Psychological Impact of Single-sex Schools
There is evidence to suggest that single-sex school environments have a significant impact on both boys and girls in secondary schools. The effects can be far reaching and impact the lives of students well after they have left school. One example is the way in which course selections are viewed. Often in coeducational schools boys and girls are steered toward enrolling in classes that are "gender appropriate." These pressures can come from a variety of sources. Most often however, course selection is decided by the pressure that the student feels from peers. Even though a boy may be interested in pursuing art or drama, in a coeducational setting that boy is more likely to elect to take a more "macho" course in order to fit in with the other boys. Some researchers feel that in a single-sex environment, there is less pressure for boys to pursue "macho" courses, and they will be more likely to enroll in courses that pique their interest such as art or drama (Jackson and Smith, 2000).
Another source that can psychologically impact a student is the prestige of the school itself. Single-sex schools, rightly or wrongly, are frequently considered more prestigious than coeducational schools. Students who attend institutions that have prestigious histories show more pride and confidence in their abilities. This effect takes place because the student feels if he can succeed in such an environment, he can succeed in any environment.
On the other hand, there are those who would say single-sex education has a negative impact on the development of today's youth. One argument is that students in single-sex institutions have problems with social interactions with the opposite sex (Robinson and Smithers, 1999). They argue that students coming from a single-sex institution will have trouble adjusting to mixed-sex environments once they leave school for university studies or upon entrance into the work force. Given current emphasis on equal treatment of the sexes, this could be especially detrimental.
Social perceptions can have an impact as well. In today's society people are often judged on the background of their education. This can have positive as well as negative connotations. On one hand people may be impressed that a student comes from such a highly regarded institution with a reputation for high quality education. On the other hand, a person may be judged negatively. This negative perception could come from the belief of some people that single-sex institutions are elitist facilities, reserved for the children of wealthy snobs. This isn't necessarily the case. Prestigious single-sex institutions often enroll lower income students on the basis of their academic or athletic or artistic merits.
Following is a review of some of the research that has been conducted to study the psychological effects of single-sex education.
One of the biggest points of contention in the debate of single-sex versus coeducation is the psychological impact on course selection. Many researchers find that boys in single-sex schools are more likely to take a wider variety of courses. That is to say they are more likely to take courses that aren't traditionally viewed as "boys'" courses. Researchers believe that this may stem from the belief that boys in single-sex schools do not feel as much pressure to appear "macho" in front of girls. Jackson and Smith (2000) state:
There is evidence suggesting that single-sex schools promote greater enjoyment of, and greater uptake of, curriculum subjects traditionally viewed as gender inappropriate....More boys from single-sex schools chose A-level languages, while more boys from co-educational schools chose physics. These results provide evidence to support the argument that there is less polarization of curriculum subjects according to their gender stereotype in single-sex schools than in co-educational schools. (p. 412)
Other researchers support these statements as well. Logsdon (2003) states: "...supporters point to studies showing that boys and girls in single-sex schools enjoy greater academic success and demonstrate more ambition than students in co-educational institutions." (p. 292) Still other researchers back up these findings. Sadker and Zittleman (2005) cite Pollack (1998) when they discuss some of the drawbacks of coeducation: "Boys are expected to follow a 'boy Code,' a kind of swaggering posture that hides their vulnerabilities and suppress dependency while leaving them feeling emotionally isolated." (p. 22) Datnow et al. (2001) cite several other studies that bolster these findings especially for underprivileged males:
Other research points out that single gender schools are particularly beneficial for boys because they promote male bonding and optimize male character development (Hawley, 1993; Reisman, 1991), and that males from low income and minority backgrounds especially profit from single gender schools (Ascher, 1992; Hales, 1998; Riordan, 1994). (p. 186)
Further research on the psychological impact of single-sex education points to its benefits in terms of self-esteem and locus of control. Haag (2000) cites Cairns (1990) in stating:
