Here’s why the feminist groups dislike single-sex education….
This Ms. article explains objections to the (obviously poorly designed) Alabama experiment (I can only assume lawsuits are being prepared to halt this as well):
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs
July 7, 2009
Alabama School District Ends Single-Sex Classes
School officials in Lawrence County, Alabama, have agreed to end single-sex classes. The school district reached a settlement after being notified by the American Civil Liberties Union that its sex segregated programs were illegal.
The ACLU and ACLU of Alabama learned of sex-segregation after sending an Open Records Act (ORA) request to the school board in December 2008. The response to this request showed that not only were the students assigned to single-sex classes, but the teachers were encouraged to teach boys and girls differently. For example, suggesting that teachers ask boys where they would like to go hunting and ask girls to describe their dream wedding dresses. Upon learning of these policies, the ACLU informed the school district that their mandatory public school sex segregation violates Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments, the Equal Education Opportunities Act, and the US Constitution.
Under the agreement (see PDF), Lawrence County public schools will integrate all classes beginning this fall and they will not implement any single-sex programs for three years. The school district must notify the ACLU of any single-sex programs instituted between 2012 and 2015.
Emily Martin, Deputy Director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project said in a press release, “Unfortunately, we’ve seen time and time again that sex segregated classes are inherently unequal and diminish the diversity in public schools that best prepares students for life outside the classroom.” Sex-segregation in schools has been rising since former President Bush issued regulations in 2006 that weakened Title IX prohibitions against sex discrimination in education. The FMF and many other organizations concerned with education equality have called for a rescission (see PDF)of these 2006 changes to the Title IX regulation.
Media Resources: ACLU Press Release 7/6/09, Lawrence County Settlement Agreement 7/6/09, FMF Title IX Fact Sheet
Tags: feminists single sex
July 8th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Emily Martin of the ACLU had a point that the statutes were being violated. But I’m sure she is a lawyer and that her opinion that the gender segregated classes do not “best” prepare the students for life outside the classroom is irrelevant. She won the case because the law is the law. The law can be changed. But the key to whether the law will ever be changed is still the question of whether groups like the AAUW will acknowledge that there is a problem with the achievement of boys. If groups like them, that either speak or are influential on the attitudes of large numbers of women, won’t accept that idea, then it is a huge obstacle.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:45 am
In thinking about this, perhaps what is needed is more tracking. To segregate classes by gender is a violation of federal statutes. But to segregate classes by ability is not. If you divided say, Reading classes into, say four tracks, the lowest track would, in a purely de facto manner, have a majority, probably a large majority, of boys and could perhaps have some of the advantages that are hoped for by single sex classes.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I guess you must be taking a break. Anyway, I was curious what the AAUW was up to today, and the answer is that their most recent report is on the pay gap. I doubt they will even consider as legitimate any initiative to help boys unless and until that gap is closed. Since that gap won’t be closed for, at least, many years, the question is can anything be done without their cooperation or, as in the legal action that is the subject of this article, can they block any serious attempt?
July 12th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Apparently you are abandoning this site and moving everything to the Facebook page. So I will comment on the Chicago black male failure. At the end he talks about the chasm between white female teachers and black male students. It is clear that something should be done about that. If it can’t, then all else is hopeless.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I tried, I thought, leaving something on the Facebook page, but I can’t find what I left, so I will just leave another here. The short of it is that, with regard to the Backlash article, I’m sure she is right. There is plenty of backlash. But backlash only applies when you have less power. Women will soon have much more power and this will put them firmly in charge. Instead of backlash, we’ll be in a protest situation. I suspect that protest with the new matriarchy won’t get you anywhere. As the Borg said, resistance is futile.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Exactly, Anon, well said. By the time there is any critical mass of reaction among men against Feminism/Matriarchy, women will have visibly gained the reigns of power. At which point anti-feminist reaction becomes truly pointless, one would think at least.
It was quite an astute observation to note that men are engaging in a “PROTEST” as opposed to a “BACKLASH”.
Backlash implies an unfair reaction to a just effort, and it also implies the group engaging in response (men) have power. Both assumptions are wrong.