allow single-sex
institutions? As Stephanie Barlow pointed out earlier, public single-sex
education for girls already exists across the country. I wonder what the
results are like from the few girls-only schools that emphasize math and
science? Could the potential changes in Title IX benefit an option such as
Mary Aleta White, Ph.D.
Director - Project EAGLES
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri May 31 2002 - 13:15:18 EDT