For example, Cairns (1990) investigated the self-esteem and locus of control (an individuals sense of how environment hinders or facilitates her or his goals) for students in secondary schools in Northern Ireland. He used a multidimensional measure of "self-esteem" made up of four subcategories-social, cognitive, athletic, and general-and concluded that single-sex schools are associated with benefits in self-esteem and locus of control... (p. 2)
Another area of psychological impact is motivation of the students. Some researchers have found single-sex educational settings to have a positive impact on student motivation. Dhindsa and Chung (2003) report: "The post-hoc analysis... showed that the students from single-sex schools (boys' schools or girls' schools) were significantly more motivated towards...as well as enjoyed...science learning compared with students from coeducational schools." (p. 913) The same authors in the same study found:
The results of this independent study demonstrated that the scale item mean scores on enjoyment, interest, motivation and confidence scales for boys in a single-sex school were significantly higher (range of p= 0.001-0.000 and ES= 0.34-0.52) than for the students in coeducational schools. (p. 917)
Possibly the most significant psychological impact comes from the students themselves. While many studies discuss the effects of single-sex education on the socialization or on the locus of control, these studies seem to leave out whether or not the students like this form of education or not. Some researchers have shown that, when asked how they feel, students enjoy learning in a single-sex environment. Parker and Rennie (2002) observe: "Her major finding was that...nearly all students liked the single-sex classes and reported feeling more relaxed and comfortable than in their mixed-sex classes." (p. 884)
All of this research makes single-sex education sound like the most beneficial. However, several authors offer dissenting views on the psychological benefits of single-sex education. Many feel that separating the sexes for education leads to the deepening of behavioral problems, lack of confidence, increased difficulty with socialization and increased stereotypical behaviors. Jackson and Smith (2000) used interviews and data collected to determine student achievement levels and more importantly, how the students themselves viewed single-sex education. Jackson and Smith (2000) report: "...33% (n= 13) reported feeling less confident in boys only groups...and 31% of boys (n= 12) cited fighting and roughness as one of the worst features of boys' classes." (p. 416)
In regard to social interaction skills, some researchers argue that single-sex schooling denies students the opportunity to develop social skills needed later in life. Logsdon (2003) relays arguments set forth by the National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union: "They argued that single-sex education denies girls and boys the interpersonal skills to interact with one another later in life. To these groups, this type of education is a mechanism for reinforcing persistent gender stereotypes." (p. 292) Robinson and Smithers (1999) support these finding: "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) Robinson and Smithers (1999) further state: "There were some comments about boys being a distraction, but many felt that it was good to grow up together and get to know each other." (p. 40)
Arguing that single-sex education has a negative psychological impact, Younger and Warrington (2002) discuss the negative and stereotypical behavior that some students feel represent the majority of single-sex classrooms. They found:
Equally, they argue that many boys resent boys-only classes and complain about the loss of girls' support for their learning and behaviour; they also have the potential to reward macho-behaviour, on the part of both boys and male teachers, to allow more extreme and sexist language to pass unchallenged, to give new opportunities for old-style masculinity and to reinforce sexual stereotypes. (pp. 366-367)
Datnow et al. (2001) reinforce the sentiment that single-sex environments perpetuate stereotypical behavior when they cite previous work: "Some argue that single gender educational settings promote stereotypical attitudes towards the opposite sex (AAUW, 1998; Brutsaert and Bracke, 1994; Foon, 1988; Phillips, 1979) and are generally less happy places (Dale, 1974). (p. 186)
Psychological impact of single-sex education provides one more controversy to the debate over single-sex education versus coeducation for boys schooling. Some of the studies have shown single-sex education to have a positive impact on boys psychologically, while others try to demonstrate that single-sex education is damaging. As with many other factors in the debate, the results of the studies involved indicate that much more research is needed. Are there factors within the single-sex schools themselves that may make one setting more appealing or effective than another in terms of the psychological impact that they have on boys?