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!

Yes, but even they're economic at root. The media exists to make money. Look, I'm not saying women have it great - just that the economy in certain ways is moving in a direction that will ultimately benefit them and possibly disadvantage men. You'll see it happen. And fair enough I guess. We've been top dogs for a long time.

Catch you again. :)

I hope not.

I'm convinced you're a goady fucker now. It's a good act, I'll give you that. 9/10.

I do wish mumsnet wasn't so set on making us avoid calling trolls out for what they are.

Such a waste of effort engaging with obvious GFs.

The trouble with sending your daughter to a single sex fee paying school whilst claiming to be a feminist is that you are acting in a way the directly promotes inequality and privilege, the two things feminists stand in opposition to. It's this hypocrisy (and the man hating) that makes it so difficult to take any of it seriously. You go on about a "class analysis" - who did this analysis and how often do they update the findings ? Whenever boys seem to fare worse (as they currently are) suddenly class analysis is not a useful tool anymore. I wonder why that is ?

I'm sorry OP I hate to be a dick but - what is it you want from this thread?

If I had the means, when she came to school age I would send my daughter to a state primary school and then a private all girls secondary. We are unlikely to have the means.

I went to a mixed state primary and secondary and the secondary was indeed a hotbed of sexual harassment and being expected to perform femininity so I understand your views on mixed education.

But what is the aim of this thread? Are we talking more generally about the consequences of mixed vs single sex schooling? Or are you specifically looking for other mumsnet members who are parents of children at the school?

I just think that if someone was advocating ethno-culturally segregated schools they'd be regarded, rightfully, as a total nutter. I don't see what's so different about gender.

Actually there are several, well recognised, excellent traditionally majority Black colleges in the US - Spelman, Howard etc. It is no longer total segregation but it is from a tradition which recognises that a minority or less privileged group may well benefit from an education separate from the majority/privileged in order to have their voices heard.

OP, I would be very annoyed at the lack of consultation with parents before this decision to change the school ethos was made.

No worries, venus. I'm ignoring him after the sickening racism, and attempting to properly filter.

growapear Is that addressed at me? I'm not a man hater. I can love lots of men and hate displays of male privilege all at the same time. And I didn't use the term class analysis.

I've already held my hands up to the private school thing. It's something else that I wouldn't want in my utopia. I can't ask for advice and thoughts on this issue without disclosing that it is an independent school and I know that means some people won't want to offer advice or will judge me for choosing something for my two of my children that not all children can access. Fair enough.

For example, certain GF regulars on the feminist boards get their rocks off attempting to bait feminists and demanding we spend time patiently explaining to them concepts they have heard numerous times before.
They aren't debating in good faith.
They haven't the decency to respect that the posters here abide by certain principles and they aren't genuinely interested.

They are just goady fuckers, whose raison d'etre is to annoy women.

Oh FFS is he here too? I think it's addressed to me. Don't worry I am not going to engage!

YY Vulvamort. Exactly.

I'm sorry OP I hate to be a dick but - what is it you want from this thread?

Thats not a dickish question.

I don't know quite what I wanted when I wrote the OP. To vent my frustration, mainly, I think. And I was wondering what I was missing - what the rationale was behind it and whether there might be any bright ideas on here. Which there have been, but I still can't work it out entirely.

I now have a meeting booked with the powers-that-be so I can vent at the right people!

Growapear- leaving aside the question of private schools - thats why the OP started this thread under feminism - the current research seems to be indicating that single sex education is better for boys too, or at least no worse. Is a less good option for all better? I certainly think there needs to be work done to address the underperformance of 'poor white males' or any who don't seem to be achieving their potential, but preventing girls from achieving their potential doesn't benefit society.

No OP it was not entirely addressed to you.

Education is the biggest example where the constant narrative that we need to encourage girls and empower them. Boys have privilege and don't need the same encouragement or extra help girls do. This has had a clear and direct impact on boys educational performance over the last 20 years since it became accepted as "the truth", combined with the complete dearth of male primary teachers.

It seems so obvious to me that this is the case and yet all we hear about is how it is not enough, things are still unfair educationally and girls still need more help so that they can dominate all subjects apparently. If this doesn't happen it is decried as sexism, it's pathetic.

Haha ah ok.

My kids are young so I am still very interested in the mixed vs single sex debate as I haven't made my mind up. Don't want to be prejudiced by my bad experiences but also don't want to be contrary for the sake of it. I also think for our family the other factors around choosing a school will end up being more significant.

It has been interesting to read though and also that you were so happy to send sons and daughters to separate schools. I don't know anyone who schools their children separately and thinking about it it makes perfect sense to pick a school for the individual child if you can (big IF!)

