Same-Sex Classrooms

Abstract

This article presents information on the growing trend of same-sex classrooms in the United States. Traditionally, same-sex education has been provided by private schools, as almost all U.S. public schools are coeducational. However, as of 2012, the National Association for Single Sex Public Education estimated that more than 500 public schools offered at least some same-sex classes. There are no consistent, empirical, and replicable studies showing the benefits of gender-specific segregation of boys and girls into same-sex classes. However, based primarily on case studies, it has been found that same-sex classes produce positive results for some students in some settings. But the long-term impacts of same-sex education on boys and girls, including on their social development, is unknown.

Overview

Traditionally, public schools in the U.S. have operated almost exclusively with coeducational, mixed-gender, or mixed-sex classes. These classes typically have variant numbers of students and compositions based on gender. However, the number of public schools adopting same-sex (or single-sex) education and establishing same-sex classes has been steadily increasing since the late 1990s. In same-sex classes, students are divided by gender, homogeneously grouped and placed in separate classes of boys and girls.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, a few public schools in the United States offered same-sex educational opportunities. In 2011, only 116 of the 506 public schools with such offerings were completely same-sex in format (National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, 2013). Girls-only programs were originally designed to insure equitable education for females and to increase their participation and achievement in certain academic areas. Concern has also developed related to the underachievement of boys, and same-sex classes are proposed to address this problem as well. Boys-only programs are a more recent phenomenon than girls-only programs and are generally scarcer.

Teachers in same-sex classes are able to adopt instructional strategies that are gender-appropriate and gender-inclusive and focus their instruction on the learning style differences of boys and girls. Same-sex classes may improve the general atmosphere and ethos of learning in classrooms and have become a viable option to better meet the learning needs and increase achievement levels for both boys and girls. Such classes allow boys to better focus on their schoolwork with fewer distractions and permit girls to excel in traditionally male-dominated subjects such as mathematics, science, engineering, computer science, and technology.

There is a rapidly growing vocabulary related to the pedagogical approach and instructional practice of same-sex education. A variety of terms are used in the educational research literature relating to same-sex classes. This is partially due to the fact that most research on same-sex education has originated in other countries. Although the variant terminology can sometimes be confusing, it causes no serious problems with regard to comprehension or interpretation. Table 1 summarizes the terminology relating to same-sex education.

History. Traditionally, same-sex education has been provided by private schools, and the same-sex classes they offer are broadly perceived to be highly successful ("California school to separate," 1999; Hughes, 2006). As of 1995, there were only three public schools in the U.S. that offered same-sex educational opportunities (National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, 2007a). In 1997, fewer than a dozen public schools offered same-sex instruction (Bixler, 2005).

The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) added new flexibility to the Title IX regulations of the Education Amendments of 1972 by permitting public schools to segregate classrooms by gender under certain conditions (Bixler, 2005). Schools have since had the legal right to design, develop, and utilize same-sex classes as appropriate to meet the needs and interests of their students (Hughes, 2006). By 2011, some five hundred public schools nationwide were offering same-sex instruction (Lewin, 2011). That year, there were approximately 390 coeducational public schools in the United States that were offering gender-separated educational opportunities (National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, 2013). Although most of these are same-sex classrooms within coeducational schools, at least 116 US public schools are completely same-sex in format (National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, 2013).

Historically, girls-only programs were designed mainly to ensure equitable education for females, and same-sex classes constituted an intervention strategy that was predominantly geared toward increasing the participation and achievement of girls (Blair & Sanford, 1999; Rowe, 1988). There are still concerns that public schools have not adequately addressed the underachievement of girls in academic areas such as mathematics and science and that there may still exist ongoing gender bias in coeducational classrooms (Sadler, 1999; Streitmatter, 1999). From 1995 to 2005, however, there was a shift in concern related to boys' underachievement in comparison to that of girls (Younger & Warrington, 2006).

