Some urban educators and conservatives had a lot to be thankful for last week when it became legal for public school districts to offer single-sex classes and schools. For the first time since Title IX, the landmark anti-discrimination law of 1972, schools have wide leeway to create separate learning environments for students based on gender. The law specifies that schools must also offer "substantially equal coeducational classes in the same subject."

The move takes place even as the value of single-sex education is in doubt, as a Department of Education spokesperson admitted to the New York Times recently.

"Educational research, though it's ongoing and shows some mixed results, does suggest that single-sex education can provide some benefits to some students, under certain circumstances," Stephanie Monroe, head of the Education Department's office of civil rights, said.

It will come as no surprise to those who aren't fans of the No Child Left Behind law that the controversial change was made to Title IX to facilitate a section of NCLB that calls for increased single-sex education. Nor will it surprise them that the changes are supported by the Bush administration. What might be a shock is that Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, along with Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, co-sponsored the single-sex move in 2001.

I had my own brush with single-sex education at the college level, but I have not formed an opinion about this divisive issue --- single-sex classes and schools at the primary and secondary levels --- yet. I turn first to feminists and civil-rights groups, with whom I normally find myself aligned. Pretty much across the board, these groups oppose the changes to Title IX, citing the nation's long history of "separate" being anything but "equal."

Traditionally, opponents say, when resources are scarce --- as they always seem to be in public education --- they are funneled away from females and toward males. And some opponents, like Marcia Greenberger, National Women's Law Center co-president, are skeptical of the move.

"It is ironic, to say the least, that an administration that has consistently undermined affirmative action and challenged programs that advance desegregation efforts and help disadvantaged students is now issuing rules allowing segregation throughout our nation's public schools," she said in a press release.

Some of these concerns seem to be based on history and not on the very real fact of the world having changed in three decades. I'm not saying discrimination is dead, nor am I saying that women's rights have cured all of society's ills. But theoretically, at least, there might be room for responsible, thoughtful experimentation with single-sex classes.

On the other hand, we are talking about public schools here. As in: cash-strapped, resource-hungry, overworked public schools. Even my limited experience with the well-intentioned schools in our suburban school district have shown me how difficult it is to effect change.

So I'm equally skeptical of proponents of the new, watered-down Title IX. Leonard Sax, head of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, says that boys and girls think differently and learn differently, period. Of course, this kind of talk should give pause to thoughtful people on both sides of the issue.

It's frighteningly easy to make --- and then act upon --- sweeping generalizations. Sax and others say things like: in a single-sex setting girls will try science and math, and boys will study poetry and play the flute. Comments like this unintentionally reinforce sex stereotypes, while overlooking --- and downplaying --- the many girls and boys who are already engaged in these activities.

When I was in high school, I considered attending a women's college. Not a strong math and science student, I thought I'd be braver in a girl world --- more likely to speak out, less fearful of making mistakes. I loved (almost) everything about the school. It had the ivy, the old stone library, and the long tradition of turning out talented, successful women. But, and this was a big but: there were no boys.

At 17 I may have been dumb and I was certainly boy-crazy, but I knew one thing: Boy-crazy women should not go to single-sex colleges. I knew I'd spend all my free time seeking out guys. I needed them nearby. On tap, so to speak. I chose a women's college that had gone coed. A perfect fit: an emphasis on women's achievement and a coed student body. I am woman hear me roar; thank God the boys' dorm's right next door.

As for Title IX, it would be easier to pick a side if there were conclusive studies. But there aren't. In California the nation's biggest pilot project of single-sex education ended when 10 of 12 California single-sex schools closed in the late 1990s. Studies found some benefits to girls and boys but said "the schools failed to address gender equity," according to Elizabeth Zwerling, writing in Women's Enews.

The problems there resulted from some of the same elements facing most public schools: lack of planning, resources, and qualified teachers. The limited academic success was due, researchers say, not to single-sex classrooms but to small classes, strong curricula, dedicated teachers, and equitable teaching practices.

In a perfect world, public schools would have enough funding and community support to offer a wider variety of learning options for students. As we've seen with the unfunded NCLB, however, simply changing the rules without any additional financing or direction can be a disaster. And so can being a boy-crazy girl at a coed college.