DD's school going co-ed - I'm really annoyed

[SomewhereOutThere]

Am I allowed to talk about a private school issue in FC? I know that can be polarising in and of itself, but my particular issue here is about something I feel strongly about as a feminist so I hope this is okay.

We heard yesterday that DD2's prep school is going fully co-ed. (Currently there are a small number of boys up to year 2, a relatively recent change which came alongside an assurance that the school would be staying single sex to 11.) It won't directly affect DD's lessons - boys are being phased in so her year group will remain all girls until she leaves in 3 years. (Though there will be younger boys in her playground which will change the atmosphere I suspect.)

But I'm annoyed that:

• There was no consultation with existing parents or (seemingly) staff, who were surprised.
• A four page booklet about the change continually refers to adding extra facilities to be able to absorb two 'genders'.
• The four page booklet also explains that staff will get extra training to refresh their prior experience/training in teaching co-ed to encompass 'the different ways in which girls and boys learn and their differing interests, strengths and weaknesses'. Makes me feel like there will be lots of the 'boys like science/girls like stories' bollocks which is bad for girls and boys.
• Most of all, in the whole 4 pages the fact that many girls learn better in an all girl environment, and are more likely to pursue STEM subjects, is not addressed! Nor is the fact that there will now be 3 co-ed prep schools in the town the school is in, an all boys school, and no all-girls school.

We chose this school back when my elder daughter was a toddler because I wanted an all girl environment. DD1 was able to be her zany self at this school - she's maths mad and that was massively encouraged, as was sport - she got into one there that she now plays at a county level. She moved on to an all girls senior school in a nearby city brimming with confidence and loves being just with girls. It makes me sad that the governors don't seem to give any weight to the fact that for over 100 years this school has offered that to girls.

Oh, and as they say themselves, they have an all time high of pupils enrolled. So they are 'doing it from a position of strength'. So I have no idea - despite the 4 pages - why they feel it necessary. Something about the needs of our future demographic after engaging consultants to research the strategic future. It must be right then, since a consultant says so. Nice to know that's what fees have been being spent on. (I say that knowing all about consultancy bullshitting to justify a high fee, since I work in a similar field myself!)

I feel like moving DD2 into the nearby city, since it is clear the new (male) chair of governors at her school doesn't believe in and support the importance of an all-girl education, which is my primary reason for paying private school fees. I've contacted the girl's schools this morning. But it'll mean a massively long journey for her on public transport, and might just be too disruptive at this stage - something the school is counting on, I suspect. Gah!

I appreciate Engand and Wales may be different but I'm not aware, although happy to be corrected, of any single sex state schools in Scotland; nor the option ever having been available outside the private sector apart from one Edinburgh school which was briefly single sex and state run.

I found a report from 2010 which stated that around 50 years most government funded schools were single sex. That seems surprising , certainly is not accurate for Scotland. We seem to have managed without it.

Had the state undertaken to provide single sex education and reneged on it ; or if there were vociferous calls for the state to provide it , that would be different but this is not a general issue.

Isn't this more about 'needing' (note qualifiers, because I recognise that it is a privileged 'need') to access the private sector to gain a girl-friendly education where a zany, nerdy, active girl can get an education to suit her? Should the deeper question, and why this is a feminist issue, be why the state-funded system is not doing more to support girls? If we know that girls learn better in all girl environments and are going to be less burdened with gender stereotypical and patriarchal assumptions and environments that will hinder them then why is the state system not facilitating this? Those with privilege, including the OP, can choose the private system, which does smack of privilege, but then rich(er) people are privileged in multiple ways other than this as well, although these seem to raise less ire. They can afford private care for SN children, child care, nannies, expensive holidays that impart cultural capital, etc. I say this as a firm supporter of the state-funded system BTW, at least in principle, but I also think this system has deep flaws, so I can't blame parents with the means who choose to send their children to private schools any more than I would blame them for choosing private healthcare over the public system.