Anyway I'm waffling now. Hope the meeting goes well FWIW I would be hugely pissed off in your position too.

That was very poorly written but you probably got the gist of it.

Errol

but preventing girls from achieving their potential doesn't benefit society.

Imagine a man saying that if boys did not massively outperform girls, this was evidence that they were being "held back" ?

Maybe i didn't understand quite what you meant ?

I don't think you can base everything on the current research - that's only, at best, going to be able to look at GCSE grades, and numbers choosing subjects (and even that can be skewed, as it's possible that girls who like STEM subjects may be more - or less - likely to choose a girls school, so not a great control).

But the experience of single sex or mixed schools matters for a whole load of other things to - the ability to mix easily with the opposite sex, sexual harrassment, etc - which aren't easily measured, but do also matter.

(I don't think I've ever seen any research suggesting single sex schools are good for boys though btw - do post a link if there is any.)

as it's possible that girls who like STEM subjects may be more - or less - likely to choose a girls school, so not a great control

Ah come on. Surely no ones disputing that the vast majority of children in this country don't have the choice of private education (only available to very high earning parents), or state single sex education (rarely available). A tiny minority aren't enough to skew the numbers.

Unless you're suggesting a correlation between high earning parents and abilities in STEM.

Evergreen - I posted a link upthread, which also (iirc) touches on the girl/stem thing in a situation where single/coed is randomly assigned.

Growapear - yeah, looks like you didnt understand what I meant.
I would like to see every child reach their full potential. If some boys aren't, that needs addressing, but the evidence doesn't seem to be that single sex education is whats harmful to them (in terms of educational attainment). If every child was reaching their full potential and it turned out that then boys were outperforming girls then fine - if thats how it really is, so be it. Does that seem reasonable and would you be equally happy if it was the other way around?

Errol

I would like to see every child reach their full potential

I'm sure we can all agree on that. The trouble is that the evidence strongly suggests that not just a few, but many boys are not reaching their potential (unless you believe that girls are just much better at learning stuff than boys). It is against this backdrop that stories of how unfair education is to girls and how they need to be removed from mixed schools in order to get a better education seem rather difficult to swallow.

It is against this backdrop that stories of how unfair education is to girls and how they need to be removed from mixed schools in order to get a better education seem rather difficult to swallow.

So you think girls should be educated with boys and suffer repeated sexual assault (because, lets not beat around the bush, that's what it was - and it was entirely normal - and even at primary girls are told to wear shorts under their skirts to hide their knickers, so don't claim that this expectation isn't already there at primary) - so that boys can benefit from their calming influence?

Exactly how much abuse is it acceptable for girls to suffer in order to give boys a better education?

If boys not reaching their potential is a problem (which it probably is, although my experience at a UK state primary, and now, at an international private school abroad is that in a good school, issues are addressed), then yes, that needs to be improved, and yes, it might be of interests to individual feminists who have sons, but, it's not actually a feminism problem. Men can step up and become primary teachers, encourage their sons to behave and learn, teach them to sit still. We all can improve schools in poorer areas by voting for governments that distribute funding appropriately.

Batteriesallgone - Most children attend mixed schools, and don't have a choice. But you'd be comparing them with a group who very often did have a choice - those who are at single sex schools, will very often have had a choice of a mixed school as well locally - whether they're in the state sector or private. So it's possible that the girls at girls schools may be different in some ways from the (more random mixture) of girls at mixed schools (eg they may prioritise academic achievement over social opportunities).

(I'd assume that any decent analysis would already have focussed just on fee paying, or just on state schools already - so the issue of higher earning parents having kids more likely to be at (private) girls' schools would already be taken care of - if not it would clearly skew the statistics whether you believe in inherited intelligence or other ways for money to buy educational advantage)

Will take a look at that link if I can find it Errol - interesting if they really did randomly assign kids to different types of schools. Unusual, as arents usually get some degree of choice over it.

If (some) boys harrass girls sexually at mixed schools, and instead these boys go to boys schools, do you think they'd come out the end of the boys schools having learnt how to treat girls well?

Genuinely interested - do some boys just go through a (hormone ridden) stage of development where they just can't resist pinging bra straps and patting knees, but then grow up to be safe to be around by the time they're 16/18? Or do boys come out the end of boys schools, with a load of hang ups and (porn-based) fantasies about girls, and pose a risk of much more serious sexual violence now that they're older?

Clearly they need to learn that these things aren't acceptable - Can they be taught that at a boys school, even if there aren't any girls around? Or will they learn faster if there are girls (and female teachers) to set them straight?

I don't know the answer to that question.
but I DO know that I don't advocate that girls be used as props or collateral damage to assist the boys' learning experience.

Quite.