| |
Single-Sex
vs. Coed: The Evidence
What's the evidence? What have researchers found when they
compare single-sex education with coeducation?
There are three categories of evidence:
1. Major
nationwide studies, involving tens or hundreds of thousands
of students, in countries such as Australia or the United Kingdom
where single-sex public education is widely available;
2. "Before
and after" studies, examining a particular school or
schools before and after the introduction of single-sex classrooms.
Because these studies usually involve no change in resources
-- the facilities and student-teacher ratios are the same before
and after the switch -- the school serves as its own control;
3. Academic
studies, in which investigators study coed and single-sex
schools while attempting to control for extraneous variables
First category of evidence: Major nationwide studies:
England,
Australia,
Jamaica
England, July 2002: The National Foundation for Educational
Research was commissioned to study the effect of school size
and school type (single-sex vs. coed) on academic performance.
The Foundation studied 2,954 high schools throughout England,
where single-sex public high schools are widely available. They
released their report on July 8 2002. They found:
1. Even after controlling for students' academic ability
and other background factors, both girls and boys did significantly
better in single-sex schools than in coed schools. In this age
group (senior high school), the benefits were larger and more
consistent across the board for girls than for boys. Specifically,
girls at all levels of academic ability did better in single-sex
schools than in coed schools; whereas for boys, the beneficial
effect of single-sex schools was significant only for boys at
the lower end of the ability scale. For higher-achieving boys,
there was no statistically significant effect of school type
on performance, positive or negative. (Remember, though, that
this study only examined students in grades 9 through 12; other
evidence [see below] suggests that single-sex education is most
effective for boys in kindergarten and elementary school.)
2. Girls at single-sex schools were more likely to take
non-traditional courses -- courses which run against gender
stereotypes -- such as advanced math and physics. The researchers
concluded that girls' schools are "helping to counter rather
than reinforce the distinctions between 'girls' subjects' such
as English and foreign languages and 'boys' subjects' such as
physics and computer science" (p. 43). No such effect was
seen for boys: for example, boys at single-sex schools were
no more likely (actually somewhat less likely) to take courses
in cooking than were boys at coed schools.
3. Schools of medium size (about 180 students per grade)
seemed to do best. At smaller schools, there was a lack of course
offerings especially at the advanced levels. At much larger
schools, student performance appeared to suffer.
The Foundation concluded: "It would be possible to infer
from the findings that, in order to maximise performance, [public]
schools should [have] about 180 pupils per cohort, or year,
and be single-sex." You can read the Foundation's press
release (with links to obtain the complete study)
here.
A large Australian study, 2001:The Australian Council
for Educational Research released a study comparing single-sex
and coeducational schools. Their analysis, which was based
on six years of study of over 270,000 students, in 53 academic
subjects, demonstrated that both boys and girls who were educated
in single-sex classrooms scored on average 15 to 22 percentile
ranks higher than did boys and girls in coeducational settings.
The report also documented that "boys and girls in single-sex
schools were more likely to be better behaved and to find
learning more enjoyable and the curriculum more relevant."
The report concludes: "Evidence suggests that coeducational
settings are limited by their capacity to accommodate the
large differences in cognitive, social and development growth
rates of boys and girls aged between 12 and 16." The
findings of the Australian commission were widely reported
throughout the English-speaking world (including Australia,
New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland etc.) -- but have
never been mentioned in any American newspaper.
You can read an authoritative British news report on this
study by going to the search
page of the Times Educational Supplement, enter Geoff
Maslen as the author, "Mixed classes fail both sexes"
as the title, and September 2001 as the date of publication.
You can also read a summary of the ACER report at
the ACER's own Web site.
Some critics used to argue that single-sex public schools
attract children from more affluent families. These critics
suggested that the superior performance of students in single-sex
schools may be due to the higher socioeconomic class from
which such students are purportedly recruited, rather than
the single-sex character of the school itself. However, both
the ACER study in Australia just mentioned, and the Foundation
study mentioned at the top of the page, both found no evidence
to support that hypothesis. In the United States, Cornelius
Riordan has shown that girls who attend single-sex Catholic
schools typically come from a lower socioeconomic background
than girls who attend coed Catholic schools. Among boys, Professor
Riordan found no difference in socioeconomic status. In 1998,
the British Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) tested
whether socioeconomic variables might account for the superior
performance of students in single-sex schools. They examined
test results from 800 public schools, single-sex and coeducational.
OFSTED found that the superior performance of students in
single-sex schools cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic
factors, but appears instead to be a direct result of single-sex
education. They also found that students in single-sex schools
have a significantly more positive attitude toward learning
1.
The Foundation study, which suggests that single-sex education
is more beneficial for girls than for boys, is somewhat at
variance with an earlier study which suggested that single-sex
education was more beneficial for boys than for girls. Educator
Graham Able published a study of student performance in 30
coeducational and single-sex schools in England. Dr. Able's
study documented superior academic performance of students
in single-sex schools, after controlling for socioeconomic
class and other variables. "The most significant finding
was that the advantage of single-sex schooling is even greater
for boys in terms of academic results than for girls,"
Able said. "The unsubstantiated mythology of the educational
establishment has been that girls do better in single sex
schools but that boys are 'brought on' by the more studious
girls in a co-educational environment. This mythology has
never been supported by any objective evidence, and any policy
derived from it must presumably sacrifice the advantages to
one sex in order to promote the cause of the other,"
he wrote. "[Our] results suggest that single sex schools
give an even greater academic advantage to boys than for girls.