In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education proposed giving schools even greater latitude and increased flexibility in offering same-sex classes but eventually relented when over 95 percent of the over 5,000 public comments that were received opposed the change (Thiers, 2006). The National Association of Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE), founded in 2002, is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to advance same-sex public education for boys and girls in the United States. The organization provides professional development opportunities and serves as a resource and clearinghouse of information on same-sex education for the use of teachers, administrators, and other educators. It provides facts on same-sex public schools and classrooms, shares the latest research on same-sex instruction for boys and girls, and advises schools and districts interested in setting up their own same-sex educational programs (National Association for Single Sex Public Education, 2007b).

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) not only questioned the methodology and conclusions of the U.S. Department of Education's 2005 report but also opposed giving schools any greater leeway in offering same-sex classes because it could lead to losing gender-equity safeguards (Thiers, 2006). The recommendations of the AAUW have undoubtedly been instrumental in convincing some schools not to adopt same-sex classrooms ("California school to separate," 1999).

Applications

Classroom gender segregation has been recommended as academically beneficial, especially for girls (Barton & Cohen, 2004). There have been prevalent perceptions that schools are more likely to shortchange girls, thus necessitating all-female classes and all-female programs (Bushweller, 1994). Girls have been found to more often suffer from lowered self esteem that begins in early adolescence (Streitmatter, 1999). Educational programs that provide separate space and time for girls have been broadly viewed as having a positive youth-development philosophy (Academy for Educational Development, 1997).

Same-sex classes are used to promote high technology and increase mathematics, science, engineering, and computer-science skills for girls (Crombie, 1999). Girls' grades in mathematics and science traditionally begin to drop in the fifth grade (Garlington, 2001). Same-sex mathematics classes have been used to try to improve the proportion and the relative enrollment numbers by gender of females who take courses beyond minimum high school requirements (Sangster & Crawford, 1986).

There also exist significant sex differences in enrollment in coed computer-science courses, with girls enrolling much less frequently than boys (Crombie, Abarbanel, & Anderson, 2000). In one case-study example, girls in mixed-gender, grade 11 computer science classes perceived less support from teachers, lacked the confidence of their peers, and did not enjoy working with computers as much as boys. Male students, however, perceived the same or similar levels of teacher support and experienced the same or similar levels of confidence and enjoyment as their peers. When same-sex computer-science classes were offered, girls' enrollment in the courses reportedly jumped 40 percent (Crombie, 1999).

In some cases, gender segregation or gender grouping has been designed to address the perceived underachievement of male students (Mulholland, Hansen, & Kaminski, 2004). Boys-only programs, however, are an even more recent phenomenon than girls-only programs and are generally scarcer (Blair & Sanford, 1999). It has been theorized that boys do not learn as well or in the same ways as girls (Gurian & Stevens, 2005). Statistics with regard to educational and life outcomes for boys are also somewhat troubling. Boys have been found to receive a disproportionate percentage of the Ds and Fs given in schools: in 2007, 5.7 percent of boys versus 1.7 percent of girls received mostly D orF grades (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). Boys are more likely to be in special-education programs or diagnosed with a behavior disorder such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010, p. 1148) reported that between 2006 and 2009, 18.2 percent of boys—but only 9.2 percent of girls—aged five to seventeen had been diagnosed with a learning disability or ADHD. Boys suffer from self-destructive behaviors and commit suicide more often (Bushweller, 1994; Gurian & Stevens, 2005). Male students had an 8.5 percent status high school dropout rate in 2010 as compared to 6.3 percent for female students, and only 32.9 percent of male postsecondary students entering college in 2004 completed their undergraduate degrees within the usual four-year period, i.e., in 2008 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012).

Because of the serious disadvantages and risks with regard to positive educational and life outcomes for African American male students, special, segregated all-male classes have been proposed as one possible solution for improving academic achievement and growth in self-esteem (Gill, 1991). However, programs that have experimented with all-male classes for African American male students have been very controversial and their long-term effectiveness has been questioned (Ascher, 1991).

Ultimately, arguments for same-sex classes need not be framed in the context of which gender is most entitled to or deserving of rescue from traditional coeducational settings. Achievement gains for same-sex classes can most likely best be made within the context of gender relations than one of either "recuperative masculinity" or "recuperative femininity" (Younger & Warrington, 2006).

