Bobert, most schools in Britain have uniforms. Yeah, the goose-stepping between classes and lessons on "Final Solution 101" is a real problem for us over here. ;-) (PS. send me that manual, there may be some interesting bits I've not seen before ;-)

As for Rea's comments, gawd help us. Attwood's book had nothing at all like this - lack of education for women wasn't the issue in that book, it was deprivation of ALL human rights.

If girls and boys are educated _better_ than each other, such that one group is more suited to life after school than the other, then this is definitely grounds for complaint. That was the problem with black-and-white segregation. However, everyone knows (and I don't mean "this is a convenient pseudo-fact", all studies on education have proved it) that girls and boys learn differently. They find different teaching methods easier to follow, which affects their choice of subjects to study, and teaching on a "one-size-fits-all" basis either puts off one gender or forces the other to receive sub-standard education on that subject. Why then should it be a problem for them to be educated separately, so that they can each receive the best quality of education instead of one group disrupting the other?

For instance, there are less women working in engineering and science than men. Would it not therefore be an opportunity for girls' schools to concentrate on teaching science in such a way that girls find it interesting and want to continue with it in their professional lives? Traditional science teaching is known to be off-putting to girls, whilst boys respond well to it, so teach girls in a different way which they respond to, right? No need to change how to teach boys, bcos they obviously respond well to how it works already, so altering teaching methods for boys would disadvantage them. Similarly there are less men interested in nursing and in being homebuilders - teaching to encourage boys to develop that side of their personalities would also be good.

And as irishajo says, it's up to the parents to choose what they think is right for their children. If parents can choose to send their children to a religious school, it's a helluva smaller step to sending their children to a single-sex one. At least a single-sex one only selects by gender and doesn't limit the curriculum or the range of subjects you can think about, unlike schools in some states (*cough* Kansas! *cough*). Parents can choose single-sex or they can choose mixed, and it's the choice of the parents how they want their children educated. All this says is that the government's giving them that choice instead of taking the choice away from them.

Graham.