1. The laws that survive through the ages regarding any issue simply involve a constant shift of balance to compensate for the changing social, economic, and political climate. Rigid, simple arguments that reject any type of segregation do little to illuminate a proper course of action.

2. The point of education is to stimulate the growth of core components. The purpose of single-sex schools is to find better balance in persuing this goal; its simply a proposal to compensate for the limitations in the education system. In the age we live today, one may observe that the pressures, the distractions and temptations of teenagers at normal public schools have created an environment in which the students capacity to learn has been severely comprimised.

The spirit of this proposal, i beleive, seeks to narrow the students focus on education, giving them a better return their four-year investment.

If the ACLU was arguing that all single-sex education involves a civil liberties violation, then I'd agree with the main contention of the post. But I think an important part of the complaint is that particular partition plans will be harmful to the female students, and that the proposed law will not do enough to ensure that this doesn't happen. Consider this passage from a recent case:

"In the 2006-2007 academic year, Defendants plan to offer only sex-segregated classes at Southside Junior High School. Moreover, Defendants plan to provide classroom instruction in these sex-segregated classes tailored to reflect overbroad stereotypes and generalizations about differences between the
genders. For instance, while girls will be taught “good character,” boys will be taught about “heroic” behavior and what it means to be a man. Students and parents will be offered no coeducational alternative to this program, which was instituted without input from students or parents. Instead, they will be required to participate as the price of receiving a public education. "
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/womensrights/20060801seldencomplaint.pdf

This was discussed at Brad Plumer's at TNR's The Plank:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=51923

which in turn was discussed briefly, with some other good links, by Matt Yglesias:
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/10/more_singlesex/

Now, it does seem that the ACLU is willing to make the argument that it's just impossible to guarantee that separate ever will be equal, and I'm not sure that I'd follow them that far. But certainly they are in the right to want to make sure that the separate classes, schools, etc. are as equal as we can possibly make them.

There is great amount of historical evidence as well. Equality in the current miasa is what we ought to be escaping..we've been there too long.

More to the point, as long as single-sex-ed isn't compulsary, but rather, an option provided to parents and students like any other education option, I don't see why it's a big deal.

I see a bigger problem in the public high schools who have focused their curricula onto a specific subject matter rather than a broad variety of subject matters. They're asking 14-year-old kids to choose if they want to be chefs, engineers or marine biologists. I understand that a focused education is a good tool to use when you persue a dream, but what 14-year-old knows what they want to be when they "grow up?" I'm 27 and I'm still not sure.

But when the districts provide same-sex education as an option rather than a mandate, then I'm satisfied that the "seperate but equal" admonitions have been suitably handled.