Would a move back to single sex education help our girls?

Girls schools are not 'cloisters', the idea is quite hilarious.
Leastwise, non-religious ones aren't. There may be some serious objections to any sort of segregation on religious grounds, both single-faith and within some of those single sex for religious reasons.

I went to an an all girls' secondary school ( C.Of E/11 plus) and really enjoyed it. We had lots of strong, independent female role models as teachers. Looking back I think many were lesbians; or certainly, older unmarried women -and at a time when teaching was one of those jobs was sen as a being a good, respectable option for educated independent women.

Sport was very strong too; far more so than in the mixed sex schools in which I later taught as a teacher, myself.

I guess there is no one solution fits all, but I've always seen all girl schools as a positive. It's not as if many of us did not have brothers or other male relatives, or that we didn't socialise with boys outside of school. We did.

Mine was an academic school, with high expectations of its girls and what they might do in the future; but I'm pretty confident that many girls who went to single sex secondary moderns may well have been channeled, instead, into traditional female service roles - such as hairdressing, typing, child minding etc

No way. I went to a single sex school and absolutely hated it. I will never inflict that on my daughters (nor would I on my sons if I had any).

In a truly equal and unsexist society, there would be no need for single sex schools at all.

But that's not 21st century U.K., unfortunately.

DD was very against the idea of single sex schools when we first started thinking about secondarys when she was in yr5; by yr 6 she was fed up with boys tending not to take schoolwork seriously enough. (This was in a school with generally good discipline standards too). She thrived in a single sex secondary, both academically and otherwise.

At this point in time, coed schools seem to result in far greater disparities in subject choices than single sex. DDs school did not in any way push the girls into STEM subjects, but they were free to choose what they wanted. If a girls school is offering comp sci , clearly it's not a 'boys subject', there's no peer pressure against taking it. Having been the only girl or one of two in my A level classes, I'm glad DD wasn't in that position.

Re the question of whether single sex schools are beneficial, there's a city somewhere in the Far East which had an education system which provided some interesting data. It had a mix of single sex and coed schools across the city, and the children were randomly allocated - no parental preference bias. The outcome there was that boys did slightly better in single sex and girls did significantly better. Obviously that's a rather specific case and the only metric was academic results.

I loved my all girls' school. Science taken seriously, girls' ambitions taken seriously, no distractions around looking nice, no sexual harassment (had already encountered that at primary).

I had no problem socialising with boys in the evenings (plenty of mixed extracurricular activities you can sign your kids up to).

If I had a daughter I'd be moving heaven and earth to get her into our local girls' school.

I used to think like that dey

Then I realised what It really meant was that basically they dont get used to being groped, harassed etc and that's what they dont learn to deal with.

It's much easier to hold your own with boys and men if you haven't been stereotyped out of and prevented from becoming their educational and confidence equal.

I'm not a fan. I don't like the idea of cloistering women in an unrealistically single-sex environment. I think learning to interact sensibly with the opposite sex is important. I also think single-sex education places too much importance on sex as a reason for division and difference.

If schools are failing to provide a safe environment for women that's appalling but I don't think isolating girls is the answer.

I went to a girls' school, dey. very pro it for DD, but her experience will be different from mine where I was single sex from 7 and did nothing outside of school.

The women I know who went to girl's schools are all dead against it, but you can see some on here in favour.
Personally I would say no - it may lead to "Buddha syndrome" (I just invented that maybe) where girls are sheltered and not able to compete on a level footing with boys.
Yes, sexual assaults would be hugely reduced (although not eliminated).

The way some are describing 'boys' here is puzzling

I hate statements like this.

Specify what statements and what you’re puzzled by. Reminder: this is the feminism board, where we prioritise the needs of girls and women.

camaleonHere, read this quote. the article is over a year old, nothing has been done and nothing has changed.

''Lawyers have accused Justine Greening of being in breach of her statutory duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which requires her to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination against girls in school and advance equality of opportunity. They said she could face judicial review proceedings if she failed to reply to their letter; they had yet to receive a response.

The issue was highlighted in a damning , which exposed the widespread incidence of sexual violence and harassment in England’s schools.

According to , 5,500 sexual offences were reported to the police as having taken place in UK schools over a three-year period to July 2015, including 600 rapes.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/15/justine-greening-could-face-legal-action-over-failure-to-protect-raped-pupils

Although, in law:

man is defined as a male of any age

woman is defined as a female of any age

I’ve got a son too, btw. I’d still prefer a single sex school for my daughter (son is already at uni so they have never been at the same school anyway).

Being realistic about the way the school system treats groups of boys and groups of girls doesn’t mean we don’t love or care about our sons.

The way some are describing 'boys' here is puzzling.

My understanding is that "boys" are juvenile human males.

[Girls are juvenile human females.]

[Men are adult human males]

[Women are adult human females]

I would have loved the option to send my dd to a single sex school.

99 percent of the disruption she reports is from the boys. There are something like 18 boys in her class and according to her every one of them messes about.

Whilst I'm aware there are probably plenty of girls who arent innocent, and they boys can be perfectly well behaved, I believe it's the stereotyping that is rife in mixed schools thays the problem. They are assumed to be bitchy madams and boistrous boys from the off set which does none of them any favours. They will naturally live up to these rules
Mixed schools stereotype everything from behaviour to sports. Girls are used as buffers and behaviour control. It's no wonder boys in mixed schools behave worse and it's no wonder girls are less engaged and have fewer sports opportunities.

But while boys do better in mixed academically that will always take precedence over girls wellbeing and achievements. Because, well they are girls.

I will look into the links later (must do some work).

The way some are describing 'boys' here is puzzling. Really. You would find it unacceptable the other way around (for good reasons).

More reading for you *Chameleon"

consult.education.gov.uk/safeguarding-in-schools-team/keeping-children-safe-in-education/supporting_documents/Sexual%20Harassment%20and%20Sexual%20Violence%20%20Advice.pdf

Most sexual violence happens at home

While true, there is a big problem in schools now. It is significant. I was quite shocked at the number of rapes.

Have a read Chameleon:

neu.org.uk/advice/its-just-everywhere-sexism-schools

I am not attaching any bad meaning to segregation here. As I said, I believe a more mixed classroom (in terms of abilities, socio-economic background, sex) is better. And I could find tones of evidence if I wanted to. Just like I could the other way around to demonstrate that more homogeneous environments are easier to navigate and promote academic achievement and safety.

DD2 in particular has been saying recently she is fed up with all the idiot boys on her class. They are not there to learn so all they do is carry on and say disgusting things to the girls apparently. Next year she goes into S3 (Scotland) where classes are more streamed so is hoping she can get away from the idiots as she puts it.

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/8266620/rise-of-pre-teen-sexual-predators-in-uk-schools/

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/dec/12/are-we-ignoring-an-epidemic-of-sexual-violence-in-schools

I don't know where your data comes from about the 'massive increase' JakyHolyoake. My children prefer to be in mixed spaces and I am happier that way too. I would have not imposed it though. They were in a primary school where most kids (particularly girls) tried grammar schools and I felt they were 'missing out'. Because they already have a boy/girl at home and share extracurricular activities together, I would have not imposed my preference. My husband went to an only-boys school and has very good memories.

I don't think there is evidence to justify the option. It is something you believe profoundly and pass it on your children. There are pros and cons. I don't feel my children are at higher risk of sexual assault at all. Most sexual violence happens at home/in our close circle of friends and relatives. I keep a much closer eye on that.