His or hers? We're talking more than just sinks!

As many of you know, my two year old is full of craftiness, spunk, and love but not full of words; at least, not the intelligible type. Anyone who has spent even a few minutes with him will confirm that he has plenty to say but very little of it is understandable. It's just babble with a few well- and misplaced words. Because of my concerns about his speech development, I got him screened through the Early Intervention program. I'll let you know the results in a moment.
As a baby, Andy was "advanced" in all areas. Given his size, his had an advantage in motor skills simply b/c he had the physical strength to develop faster. Verbally, he began vowel and rolling consonant sounds early. I attribute a lot of that to the undivided attention he received from me for the first four months of his life. We did a lot of nursery rhymes, songs, and I talked to him constantly.
When I went back to work after four months of being a SAHM, Andy received the best care I could find. He still received a lot of individual time but I wonder if not being with me and continuing the routine we began has anything to do with his speech now. Furthermore, during the crucial language development period of 12-18 months, I was otherwise preoccupied with the throes of morning sickness and other pregnancy ailments. Because I was delinquent in my maternal nurturing, I think perhaps that had something to do with it. And I also think that it's just Andy. As he's grown more into his predestined personality, his strengths are far more tactile-kinetic than verbal (he's a doer not a talker).
Vygotsky (a dead cognitive theorist) would agree that my lack of fostering Andy's verbal skills by not talking enough or "properly" to him and not enabling him to have more friends his own age are the root of our problems. I did not offer enough scaffolding or support to Andy. He did not have the opportunity to learn from others.
Piaget (another dead cognitive theorist) would argue that Andy will get there....eventually. He would argue that children develop learned behaviors within a certain breadth of time and as long as it happens within that window, it doesn't matter when, just that it does. Piaget would contend that Andy just has not reached the necessary level of metacognition to be a talker yet.
Whichever school you subscribe to (and if you're like me, you're lazily and comfortably resting on the fence--well maybe not comfortably b/c pickets are rather pointy), I am reassured that Andy will eventually talk and talk well. Based upon the results of his screening, Andy will be referred for some speech therapy to help get us up to speed. I'm excited for this to begin for two reasons. First, I am happy that he will get some help so that he'll be able to convey his wants and needs more easily thus he'll be less frustrated. Secondly, I'm excited to learn how I can better help him. I could certainly do with a less frustrated two year old.
Incidentally, the screening was not just for vocab proficiency. It included motor skills and personality. Needless, to say those areas came out very well--out of a possible 60 points, Andy received all 60 for gross motor skills, 60 for personality (surprise, surprise), and while he took a ding on fine motors b/c he was more interested in watching the lady draw a line with the crayon than do it himself, he earned 55 points in that area.
As I contemplated the results today, I reflected on the reassurances that I've received from other mommies on this topic. Boys just tend to develop linguistically slower than girls while their motor skills are faster and stronger. I see this in the other little kids Andy's age. And it led me to think about how there is a growing interest in single sex classrooms for elementary age students.
The schools that have "experimented" with single sex classrooms use the fundamental strengths or tendencies of each gender to formulate teaching methods. The boys' classrooms are more rambunctious and active while the girls' classes are more orderly and sedate. The boys are encouraged to learn through hands on exploration and movement. The girls engage in more analytical and communicative learning. I used the term "experimented" in quotes because for generations, the sexes were separated at school. People! This is not a new concept!!! And yet Time magazine did a whole spread on this about a year and half ago, as though it was the invention of the cotton gin!
While classroom management and human development protocols have evolved significantly over the past two decades, there may still be a lot to be said for single sex education.
Plenty of other developed and leading nations sill have single gender grammar and secondary schools. In the US, the remaining women's colleges of the Seven Sisters (those who didn't sell out and go co-ed or become defunct) are still ranked equivalent to an Ivy League education as that's how they began--either as the counterpart, equivalent, or sister school to the original IV schools.
So I pose these questions: In our attempts to use culturally appropriate, linguistically sensitive, cooperative, equal education for all, have we overlooked some of the fundamentals of cognitive development? Is there something to be said for allowing boys to be boys? How do we find a balance so that children can learn in their own way while ensuring that the genders continue to work cooperatively rather than regressively? And has nurture overtaken nature?

I think that we can still incorporate all the elements of my first question while fostering single sex education. A diverse student body does not have to mean a dual gender environment. There is definitely something to be said for allowing boys to be boys and girls to be girls. Recognizing that and appreciating it, helps all children to develop in their own individual and unique manner. As long as children who attend single sex schools are given appropriate opportunities to interact with the opposite sex, I think there is a lot to be said for removing the distractions of peer pressure and emerging sexuality from the educational process. --Have you seen the clothes they wear these days? Uh--distracting is an understatement!--If you do choose to send your child to a single sex program, ensure that it is well rounded. That it does not just conform to the stereotypical gender roles. Girls' school should have strong science and math departments while the boys' school should engage them in critical thinking activities (and teach them to cook!) So perhaps nurture has not yet overtaken nature or vice versa, but rather we are still figuring out how best to allow them to work in tandem.
Perhaps the only separation we do need is in the bathroom. I certainly don't want to going back to sharing a sink!

After reading this disquisition, you may be apt to think that I intend to send my boys to all boys schools (aside from my frequent proclamation that they will be sent to a monastery at age 13, I am the product of attending a single sex school--I went to Mount Holyoke, a Seven Sister, for a year before trading cows in pastures of Massachusetts for national monuments in DC) but in all honestly, I will send my boys to the best school we can find/afford/ or that I teach at.

Any thoughts on this?