______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Legality of single-sex education
Author: edequity@tristram.edc.org at internet
Date: 2/27/98 11:26 AM
Can we have the name of the video you mentioned? Thanks! Linda
Purrington <lpurring@earthlink.net>
____________________________
Sue Sattel wrote:
>
> Robert - don't confuse single sex schools with single sex classrooms,
> which are specifically prohibited in Title IX. And, besides - we
> care. We give technical assistance to schools to keep them from
> getting sued and spending their precious scarce resources on lawsuits
> instead of on teachers and students. Some people run red lights.
> Doesn't make it right. How about spending the same amount of money
> creating classrooms and school climate that educates equally, toward
> the way each student, regardless of gender, learns. By enforcing
> sexual harssment policies and encouraging students to take advanced
> math and science, etc. we've noticed more assertiveness on the part of
> girls and the figuers of gender balance in these classrooms, in
> schools I have visited and whose figures I have examined show nearly
> equal enrollment by females in these areas. We have a new video
> encouraging parents and teachers in practices to eliminate the
> gendering of education and increase the number of girls/women in
> non-traditional careers. Let's have more of this and less segregation
> of any kind.
>
> sue.sattel@state.mn.us
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: Re: Legality of single-sex education
> Author: edequity@tristram.edc.org at internet
> Date: 2/24/98 6:57 PM
>
> I don't know if they care about the legality of it,
> they do it anyway.
>
> California is setting up single sex public primary and
> secondary schools. In doing so they are pairing up schools,
> one for each sex and claiming that each has the identical
> resources as the matched pair.
>
> Also,
> Douglass College is a single sex state supported school
> which ignores the ruling on United States Vs Virginia et al.
>
> Robert Weverka <weverka@optivision.com>