Single-Sex Schools

Since 2003 the number of single-sex schools and classrooms in the United States, in which students are either all boys or all girls, has risen. As educational standards continue to fuel school reform, improving achievement for all students remains the goal. Gender bias has long been a criticism of standardized tests, and research suggests that males have historically performed better than females on such tests. To understand the multiple perspectives on single-sex education, it is imperative that educators and policy makers examine the effectiveness of these schools as they relate to high achievement and future college and career success.

Overview

Private and parochial schools have a long history of operating single-sex schools throughout the United States. Although in public education the norm has been coeducational schools, with boys and girls sharing a common learning environment and a common curriculum, single-sex schools in the public sector have increased since the turn of the twenty-first century. In 2001, in pursuit of gender equity, an amendment to an education bill coauthored by Senator Hillary Clinton allowed provisions for public schools and districts to offer the choice of single-sex schools or classrooms to its students. The amendment stipulated that equal opportunities for attending single-sex schools must be available to boys and girls and is rooted in research supporting that students learn in different ways.

Establishing equality of the sexes in support of single-sex schools remains controversial. In a study comparing the performance of single-gender and mixed-gender classes on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, positive benefits in achievement for students attending single-sex classes were found. Similar improvements in graduation rates of students who moved from coeducational programs to single-sex programs can also be found in the research.

Others argue that gender equity and academic achievement is not about separation of the sexes; it is about providing equal learning opportunities and choices for both males and females. The task is to remove the barriers and gender stereotypes that typically characterize mixed-learning environments and employ strategies that promote and support meaningful coeducational learning for all students. Lise Eliot confirmed in 2010 that the overall learning environment plays a critical role in contributing to individual achievement and student performance. Establishing an environment in which all students achieve maximal success takes into account the social and developmental needs of all students. Meaningful cooperative learning experiences provide both boys and girls leadership opportunities as they collaborate and practice social and team-building skills.

Public single-sex schools and classrooms have increased since the establishment of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education in 2002. The organization, renamed as the National Association for Choice in Education in 2011, estimates that in the 2011–12 school year, more than five hundred public schools offered single-sex classrooms. Around 115 of those schools qualified as single-sex schools, conducting almost all of their educational activities in all-girl or all-boy settings. Issues related to single-sex schools raise provocative questions for policy makers, parents, school leaders, and classroom teachers. Also in 2011, eight scholars and opponents of single-sex schooling formed the group American Council for CoEducational Schooling, advocating gender-integrated learning and promoting research denouncing single-sex schooling. The following year, the American Civil Liberties Union campaigned against single-sex schooling across the country, arguing in one respect that such schools perpetuate gender stereotypes. The union issued cease-and-desist letters to schools in several states.

In seeking ways to ensure maximal performance and achievement by all students, common themes related to the benefits and limitations continue to emerge. However, as of 2015, scientific evidence has failed to definitively prove that one approach is more effective than the other and debates continue. Research in gender development over several decades supports that overall social, psychological, emotional, physical, and mental needs of each child must be considered in determining the best-fit environment for optimal growth both personally and academically.

Bibliography

Bigler, Rebecca, and Margaret Signorella. “Single-Sex Education: New Perspectives and Evidence on a Continuing Controversy.” Sex Roles 65.9/10 (2011): 659–69. Print.

Daniels, Harry, et al. “Gender and Learning: Equity, Equality and Pedagogy.” Support For Learning 16.3 (2001): 112. Print.

Eliot, Lise. “The Myth of Pink and Blue Brains.” Educational Leadership 68.3 (2010): 32–36. Print.

Fabes, Richard A., et al. “Gender Development Research in Sex Roles: Historical Trends and Future Directions.” Sex Roles 64.11–12 (2011): 826–42. Print.

Gross-Loh, Christine. "The Never-Ending Controversy Over All-Girls Education." Atlantic. Atlantic Monthly Group, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 28 May 2015.

Hollingsworth, Heather, and Jessie L. Bonner. "Why Single-Sex Education Is Spreading across the US." Christian Science Monitor. Christian Science Monitor, 8 July 2012. Web. 28 May 2015.

King, Kelley, Michael Gurian, and Kathy Stevens. “Gender-Friendly Schools.” Educational Leadership 68.3 (2010): 38–42. Print.

Latham, Andrew S. “Gender Differences on Assessments.” Educational Leadership 55.4 (1997): 88. Print.

Patterson, Gregory A. “Separating the Boys from the Girls.” Phi Delta Kappan 93.5 (2012): 37–41. Print.

Pollard, Diane S. “Perspectives on Gender and Race.” Educational Leadership 53.8 (1996): 72. Print.