In the OP's case I'd be mortified at the school too, and protective of a girl who has traits that are neither expected nor valued in girls in this atriarchal society.

Glad the troll was sorted too. I've been avoiding ths board because I'm tired of derailing male trolls ... (There's a parallel there to the topic at hand, I suspect).

This is a form of feminism that makes me think of Right Wing Women www.goodreads.com/book/show/377163.Right_Wing_Women

It is not my feminism. In my feminism the focus is on equality, a few privileged girls having choices denied to most does not factor into feminism for me.

The argument that you pay your taxes and aren't using the schools is a hackneyed trope that has been dismantled so many times I am reluctant to rehearse the arguments - by withdrawing precious Camilla from Scumbank High to keep her away from the Waynes and Waynettas, you are not saving resources but rather supporting the continued lack of investment. When those with power and choices don't use Scumbank, it can be choked of resources - if you sent the precious snowflake and fought for her within the school, the ghastly oik girls would benefit too. But of course, working class girls aren't as 'zany, nerdy and active' as your precious petal, best keep her away from the filthy hordes, eh?

I'm not convinced the factor which makes single sex fee paying schools better for girls is the being single sex. If that were true girls educated at single sex private schools should outperform girls educated at co-ed private schools. Is there any evidence of that?

Perhaps the aim should be a school which brings out the best in all pupils and has zero tolerance of bullying. It can be done. One of the reasons I picked the co-ed school for my son was everything I had heard about indicated a superb level of pastoral care ; of course it was going to get good exam results, that's a given, but there is more to education than that.

On the other hand I've heard past pupils of a very well known private girls school say it was just an exam factory.

Lass in the UK there are single-sex state schools. There used to be many more. The only one now where I live is a (very good, and oversubscribed) Catholic one. Anyone wanting single sex for their girls or boys here, who is not Catholic, would need to go to a private school.

A certain private girls school here is extremely popular and well known for the number of girls educated there who are ambitious, confident and go on to have scientific careers.

It use to be a direct grant school, but now gives what bursaries it can.

Anyone wanting single sex for their girls or boys here, who is not Catholic, would need to go to a private school

Personally I find it utterly obnoxious thar religious schools are state funded. It's less of an issue here but I would be furious if I had been a parent in England and the local state school, which I would be supporting by my taxes, is not a school I could have sent my child to.

And as I said, by UK, you mean England and Wales.

A certain private girls school here is extremely popular and well known for the number of girls educated there who are ambitious, confident and go on to have scientific careers

You could say exactly that about the girls who went to my son's co-ed private school.
Or indeed a good state school.

You could say that about a private boys school that became co-ed here too, but it certainly did not have the right atmosphere for all girls. Some would have shrunk back from all the boys' bravado and teenage behaviour.

It is a shame the state took the choice away from tax payers and their children in so many cities.

Meanwhile, a lot of parents do sincerely believe an all girls education is best for their child, and they are not alone.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35419284

I did think single sex educated girls did better than coed, especially in STEM subjects? It was certainly orthodoxy in the past: that girls do better single sex, boys do better coed. That research was part of what facilitated the move to coed in state education, wasn't it? I remember my mum talking about it when she did her B.Ed (25ish years ago)

I'm not convinced the factor which makes single sex fee paying schools better for girls is the being single sex. If that were true girls educated at single sex private schools should outperform girls educated at co-ed private schools. Is there any evidence of that?

Comparing girls in co-ed state schools with all-girls schools, the latter do better at GCSE's in general and very markedly better in the traditionally-male dominated subject areas. They also choose to take more of those subjects and a higher percentage go on to work in STEM. This remains the case even when they control for the variable factors.

Boys' achievement at co-ed and single sex state schools is interesting. They do better in single sex but not when they control for variable factors.

