There is a trend across the country to provide students the opportunity to study in single-sex environments at the secondary and even elementary levels in our public schools. Proponents of single-sex classrooms state the obvious...that boys and girls are different...and use this as a primary reason for single-sex classrooms. Chief among these differences are:

1. Both boys and girls will learn better when they are not 'distracted' by students of the opposite sex.
2. Students will perform better if their teachers use gender specific teaching techniques in the classroom.
3. Boys and girls have different learning styles and perform better under different temperature conditions.
4. Gender specific stereotypes will disappear in single-sex classrooms.
5. Patterns of brain development and processing in boys and girls are different.
6. Hearing sensitivity is different.

OK...girls and boys are different.

Follow up:

This does not mean that they cannot or should not be educated together. As parents and administrators alike search for solutions to the problems of today's educational environment they are looking with nostalgia at the 'good ol' days' when American students were among the best educated in the world and they have come to the same mistaken conclusion; that the foundation for this success was the single-sex classroom. They belive that co-education in public schools is a relatively new idea. Even the author of a recent article published by GreatSchools.org: Single-Sex Education: The Pros and Cons, suggests that single-sex education is an "old approach that is gaining new momentum." Most will point to the Women's Suffurage movement in the early 20th century as the initial catalyst towards developing the co-ed classroom. The truth is that the concept of co-education in our public school system has been around for a very long time. As early as 1789-1790, public schools in Boston and Northampton, MA had begun admitting girls. By 1840 the literacy level of both men and women was equal. And, by the mid-1800's educational reformers argued for common schools which should include children of all classes, ethnic groups, religions, and both sexes.  In fact, in 1848 Henry Bernard the Commissioner of Rhode Island public schools, stated that, “a public school [should be] open to all the children… of both sexes.” [UMI]

Single-sex classrooms are not necessarily a bad idea but care must be taken not to blindly implement this concept and expect  that a miracle will happen and our children will suddenly be better educated. In fact, there is a very real danger that going to single-sex classrooms may cause more problems than they could potentially solve. In the pros listed above, some variation of the word different or concepts of 'gender specific' teaching are used at least eight times. Dictionary.com defines the adjective different as "not alike in character or quality." There can be no variations in character and quality without also including the concepts of better and worse; less and more. We will be treading a very thin line if we separate our children based on gender and then apply gender-specific teaching methods in their classrooms. Once we do this we will no longer be providing our girls and boys an equal educational opportunity.

Back in the 'good ol' days' American students were superior to their peers around the world. But I suggest that their success likely had less to do with whether or not their classrooms were co-ed than with the motivation of the individual students, teachers, and parents.

Sources:

University of Michigan. Equity In Elementary and Secondary Education: Race, Gender, and National Origin Issues: Timeline for Co-Education in Public Schools: 1668-1988.