Instructional Practice. Although there have been observed and measured tendencies for teachers in mixed-gender or coeducational classes to call on boys more often than girls, they have not specifically or consciously focused on the learning styles and needs of boys or girls (Garlington, 2001; Laster, 2004). This is despite the fact that educators have come to the conclusion that some instructional approaches and strategies are more gender appropriate for boys or girls (Thiers, 2006). Teachers in same-sex classes adopt different strategies than they do in mixed-gender classes (Wills, Kilpatrick, & Hutton, 2006). Same-sex classes create learning environments in which teachers can more readily and effectively custom-tailor and implement gender-inclusive pedagogical, curricular, and instructional strategies (Parker & Rennie, 2002). The practice of homogeneously grouping students by sex for instruction creates unique social or interrelational dynamics in same-sex classrooms and classes. Teachers in mixed-gender classrooms also generally have greater concerns related to classroom management and student discipline.

Student Learning. Different classroom environmental settings (contexts for learning) affect the class participation of boys and girls. One important contextual or environmental factor may be the gender composition or makeup of the class. Gender composition in turn may determine the relative effectiveness of the instructional strategies that are utilized. Since some research indicates that there may be fundamental, genetically based differences in how females and males learn, then it follows that learning might depend, at least in part, on whether classes are same sex or mixed (Lewin, 2011). Among the many generalized differences in learning styles that have been suggested in the educational literature are that boys characteristically prefer environments with motion and noise and that girls can sit still for longer periods and work better in groups (Bixler, 2005).

Because same-sex classes may be able to improve the general atmosphere for learning, they have become an option to better meet the learning needs and increase achievement levels for boys and girls (Laster, 2004). One aim for the establishment of same-sex classes is to have adolescents focus more on academic learning and less on social concerns (Blair & Sanford, 1999). Still, some educators have suggested that same-sex classrooms provide a more supportive learning environment for girls but a significantly less supportive learning environment for boys (Rennie & Parker, 1997).

Boys in all-male public school settings may be able to adjust better and thereby improve their achievement levels (Thiers, 2006). Some schools have reportedly found that all-male, single-gender classes hold boys' interest, allow them to focus on their schoolwork, and assist in improving their literacy skills (Blair & Sanford, 1999; Bushweller, 1994). Boys' prior inexperience with both oral and written communication skills can also be more favorably addressed in same-sex classes (Parker & Rennie, 2002).

According to Rennie & Parker (1987), same-sex classes also increase the enrollment and participation of boys in female-dominated subjects such as home economics and girls in male-dominated subjects such as industrial arts. Gender segregation in science and mathematics classes is thought to increase the enrollment and participation of girls. It has been discovered that girls in mixed-gender physical science laboratory work groups participate less when they perceive the teacher as being unaware of problems of sexism (Rennie & Parker, 1987). Girls in mixed-gender science and mathematics classes sometimes fear being ridiculed by boys (Garlington, 2001); the presence of boys in mathematics and science classes intimidates girls and may result in diminished academic outcomes for them ("California School to Separate," 1999). Girls' prior inexperience with science hands-on activities and open-ended problem solving may be addressed with greater ease and facility in same-sex classes (Rennie & Parker, 2002). Although likely more ideal for girls, same-sex mathematics classes are perceived less favorably by seventh- and eighth-grade boys than mixed-gender classes (Marsh & Rowe, 1996).

Although middle school students generally prefer same-sex physical education classes as opposed to mixed-gender or coeducational classes, middle school girls' perceptions of same-sex physical education classes are more favorable than middle school boys' perceptions (Lingg, 1994; Treanor, Graber, Housner, & Wiegard, 1998). Whereas middle school students in general prefer same-sex physical education classes, high school students prefer coeducational classes (Lingg, 1993). Secondary boys and girls experience physical education differently such that teachers of coed classes must address their divergent instructional needs (Gabbei, 2004). Empirical research evidence seems to indicate that girls in coed secondary physical education classes are denied equal opportunity to achieve learning goals. Same-sex classes may provide secondary school girls a physically and emotionally safe environment in which to achieve physical education learning goals. Teachers can justify same-sex physical education classes based on provisions of Title IX on at least three different grounds: (a) students must not be adversely affected by evaluation standards; (b) students must have opportunities to achieve skills; and (c) students must be safe in activities that involve contact (Gabbei, 2004).

