An article in Slate recently looked at differing feminist views , and concluded that co-education is more beneficial for girls.
The authors, Rebecca Bigler and Lise Eliot, who contributed to a recent on the topic, explain that one group of feminists sees single-sex classes as a 鈥減rotected environment鈥� in which girls avoid the drama and distraction associated with trying to attract or compete with boys, while another group views single-sex environments as divisive. The authors support the latter perspective, for three major reasons.
First, they write, decades of research has failed to find an advantage in segregating the sexes. There are great single-sex schools, they explain, but 鈥渢heir success is not explained by gender composition, but by the characteristics of the entering students (such as economic background), by selection effects (for example, low performing students are not admitted, or are asked to leave), and by the substantial extra resources and mentoring these programs provide.鈥�
Second, despite 鈥渃ommon lore among parents and teachers鈥� that boys鈥� brains function differently than girls鈥�, Bigler and Eliot write, 鈥渢he bulk of scientific evidence demonstrates nothing of the sort.鈥� Lastly, the authors point to studies showing that treating boys and girls differently leads to the development of stereotypes and biases against the other gender. Coeducation, on the other hand, 鈥渙ffers boys and girls the chance to learn positive skills from each other.鈥�
Bigler and Eliot hope to convince the other feminists to work toward egalitarian rather than exclusive environments. 鈥淲hereas single-sex schools model the idea that gender exclusion is the answer to sexism, coeducational schools model the notion that the sexes must work together warmly and supportively,鈥� they write.
Not surprisingly, they鈥檝e received some 鈥渦nhappy responses鈥� to their research. Where do you stand on single-sex schooling? What have you seen these schools do鈥攁nd not do鈥攚ell?