Same-sex schools plan comes under fire

Women's, civil rights groups at odds with administration

Source: CNN.com
Author: The Associated Press
Date: September 18, 2002

The headline indicates that same-sex schools are in trouble, "under fire", and that they are under fire because they somehow violate women's rights and civil rights.

Arguments

• single-sex schools promote sexism, offer poor preparation for integrated workplaces, and distract from proven ways to improve education
• little research has been done on public single-sex classes
• success in single-sex schools may have more to do with money than kicking boys/girls out

Though all are valid arguments, the two more prominent arguments are...

• results that show academic improvement in single-sex schools do not hold up when socio-economic factors and ability level are taken into consideration
• schools that focus more on increased funding, smaller classes, parental involvement, and better teacher training will be just as successful as single-sex initiatives

Characters

Who’s in?

• Joan Hall, president of the Young Women’s Leadership Charter School
• Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation
• National Organization for Women, National Council of Women’s Organizations, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, and the National PTA
• “top Education Department official”
• Nancy Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
• Brian Jones, Education Department’s general counsel
• National Education Association
• Sandra Feldman, President of the American Federation of Teachers

Who's out?

• A psychologist’s perspective
• Students, in co-ed and single-sex education environments
• Parents, for and against single-sex education
• Teachers, with co-ed and single-sex classroom experience
• Medical commentary, especially on neurobiology
• A lawyer’s perspective

Why are they left out?

This article focuses on the civil liberties of the students and the fact that other factors may contribute to the academic problems, not just having the opposite sex in the classroom. The main argument states that single-sex educational successes are negated when socio-economic and ability factors are taken into consideration. This, combined with single-sex classes promoting sexism, leads the argument to take on a question of civil liberties and the equal opportunity to education, not segregated by race, gender, or any other factors. Parents, teachers, students, and psychologists are left out of the argument because the article assumes that the main issue of single-sex education is its existence at all. Comments from parents, teachers, and students would lead to a discussion of single-sex education specifically, whereas, the article is focused more on other factors that go into creating a positive school environment and how single-sex education can enhance gender stereotypes.

What’s left out of the discussion of single-sex education here?

The main point of discussion that is completely left out is a positive commentary on single-sex education and its benefits. Any possibility of this discussion is extinguished by the article’s argument that successes in single-sex education settings could very well be due to other factors, especially funding. The article also does not address any biological basis for learning. It avoids possible differences in learning style and brain functioning by masking the argument in saying that segregation on any level is unconstitutional. The article avoids personal commentaries, and instead focuses on large organizations’ and groups’ stances on the issue. Single-sex education is framed as violating civil rights, and feminists and civil rights activists want to prevent segregation.

Ideologies

Ideology: a set of values, beliefs, perceptions, or assumptions through which one comes to understand the world and formulate what one would consider "normal"

Ideologies used in the article's arguments:

• Gender differences are socially formed: girls and boys are socially trained to behave in certain ways
• Segregation is form of discrimination: separate but equal does not exist
• Equality: girls and boys deserve the same opportunity to be educated
• Single-sex education benefits are myth, actual factor for better education is funding
  

The article uses the ideology that boys and girls are socially conditioned to take on certain gender roles and single-sex schools would not adequately prepare girls for working with boys later in life. The article sees sex segregation as propagating the social expectations for girls. Also, since the article is heavy on quoting, and noting the side taken, of several civil rights groups, it places an emphasis on being anti-segregation. The article has an overarching theme of equality. This theme of equality is tied into the ideology that better funding and new initiatives in teaching are better indicators of a positive academic environment.

Equality is a dominant ideology of society today. Our country places an emphasis on equal opportunities, whether or not they are achieved is another story, and many people in society think absolutely equal situations are the best for everyone. Another dominant ideology in society today is that gender roles are socially conditioned in children. There is a debate between biological and social conditioning of gender specification, and it certainly relates to the two articles here.