So boys at single sex state schools typically do better but because of factors like parents with higher income levels being more likely to choose those schools, and because more of them are grammar schools. Whereas with girls the differential is so high that they don't just do better because of those factors, but also because intrinsically of the single-sex aspect of their school.

Of course this does not mean that an individual child will do better in a poor single-sex school then a good co-ed school. It is all averages and it is up to us at parents to look at the options available and choose the one that suits their child best.

I'm not aware of any large-scale studies about private schools looking at co-ed vs single sex (though there may well be some) but it is known that single sex schools are the most high achieving at gcse and a'level as it is confirmed by the league tables every year. Again, this doesn't mean every single sex school is better or that every child is suited to one!

By 'doing better' I wasn't thinking of exam performance necessarily btw. I was thinking of self-development more generally (as well).

OP you or a fellow parent has named the school in this series of posts. I won't name it again as I appreciate your concern but can I just say that, traditionally, they would have had lords who lived there.
FWIW, the private 3-18 girls' school announced they were going co-ed, there was so outcry & so many parents started voting with their feet that they had to re-tract their statement. It was too late by then and, a couple of years later, they are closing.

I'm not aware of any large-scale studies about private schools looking at co-ed vs single sex (though there may well be some) but it is known that single sex schools are the most high achieving at gcse and a'level as it is confirmed by the league tables every year

We don't have GCSE or A level here. I used to look at the league tables of the Edinburgh schools. There was generally about 1% difference between the co-eds and the single sex in favour of the single sex. We put that down to the lack of the "exam factory" factor at the school we picked.

Comparing girls in co-ed state schools with all-girls schools, the latter do better at GCSE's in general and very markedly better in the traditionally-male dominated subject areas

You are not comparing like with like. You are comparing state school results with private school results as most single sex schools will be private. In Scotland all single sex schools will be private.

We don't have GCSE or A level here

While that's generally true, it's not correct in the context of this debate - I went to an independent school in Scotland and sat A-levels. I don't know if the comparisons have been done, but it would be possible. As an aside, this was used as a way in the school that I went to of keeping pass rates high. The more able pupils sat their A-levels over 2 years, and the less able pupils were streamed to sit Highers but studying subjects for 2 years than 1 as is done in the state sector (ie an extra year of tuition before sitting the exam) So they kept their pass rates high on both.

I think this is a valid place for the OP to post this, and I'm a bit taken aback at some of the unkind posts. OK, this might not be your brand of feminism that the OP is talking about, but it is hers, and I don't think laying into her for all the ills of the fee paying system is very kind. She signed up for something believing that it was best for her children, and it's now been changed without much consultation, so I think she's entitled to query that. The justice or otherwise of fee paying schools is a much bigger question, but it's not the one she asked.

I think this is a valid place for the OP to post this, and I'm a bit taken aback at some of the unkind posts. OK, this might not be your brand of feminism that the OP is talking about, but it is hers, and I don't think laying into her for all the ills of the fee paying system is very kind. She signed up for something believing that it was best for her children, and it's now been changed without much consultation, so I think she's entitled to query that. The justice or otherwise of fee paying schools is a much bigger question, but it's not the one she asked

I think my criticisms are entirely valid. This is a feminist board and I believe feminism is about campaigning for equality for women and girls - or is there a new definition I missed?

The OP is doing the opposite - she is campaigning to give her child unfair advantage over other children, and the people her daughter will gain most advantage over are those with least access to resources - girls without wealthy parents - that is, the majority of the female population. I cannot think of many things more intrinsically unfeminist.

OP can do what she wants with her child, we live in a deeply unequal society, but don't try to dress it in the clothes of feminism.

No, no Lass. That study was all state schools. (I explained it poorly right before going to bed early, feeling unwell; apologies.)

All schools were state but some were grammar, which is one of the confounding variables they had to control for.

I don't know if there are any studies on Scottish schools in particular. Google will find them, if you look. But this pattern of girls doing better (especially in STEM subjects) when educated solely with girls - and being happier - is a regular pattern wherever in the world there are large enough amounts of single sex schools for it to be studied.