Viewpoints

Advantages. Same-sex classes have no specific negative effects ascribed to them and are not known to be harmful to students' achievement or social adjustment ("California school to separate," 1999; U.S. Department of Education, 2005). If public schools decide to convert from traditional coeducational classrooms to same-sex classrooms, it may not cost school districts any additional dollars to implement (Laster, 2004). Teachers generally find that teaching is more satisfying in same-sex classes (Wills et al., 2006). In same-sex public school environments, teachers are better able to focus their instruction on learning-style differences of boys and girls (Hughes, 2006).

Same-sex education increases educational opportunity and breaks down stereotypes (Sax, 2004). Research evidence shows that same-sex education increases grades and test scores for boys in grades K-5 and girls in grades 7-12 (Sax, 2004). Student achievement has also been shown to improve for disadvantaged and minority students (Hughes, 2006). Same-sex schools, classrooms, and classes may increase students' interest in taking more rigorous courses (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Same-sex classes may lessen distractions and improve students' focus (Thiers, 2006). Both boys and girls show increased time on task in same-sex classes (Wills et al., 2006). Same-sex classes reduce anxiety levels of students in certain class types and are perceived as providing safer and more comfortable environments for students to discuss issues that are important to them (Blair & Sanford, 1999). There are fewer disciplinary referrals in same-sex school settings (Sax, 2004). Same-sex education reduces students' risk of dropping out of school and improves their likelihood of graduating from high school (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Teenage pregnancy rates are also lower in same-sex schools (Sax, 2004).

Primary school girls show increased confidence and self-esteem in same-sex classes, and primary school boys show increased motivation, commitment to schoolwork, accountability, and self-discipline in same-sex classes (Wills et al., 2006). Middle schools have adopted same-sex classes to improve student behavior and discipline problems, reduce disturbances and distractions, and restore order in classrooms (Richardson, 1995). Based on attitudinal surveys, sixth- to eighth-grade students and their teachers generally perceive that same-sex classrooms have educational benefits. Both male and female students are perceived to show improvements in self-esteem, discipline, and academic growth in same-sex classrooms (Smith, 1999).

Same-sex instruction may not only increase middle school and secondary school girls' opportunities to develop skills in mathematics, but they may also provide greater access to computers, foster the development of more positive attitudes toward technology, and facilitate their attainment of technological skills (Swain & Harvey, 2002). All-girl mathematics and computer-technology classes have been found to help girls between the ages of 12 and 18 who have not succeeded in traditional school settings, girls with a history of truancy, and girls who have suffered neglect and abuse (Pikula, 2000).

Disadvantages. Same-sex schools, classrooms, and classes are undeniably controversial. Students in a selective environment undoubtedly attain higher progress in same-sex schools (Malacova, 2007). However, same-sex education does not necessarily increase students' achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). The advantage of same-sex education relative to higher achievement appears to decrease for boys with increasing levels of school selectivity (Malacova, 2007). Any advantage of same-sex education in increasing the achievement of girls decreases with their prior attainment. In a nonselective environment, only students with lower prior attainment benefit from same-sex education (Malacova, 2007). There is also some evidence to suggest that students are likely to take more rigorous science courses in coeducational schools (McEwen, Knipe, & Gallagher, 1997). Public schools must also be endowed with a full-range spectrum of opportunities for students to benefit from same-sex education (Malacova, 2007).

Furthermore, same-sex education may also not necessarily be advantageous to students' social development (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). In fact, compared to coeducational schools, same-sex schools may be less advantageous in meeting students' social-emotional needs, and they may also be more regimented and more controlling (Schneider & Coutts, 1982).

