Pros and Cons
The merits, and drawbacks, of single-sex education have been hot topics in education ever since the beginning of compulsory public education in the United States. There are many studies that demonstrate the positive effects of single-sex education. On the other hand there are a number of studies that try to show that single-sex education isn't as beneficial as some might think. This section is going to outline some of the pros and cons of single-sex education.
Yates (2001) states: Over the past three decades the relative
merits of single sex and co-education for the educational and socio-emotional
development of school-aged students, particularly at the secondary level,
have been debated extensively.
(p. 317) Yates (2001) cites Woodward,
Fergusson, & Horwood (1999) Some research evidence has been supportive
of co-education, while other studies have cited the benefits of single
sex education.
(p. 317) Much of the research in the field has been
conducted to demonstrate the benefits for women, especially in colleges,
but very little has been done to study the impact on younger grades or
for men. Bronski (2002) supports the need for further research: Any
number of studies show that single-sex education is beneficial for college-age
women. But the work done so far to study the issue for students in kindergarten
through 12th grade is, at best, spotty and inconclusive.
(p. 1) Reasons
for the disparity in the volume of research aren't clear. Perhaps it
is due to the sentiment that it is more important currently to level
the playing field for women, than it is to study the effectiveness of
single-sex education for men.
Datnow et al. (2001) discuss the benefits of single-sex education, citing several researchers when they state:
Some studies suggest that single gender schools benefit both males and females, because they provide a stronger academic climate and reduce distractions (Finn, 1980; Jimenez and Lockheed, 1989; Lee and Bryk, 1986). ...Other research points out that single gender schools are particularly beneficial for boys because they promote male bonding and optimize male character development (Hawely, 1993; Reisman, 1991) and that males from low income and minority backgrounds especially profit from single gender schools (Ascher, 1992; Hales, 1998; Hudley, 1995; Riordan, 1994). (p. 186)
There are other advantages as well. Researchers suggest that the type of school will have an impact on the courses that boys choose as well. Some researchers feel that in the single-sex environment boys will be more likely to pursue their actual interests, rather than being pressured by stereotypes to pursue "traditional" boys courses. The NASSPE (2005) (National Association For Single Sex Public Education) website states: "Boys in all-boys schools are more than twice as likely to study subjects such as foreign languages, art, music, and drama."( 1) The NASSPE (2005) website also cites the following research:
In fact, recent research has demonstrated that single gender classrooms benefit boys as well - particularly for subjects such as reading, writing, art, and music. Researchers at Cambridge University (in the UK) examined the effects of single- sex classrooms in schools in four different neighborhoods, including rural, suburban and inner-city schools. They found that 'using single-sex groups was a significant factor in establishing a school culture that would raise educational achievement.' For example, at Morely High School on Leeds, only one-third of boys had been earning passing grades in German and French prior to institution of the program. After the change to single-sex classes, 100% of boys earned passing grades. (NASSPE, 2005, 4)
The NASSPE (2005) website discusses more benefits of single-sex education for boys citing a study done by Graham Able of Dulwich College:
...studied the performance of girls and boys in 30 single-sex and coeducational schools in England. He found that while both girls and boys did better in single-sex schools than they did in coeducational schools, the single-sex advantage was greater for the boys than it was for the girls. (NASSPE 2005, . 5)
There are also instances where schools have taken matters into their own hands performing experiments with single-sex classes in order to solve a number of problems. Some of these schools believe that their experiments with single-sex education show the positive benefits of this method of instruction. These benefits are not limited to academic achievement alone. The National Literacy Trust website provides one example:
For example, the Pingle School, a comprehensive in Swadlincote, Derbyshire, first introduced single sex teaching two years ago because of concerns about a class of 12-year-olds who were behaving badly. The year group was segregated for 70 per cent of their lessons. After a term, 85% of boys and 82% of girls said they preferred being taught this way. Behaviour improved 'phenomenally' according to Mike Mayers, the headteacher, and 45% of the year group are now expected to achieve five grade A to C's at GCSE, compared to a forecast of only 29% when the monitoring started. ... the school now segregates all its 11-14-year-olds for 80% of lessons and GCSE students are taught in single-sex classes for English, maths and science. (How Effective, 2005, 17)
