Mr. Raspberry had an excellent column in the Washington Post this morning (registration required, what a pain in the butt) about single sex schools. I'll heavily excerpt to save you the trouble of registering...

Is single-sex education a good thing, or a bad thing? The correct answer is: Yes. And that is why the administration's push to make room for single-sex public school classes -- even single-sex public schools -- is likely to set off a new round of righteous warfare. The administration last week issued a proposed regulation to change the way Title IX is enforced… Under the proposed changes, the options for such separation would be much greater, provided only that they be both voluntary and evenhanded…. Opponents resist separation by gender for the same reason they oppose official separation by race: It sets up a real opportunity for discrimination, whether discrimination is the intended result or not…. Proponents prefer to argue results…. These two conversations underscore a couple of points that tend to get lost in the battle between competing philosophical principles. First, single-sex education is much more widely available as an option for middle- and upper-class children who attend private schools than for low-income children in public schools. Second, children from low-income families and troubled neighborhoods tend to show more improvement when they are switched to single-sex classes. Third, it ought to remain a choice, not a prescription. But as things stand now, the youngsters who could benefit most from the choice are least likely to have it. That's what Paige hopes to change…. It will take a little while. The proposed regulations will be out for public comment for 45 days, followed by a departmental review and publication of a "final" rule, similarly subject to a 45-day period for public comment. That will be ample time for opponents to circle their wagons -- and there are some fairly formidable wagons, including the National Organization for Women, the American Association of University Women and the American Civil Liberties Union… The other side isn't exactly unarmed. It includes Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), and common sense.

Holy it-takes-a-village-village witch doctor, Batman! Are you telling me I agree with Raspberry AND Senator Clinton? Forget the aspirin and get me some morphine.
Anyway, it looks like we’re adding a new topic to the on-going public school discussion. On re-reading Raspberry's column, he didn't really stake out a position; he merely raised a topic. It will be boring and predictable to watch NOW come out against another choice, but it might be interesting to see which way the teachers’ union twitches. Need I say I'm in favor of increasing personal liberty? Stay tuned.

Comments

[Rob Salkowitz]

As the product of a single-sex high-school, I can tell you from experience that it's a mixed bag. But at the end of the day, I think the benefits outweighed the costs - at least in my case (I made up for lost time in college) - and in any case, people should have the choice when it comes to their own kids. This is a stupid place for PC warriors to try to fight it out. There's plenty of room for single-sex and coed schools in the educational system.

[pedro]

I agree Rob. I've never understood the anti-choice agenda of the left when it comes to schooling. I'm unable to think of a kind explanation for that position; I'm afraid there really are many people who would sell out on other people's children for union solidarity and to keep a monopoly on indoctrination. Why black America doesn't take the left to task on this issue is beyond me.
Hey! I just voted for Kucinich. He was the only not-Kerry still standing. I'd rather have voted for Dean, but what can you do. I had front row parking and the whole community center to myself, not counting the volunteers. And I'm ashamed to say I needed help with the touch-screen voting machine :-(