The single-sex schools

THAT'S the better name to give what used to be known as "exclusive" schools for boys or for girls. Given ideological biases prevalent in some sectors, with such name we avoid the unfair connotation of the word "exclusive."

I think it is important that we view this matter with very objective eyes. Exclusivity need not mean elitism or indifference to others. Neither does it presume a surfeit of wealth and comfort in life, nor does it mean a status symbol.

And I think it would be grossly irresponsible to say that such schools can only mean spoiling children and deforming them by not exposing them to the realities of life.

As far as I know, those involved in such schools include many ordinary people, with average means and subject to the usual difficulties of our life today. But still they would like to have such schools for their children.

I consider such position of the parents involved as a simple manifestation of common sense that tells them that single-sex schools address a very specific need of some children in their growing up years.

This need should not be ignored. It arises from the fact that boys and girls are different. They have different paces of maturity, different preferences that should be respected and even strengthened, etc.

One teacher said: "Boys and girls are different and they learn differently, so why shouldn't we try teaching them differently to focus on their strengths?" That makes sense to me.

In a previous piece I wrote about these differences. I strongly feel that these natural differences should be strengthened. They enrich our life in general and create the condition for greater complementarity among ourselves.

Although l haven't made any scientific study on this, I suspect that in big part our present problems in families and in our society can be traced to not respecting these differences between boys and girls in their growing up years.

Wherever I go, I get the impression that we have many men and women who are stunted intellectually and psychologically, emotionally underdeveloped, and who have very little social skills.

There may be many factors involved in these phenomena, but certainly the educational factor would be a main one. Thus, the need for single-sex schools should not be ignored.

I was saddened to learn, for example, that in Spain today there is a raging debate about the legal status of such schools. I find it funny that at this stage of the game, so to speak, its legal status is still being questioned.

There are those who, with basis, suspect that the debate is ideologically spurred. The Spanish socialists, now in power, simply want to minimize threats to their position. And many of these schools are run by religious.

On the other hand, I was gladdened to know that in some parts of the United States many public school officials have realized the need for separating the boys and the girls in their classes.

They have not yet gone to single-sex schools, because of some legal impediments, but they are now experimenting, with very promising results, on having single-sex classrooms.

One US report cited some studies showing that student grade-point averages for both sexes increase in seventh and eighth grades when genders are separated.

The studies also showed that girls became more competitive or bolder in classroom, while boys worked better together as a team.

While coeducational schools definitely have their advantages, we simply cannot dismiss a priori the inherent advantages of the single-sex schools, either.

The former may foster equality and may be easier economically to run, but the latter respond to a significant legitimate need of children.

In the end, it is the parents, the best persons to know the children, who have to decide which school is best for their boys and girls. Their options should not be curtailed.