The NASSPE (2005) website describes another example of a school that had success experimenting with single-sex education:
Four years ago, Benjamin Wright- Principal of the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School... segregated his school by sex. Nothing else changed: the class sizes remained the same, the teacher salaries remained the same, etc. The only change is that now the classes were single-sex. That simple change had a dramatic effect. As Mr. Wright described it in 2002, 'In the [coed] environment that we had before, we spent most of our time taking care of crises. Now we're actually teaching kids.' (NASSPE, 2005, 8)
Some researchers suggest that boys feel more comfortable in single-sex schools. The NASSPE (2005, , 12) website cites Andrew Hunter, a school principal, as saying: "There is a subtle pressure toward gender stereotyping in mixed schools. In boys' schools, boys feel free to be themselves, to follow their interests and talents in what might be regarded as non-macho pursuits: music, arts, drama." The comfort level of girls also is a consideration in the single-sex school argument. Some researchers argue that boys are a cause of anxiety in the co-educational classroom. Yates (2001) cites Steinbeck and Gwizdala (1995): "Not only did the girls report feeling intimidated, hesitant, uncomfortable and dumb during mathematics lessons in the mixed sex classrooms, they also perceived that teachers gave more attention to the boys (Steinbeck & Gwizdala, 1995.)" (p. 317)
With benefits that range from better behavior and academic success to a broader selection of scholarly pursuits, it's no wonder that there has been a revitalization in the single-sex school movement in recent years.
Some researchers feel that study results have been too wide ranging to come to any definite answers on the topic. Yates (2001) cites other researchers stating:
In general, some studies provide support for the benefits of co-education, (Marsh, 1989, Marsh, Smith, Marsh & Owens, 1988), others support single sex education (Austin, 1977, Lee & Bryk, 1986, Riordan, 1985) and yet others report no differences in achievement (Miller & Dale, 1974, Rutter, Maughan, Mortimer & Ouston, 1979). (pp. 317-318)
Researchers have suggested that the socialization benefits of coeducation come at a cost of academic achievement in a single-sex setting. Robinson & Smithers (1999) refute this sentiment when they cite Marsh, et al. (1989):
But other studies have suggested the advantages of co-education, Marsh et al. (1989), in a longitudinal study of single-sex schools becoming co-educational, found from a range of measures, that there were social benefits from co-education and these were not at the expense of academic achievement for either girls or boys. (p. 25)
Robinson & Smithers (1999) continue their argument for co-education on the basis that it is more realistic to everyday life when they state: "It has been suggested that educating the sexes together is more like real life, and the experience of growing up with the opposite sex makes it easier to move on to the mixed environments of university and employment." (pp. 25-26)
Another major consideration against single-sex education concerns legal issues. This is especially important with regard to public single-sex education and its implications on the Title IX laws enacted in the early 1970s. Title IX ensures equal allocation of funds for both male and female school programs in public schools, including sports. Bronski (2002) addresses some of the legal issues when he states:
The threat raised by single sex public schools and classes is the rapid erosion of Title IX's effects. This fear is not unfounded; there's already a major right-wing effort to reinterpret and redefine Title IX on the grounds that it discriminates against men's sports by demanding allocation of equal amounts of money for both men's and women's sports, even though more men than women try out for teams. ( 12)
All in all, a number of studies that tout the benefits of single-sex education over coeducation, and there are a number of studies that aim to demonstrate the ineffectiveness or detrimental aspects of single-sex education. Currently, there is no conclusion as to which is more valuable. It is up to the student and his or her parents to determine which form of education is best for the student. It seems as though the only consensus that can be reached at the present time in regard to single-sex education is that the educational community needs more careful research upon which to offer valid recommendations.