SAME SEX EDUCATION CONSIDERED.

My first thought when reading this week's New York Times Magazine's cover story on same-sex public education was, "hey, they quoted Sara Mead, proprietor of the fine new blog Early Education Watch!" My second thoughts were more complicated. Leonard Sax, the self-styled neuroscientist attempting to base his schools around studies showing that girls hear better, and draw with more colors, than boys, is an obvious crank, and it's a shame that anyone is giving his theories credence. But even a crank relying on spurious research could actually tumble into a good idea. But did he? There's no real evidence of it. And it would be very difficult to generate good empirical data on the subject. After all, a school in which the principal is frustrated by current methods of pedagogy and casting around for alternatives is already an outlier of sorts. Add in a faculty positively disposed towards the suggested change and parents making affirmative decisions to shake up their child's curriculum and you're already looking at a pretty rare institution. Indeed, you can find lots of good schools, using all sorts of pedagogical innovations, that seem like an excellent model for public education, but are actually powered less by curriculum innovations and more by a combination of excellent leadership, above-average instructors, engaged parents and bright kids. And personnel is much harder to replicate than subject matter or demographic sorting. Additionally, the specific strain of same-sex education Sax is pushing -- which caters to boys' loud, aggressive "natures" on the one hand, and emphasizes the quiet, cooperative, domestic-oriented "natures" of girls on the other -- seems far riskier than simply segregating students by gender. Eventually, these kids will be mainstreamed back together, albeit with certain aspects of their gender roles reinforced in a classroom setting. Putting boys who've been taught to be louder and more aggressive in a class with girls who have been habituated to learning through quiet, open conversation seems somewhat problematic. In general, I'm not opposed to same sex education, but using it to reinforce a certain conception of masculinity and femininity is a much dicier proposition.