How am I campaigning to give my child an unfair advantage over others? I'm not asking anyone to sign a petition or anything. I'm discussing with other feminists, in feminism chat, the opportunity that is being taken away from younger girls in our school community that isn't being taken from the boys at the boys' school. You don't think that's worthy of a place in this board but other feminists do or I'd have had no replies - or a lot of biscuits!
It certainly riled up the MRA's enough for them to try to cause massive derailments, which is often the sign of something being a feminist issue!

I put in a link upthread somewhere which gave info on quite a few different studies. There's one from Seoul, which conveniently for the purpose of educational researchers had a deliberate policy of randomly assigning children to different types of school - coeds and single sex. Of course, what pertains in one society may not be replicated in another but it seems that there is general consistency that in terms of educational outcome same sex is neutral or slightly beneficial for boys, beneficial for girls.

stillwantrachelshair
Shit, thanks. I'll seek out that reference and ask for it to be deleted.

Yes I've heard similar things about other schools while researching all this since it happened. Scary indeed.

That Korean research is fascinating, Errol. I'd never heard about it before you posted it the other day.

whatthe of course it's a feminist issue that girls don't do as well in Co Ed schools. OP knows that which is why she's chosen a single sex school for her DD. Your criticisms of state v private are about socialism not feminism.
Its a shame that the academy/free school model in England seems to have resulted in some religious schools and schools with non traditional teaching (e.g. Steiner). It would be nice to see some single sex state schools however I suspect the demand isn't there

Keep going somewhere. I'm always a bit at posters who talk about "their feminism" in a judgmental way of other women.

lass bit of a sidetrack but...

Going back a bit but there are a fair few Edinburgh schools which used to be single sex (largely male single sex, of course!)

Gillespies was single sex (boys) until the 70s
Royal High was boys only until 1973
I'm also pretty sure there were others, but the info isn't all that easy to find!

St Thomas of Aquins was all girls, again until the 70s

Even the co-ed schools often segregated subjects by sex; my mum was born in the 50s and the girls did home-ec at high schools while the boys did other stuff (woodwork I think!)

I think Edinburgh was probably better than many other places because we had a very strong female leading education in Edinburgh at the turn of the 20th century (Flora Stevenson) so at the time when a lot of schools were going up, they went up as co-ed from the start.

While that's generally true, it's not correct in the context of this debate - I went to an independent school in Scotland and sat A-levels. I don't know if the comparisons have been done, but it would be possible. As an aside, this was used as a way in the school that I went to of keeping pass rates high. The more able pupils sat their A-levels over 2 years, and the less able pupils were streamed to sit Highers but studying subjects for 2 years than 1 as is done in the state sector (ie an extra year of tuition before sitting the exam) So they kept their pass rates high on both

I am aware there are a small number of private schools which use the English system but they were irrelevant when I was comparing league tables. The school we chose used the Scottish format exclusively with Highers being sat in 5th year.

The 6th Year was used for extra one year crash Highers , or for Advanced Highers in subjects already passed in 5th year, not taking an extra year to pass a 5th year exam.

I'm always a bit hmm at posters who talk about "their feminism" in a judgmental way of other women.

Do you subscribe to the 'every choice a woman makes is a feminist choice' school of feminism? You see, I don't. Just because it is a woman doing something does not mean that I, as a feminist, automatically have to support and agree with her. Many women are not allies of feminism and I think it is reasonable to judge them for making choices that actively harm other women. Withdrawing your daughter from local comprehensive provision does negatively impact on the quality of comprehensive schools and thus the life chances of the vast majority of girls in this country who will attend comprehensive schools. I am not going to pretend that is OK to please middle class women who are not interested in anything but securing advantage for their own daughters. I am proud to say that is not my feminism. Because that is not feminism.