Research Conclusions. Research has shown that there may be developmental differences between boys and girls and that these differences need to be recognized and reflected in the instructional approaches and strategies that are used with boys and girls (Laster, 2004). Same-sex educational programs have been found to produce positive results for some students in some settings. Thus, same-sex classes may have the potential to raise achievement levels for both boys and girls. However, the long-term impacts of same-sex education on boys and girls are contested (American Association for University Women, 1998; Younger & Warrington, 2006; Bigler & Signorella, 2011).

Based on its systematic review of same-sex education, the U.S. Department of Education (2005) concluded that the approach might marginally improve scores of students on all-subject achievement tests. Most of the research that has shown academic benefits or drawbacks of same-sex classrooms are case studies.

The impact of gender segregation on children's social development has had little related research conducted (Barton & Cohen, 2004). Based on the research that has been done, it has been hypothesized that there may be an extended lag time between the establishment of changed social relationships and measurable academic outcomes that later result from them (Wills et al., 2006). In one seminal study by Barton & Cohen (2004), it was concluded that peer measures of social competence of girls in the first year—fifth grade—of same-sex classes after transitioning from mixed-gender fourth-grade classes showed perceived increases in overt relational behaviors, such as passive withdrawal, rejection, victimization, and aggression. However, in the second year—sixth grade—after transition, these same behaviors in girls were perceived to decrease. In the same study, both fifth- and sixth-grade boys, after transitioning from fourth-grade mixed-gender classrooms into same-sex classrooms, showed increases in mutual friendship nominations based on peer measures of social competence (Barton & Cohen, 2004). Interestingly, Davey, Jones, and Harris (2011), in a study on eating disorder-related symptoms and beliefs, found that young women who had attended same-sex high schools expressed stronger preference for thinness than did those who had attended coed schools, suggesting that gender composition might influence such social beliefs and practices. Undoubtedly, the inherent differences between the social or interrelational dynamics of mixed-gender and same-sex classrooms is a fruitful area for further future research.

Terms & Concepts

Coeducational: Also called "mixed-gender" or "mixed-sex"; an educational context or setting in which boys and girls are taught and participate in instructional activities together.

Gender Composition: The relative makeup on a numeric, percentage, or ratio basis of boys and girls in a class.

Gender Segregation: The practice of dividing and separating boys and girls into homogenous groups based on their sex.

Mixed-Gender: Also called "coeducational" or "mixed-sex"; an educational context or setting that includes boys and girls together.

Nonselective: A school or other educational setting that openly admits students; for example, comprehensive or compulsory public schools.

Same-Sex: Also called "single-gender" or "single-sex"; an educational context or setting that includes either boys or girls but not both genders or sexes.

School Selectivity: A relative measure of the degree to which the student population is competitively chosen and admitted on the basis of discriminating academic criteria, such as class rank, grades, achievement, and entrance-exam test scores, and other related factors. The higher the degree of selectivity, the more highly ranked the school is, the stronger the competition is to be admitted, the more demanding the entrance criteria and the more superior the resulting student body.

Social Dynamics: Also called "interrelational (group) dynamics"; the interactivity of contextual or environmental factors and the occurrences of certain interpersonal characteristic behaviors (e.g., aggression, caring, competitiveness, empathy, cohesion, inclusion, sharing, and support) displayed between and among students, demonstrated in a classroom community or class of students, and determining the resulting classroom climate and culture. Students participate and follow certain "rules" of behavior differently based at least partially upon the gender composition or makeup of peers in a class.

Bibliography

Academy for Educational Development. (1997). Girls programming in New York City: A summary report. New York, NY: Author.

American Association of University Women. (1998). Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for girls. Annapolis Junction, MD: Author.

Ascher, C. (1991). School programs for African American males. New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.

Baker, D., & Jacobs, K. (1999). Winners and losers in single-sex science and mathematics classrooms. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445 900). Retrieved July 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content%5Fstorage%5F01/00 00019b/80/16/88/5c.pdf

Barton, B. K., & Cohen, R. (2004). Classroom gender composition and children's peer relations. Child Study Journal, 34, 29–45. Retrieved July 9, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15476403&site=ehost-live

Bigler, R., & Signorella, M. (2011). Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles, 65(9/10), 659–669. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66549359

Bixler, M. (2005). Split decision: Public schools are finding new reasons to segregate the sexes. Teacher Magazine, 17, 9.

