They say if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. But if something is “broke,” it should be fixed, not scrapped for something else.

Someone ought to tell this to Leonard Sax, founder of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, and other advocates of single-sex education. Instead of using federal money and educational resources to fix the “problems” of traditional co-ed education, Sax and advocates want to experiment with single-sex education in public schools throughout the country.

The Chattanooga Valley Middle School has been doing just that in its sixth-grade classrooms since the school year started.

Patty Flowers, a language arts teacher at the school, says the benefits of the single-sex education experiment are already paying off.

“It’s encouraging more girls to speak up,” Flowers told a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter. “And when I look for leadership, there isn’t the option for boys to jump in. The girls have to step up and take responsibility.”

Well, if you only have one gender in your classroom, it’s obvious you’re going to see more participation from that gender. Perhaps we should start comparing the participation of blondes versus brunettes, and if the blondes are overshadowing the brunettes, we should separate them as well.

It was Principal Eugene Ward who decided to experiment with single-sex education at Chattanooga Valley Middle School.

Ward cites three reasons. First, research that suggests girls generally mature sooner than boys. Second, the transition from elementary school to sixth grade is a stressful, prepubescent one. Third, social pressure often interferes with learning.

When the Young Women’s Leadership School, another single-sex institution, opened in East Harlem, N.Y., in 1996, school officials also listed sexual pressures as backing for single-sex education.

School does more than teach students math and science. It teaches them about life, too. School prepares students for the workplace, and the workplace is co-ed. It’s not free of sexual or social pressure. Keeping kids in a bubble is only going to result in a huge burst of culture shock when they get their first job.

Another argument being made for single-sex education is the notion that girls and boys can’t be taught together because boys are unruly and girls are timid.

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, had it right when she told USA Today these stereotypes insult both sexes and ought to be history by now.

Stereotypes are stereotypes, but even if most boys were unruly, and most girls were timid, educators shouldn’t cater to and emphasize these “differences.” If not for the sake of refraining from stereotyping, for the sake of the boys and girls who don’t “fit their mold.”

Sax told “Stateline” that separating the genders means teaching methods can be geared toward each gender’s preferences.

“You can have girls who love to take apart computers and who love physics and engineering, and you can have boys who enjoy reciting poetry,” Sax said.

Mr. Sax, girls can love to take apart computers, and boys can enjoy reciting poetry in single-sex classrooms. Your argument doesn’t make sense.

But separate schools might be best for some groups. Cornelius Riordan, professor of sociology at Providence University, thinks single-sex education is needed only for students who are at risk. Putting at risk students in a different environment makes sense.

But make exceptions where exceptions are needed – don’t make exceptions the norm.

Some parents think Catholic education is best for their kids, and perhaps they’re right. This doesn’t mean we should experiment with it in our public schools, and it also doesn’t mean we should use federal money and educational resources to test it out.

If parents send their children to a Catholic school or a military school, the government doesn’t cover the tuition – the parents pay for it. While single-sex schooling may be a better option for some children, it’s still an option. If parents choose to send their children to a single-sex school, the government shouldn’t pay for it – the parents should.

Unless the government wants to cover the expense of all alternative schooling.