Blair, H., Sanford, K. (1999). Single-sex classrooms: A place for transformation of policy and practice. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 433 285). Retrieved July 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content%5Fstorage%5F01/00 00019b/80/15/d6/c5.pdf

Brown, C. (2013). Legal issues surrounding single-sex schools in the U.S.: Trends, court cases, and conflicting laws. Sex Roles, 69(7/8), 356–362. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90470596

Bushweller, K. (1994). Turning our backs on boys. American Schools Board Journal, 181, 20–25.

California school to separate genders during classtime. (1999). Education USA, 41, 5. Retrieved July 9, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6894192&site=ehost-live

Crombie, G. (1999). Research on young women in computer science: Promoting high technology for girls. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 475 476). Retrieved July 9, 2007 from EBSCO online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content%5Fstorage%5F01/0000019b/80/1a/f7/68.pdf

Crombie, G., Abarbanel, T., & Anderson, C. (2000). All-female computer science. Science Teacher, 67, 40–43.

Crombie, G., Abarbanel, T., & Trinneer, A. (2002). All-female classes in high school computer science: Positive effects in three years of data. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27, 385–409. Retrieved July 9, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11013506&site=ehost-live

Crombie, G., & Armstrong, P. I. (1999). Effects of classroom gender composition on adolescents' computer-related attitudes and future intentions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 317–327.

Davey, Z., Jones, M., & Harris, L. (2011). A comparison of eating disorder symptomatology, role concerns, figure preference and social comparison between women who have attended single sex and coeducational schools. Sex Roles, 65(9/10), 751–759. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66549369

Gabbei, R. (2004). Achieving balance: Secondary physical education gender-grouping options. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance JOPERD, 75, 33.

Garlington, L. (2001, February 26). Single-sex classes get high marks in school experiment. Washington Times.

Gill, W. (1991). African American males: Leaving the nightmare. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334 296).

Gurian, M., & Stevens, K. (2005). The minds of boys: Saving our sons from falling behind in school and life. Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources, Inc.

Hoxby, C. M. (2002). How does the makeup of a classroom influence achievement? Education Next, 2, 56–63.

Hughes, T. A. (2006). The advantages of single-sex education. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 23, 10.

Laster, C. (2004). Why we must try same-sex instruction. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 70, 59–62.

Lewin, T. (2011, September 23). Single-sex education is assailed in report. New York Times, A19.

Lingg, C. D. (1993). Effects of same-sex versus coeducational physical education on the self-perceptions of middle and high school students. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 324–334.

Lingg, C. D. (1994). Environmental perceptions of students in same-sex and coeducational physical education classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 183–192.

McEwen, A., Knipe, D., & Gallagher, T. (1997). The impact of single-sex and coeducational schooling on participation and achievement in science: A 10-year perspective. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15, 223–233.

Malacova, E. (2007). Effect of single-sex education on progress of GCSE. Oxford Review of Education, 33, 233–259.

Marsh, H. W., & Rowe, K. J. (1996). The effects of single-sex and mixed-sex mathematics classes within a coeducational school: A reanalysis and comment. Australian Journal of Education, 40, 147–162.

Mulholland, J., Hansen, P., & Kaminski, E. (2004). Do single-gender classrooms in coeducational settings address boys' underachievement? An Australian study. Educational Studies, 30, 19–32.

National Association for Single Sex Public Education. (2007a). Single-sex public schools in the United States. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm

National Association for Single Sex Public Education. (2007b). About NASSPE. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www.singlesexschools.org/home-nasspe.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012, May). Digest of education statistics: 2011 (NCES 2012-001). Retrieved December 16, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables%5F2.asp#Ch2Sub11

Parker, L. H., & Rennie, L. J. (2002). Teachers' implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 881–897. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7316995&site=ehost-live

Piechura-Couture, K., Heins, E., & Tichenor, M. (2013). The boy factor: Can single-gender classes reduce the over-representation of boys in special education? College Student Journal, 47, 235–243. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88413455

Pikula, K. (2000). Gender and computer education: An observation of at risk girls in class. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 455 837). Retrieved July 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content%5Fstorage%5F01/0000019b/80/19/26/de.pdf

Rennie, L. J., & Parker, L. H. (1987). Detecting and accounting for gender differences in mixed-sex and single-sex groupings in science lessons. Educational Review, 39, 65–73.

Rennie, L., & Parker, L. H. (1997). Students' and teachers' perceptions of single-sex and mixed-sex mathematics classes. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9, 257–273.

Richardson, J. (1995). Innovations: Separated by sex; a troubled New Jersey middle school segregates girls from boys. Teacher Magazine, 6, 14–15.

Rowe, K. J. (1988). Single-sex and mixed-sex classes: The effects of class type on student achievement, confidence and participation in mathematics. Australian Journal of Education, 32, 180–202.

Sadker, D. (1999). Gender equity: Still knocking at the classroom door. Educational Leadership, 56, 22–26.

Sangster, S., & Crawford, P. (1986). Effect of sex-segregated mathematics classes on student attitudes, achievement and enrollment in mathematics: A. Y. Jackson Secondary School, Year II. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 316 419).

Sax, L. (2004). Single-sex proposed regulation comments (a letter to K. Marcus of the U. S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights). Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www.singlesexschools.org/OCR.htm

Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (1982). The high school environment: A comparison of coeducational and single-sex schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 898–906.

Smith, N. (1999). Student and teacher perceptions of a single-sex middle school learning environment. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 434 055).

Spender, D. (1978). Don't talk, listen! Times Educational Supplement (London), (3305), 19.

Streitmatter, J. L. (1999). For girls only: Making a case for single-sex schooling. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Swain, S. L., & Harvey, D. M. (2002). Single-sex computer classes: An effective alternative. Tech Trends, 46, 17–20.

Thiers, N. (2006). Do single-sex classes raise academic achievement? Educational Leadership, 63, 70. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20472870&site=ehost-live

Treanor, L., Graber, K., Housner, L., & Wiegard, R. (1998). Middle school students' perceptions of coeducational and same-sex physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 43–56.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010, September 10). Percentage of youths aged 5–17 years ever diagnosed as having a learning disability and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), by sex—National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2006–2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm5935.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: Author.

White, K. A. (1998). Separate worlds. Education Week, 18, 20–24. Retrieved July 9, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1344679&site=ehost-live

Wills, R., Kilpatrick, S., & Hutton, B. (2006). Single-sex classes in coeducational schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27, 277–291.

Younger, M. R., & Warrington, M. (2006). Would Harry and Hermione have done better in single-sex classes?: A review of single-sex teaching in coeducational secondary schools in the United Kingdom. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 579–620.

Zubrzycki, J. (2012). Single-gender schools scrutinized. Education Week, 31, 1–13. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=70550414

Suggested Reading

Barton, B. K., & Cohen, R. (2004). Classroom gender composition and children's peer relations. Child Study Journal, 34, 29–45. Retrieved July 9, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15476403&site=ehost-live

Glasser, H. M. (2012). Hierarchical deficiencies: Constructed differences between adolescent boys and girls in a public school single-sex program in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27, 377–400. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74406486

National Association for Single Sex Public Education. (2007a). Single-sex public schools in the United States . Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm

Parker, L. H., & Rennie, L. J. (2002). Teachers' implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 881–897. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7316995&site=ehost-live

Phelan, P. (2017, January 5). Is single-sex education still useful? The New York Times. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/learning/is-single-sex-education-still-useful.html

Ramsey, C. B. (1998). Subtracting sexism from the classroom: Law and policy in the debate over all-female math and science classes in public schools. Texas Journal of Women & the Law, 8, 49. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6936652&site=ehost-live

White, K. A. (1998). Separate worlds. Education Week, 18, 20–24. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1344679&site=ehost-live