This directly contradicts the popular educational myth that
boys do better in the classroom if girls are present to set
them a good example. One could reasonably conclude from this
study that both boys and girls are academically disadvantaged
in co-educational schools, but that the disadvantage is greater
for the boys2".
The British have good reason to be impressed by single-sex
schools. Single-sex schools routinely and overwhelmingly earn
the highest scores on the required nationwide examinations
(the GCSE exams). Last year, almost every one of the 50
top-ranked British high schools, including all the top 20,
were single-sex schools. The best-performing coeducational
school just managed to make 32nd place -- an improvement from
the year before, when the best-performing coed school landed
at #38 3.
A classic study from Jamaica: Marlene Hamilton, studying
students in Jamaica, found that students attending single-sex
schools outperformed students in coed schools in almost every
subject tested. At the time of the study, public single-sex
schools were still widely available in Jamaica, so that there
were few if any socioeconomic or academic variables which
distinguished students at single-sex schools from students
at coed schools. Hamilton noted the same pattern of results
which has been found in most studies worldwide: Girls at single-sex
schools attain the highest achievement; boys at single-sex
schools are next; boys at coed schools are next; and girls
at coed schools do worst of all 4.
Second category of evidence: "Before and after"
studies
Critics of single-sex education sometimes object that studies
comparing students at single-sex schools with students at
coed schools are intrinsically untrustworthy, because (they
say) one can never control for all the confounding variables.
"Before and after" studies are done at just one
school, before and after its transformation to a single-sex
school. Same students, same teachers, same facilities. These
studies offer another compelling proof of the superiority
of single-sex education.
In 2000, Benjamin Wright, principal of the Thurgood Marshall
Elementary School in Seattle, Washington, led his school in
a transformation from traditional coed classrooms to single-sex
classrooms. . . with astonishing results. Mr. Wright was concerned
about the high number of discipline referrals he was seeing:
about 30 children every day were being sent to the principal's
office because of discipline problems (about 80% were boys).
He decided to make the switch to single-sex classrooms in
hopes of decreasing the discipline problem.
The results exceeded his hopes. Discipline referrals dropped
from about 30 per day to just one or two per day. "Overnight.
The change in the atmosphere happened overnight." Same
kids, same teachers. Switching to single-sex classrooms had
a dramatic effect, instantly.
But improved discipline wasn't the only benefit of the change.
"We were just doing it to make sure that the discipline
was taken care of. But once we made the switch, the boys were
able to focus on academics, and so were the girls. The boys,
remarkably, shocked the state with what they did on the Washington
Assessment of Student Learning. Our boys went from being in
the 10 to 30 percent listing to 73 percent. They went from
a reading average of about 20 percent to 66 percent. Our boys
outperformed the entire state in writing. They went from being
in a low percentile of 20-something to 53 percent in writing.
The girls improved their performance too, everywhere but math."
(Contrary to several news reports, Mr. Wright is not the first
American principal to attempt this transformation)
9.
Another elementary school at the other end of the country
-- in Washington, DC -- has reported results remarkably similar
to those obtained in Seattle. Moten Elementary School
is located in the poorest section of Washington DC. Over 98
percent of the students qualify for subsidized lunches. In
the fall of 2001, principal George Smitherman made a daring
move: he decided to split the classrooms up by sex. Girls
would go to all-girl classes, boys would go to all-boys classes.
He also cut the lunch hour in half. But he didn't tell anybody
what he was doing. He didn't consult with or inform the superintendent.
He just went ahead and did it.
The results exceeded his wildest dreams. In mid-June 2002,
Smitherman learned that the percentage of students scoring
in the two highest categories of the math portion of the Stanford
9 test had jumped in just that one year, from 49 percent to
88 percent. On the reading portion, the percentage of students
in the top two categories had shot up from 50 percent to over
91 percent.
And that wasn't all. "As a result of the single-sex classes,
discipline problems have decreased by 99 percent,"
Mr. Smitherman recently told CNN. In previous years, such
an experiment would likely have faced termination by the district
and/or a legal challenge on the grounds that the single-sex
arrangement violated Title IX, regardless of its proven success.
No more. This year, the achievements of Moten Elementary School
made the front page of the Washington Post, which reported
that "D.C. school officials said they will study the
change . . . to see whether other schools should follow a
similar course."
These results aren't confined to elementary schools. An inner-city
high school in Montreal made the switch from coed classrooms
to single-sex classrooms five years ago. Since making that
switch, absenteeism has dropped from 20 percent before the
switch to 7 percent now. About 80 percent of students pass
their final exams, compared with 65 percent before the switch.
And, the rate of students going on to college has nearly doubled.
You can read more about this Montreal high school here.
Numerous similar cases have been documented in the United
Kingdom. For example: John Fairhurst, principal of the Fairhurst
High School (in Essex, in southeastern England) decided to
reinvent his school as two single-sex academies under one
roof. The students would take the same courses from the same
teachers, but boys and girls would attend separate classes.
Three years after making the change, the proportion of Shenfield
boys achieving high scores on standardized tests had risen by
26%. The girls performance improved only slightly less, by
22%, and they still outperformed the boys5.
A similar experiment in Mill Hill, also in England, achieved
similar results. In Mill Hill, the county high school was
divided up into a girls' wing and a boys' wing in 1994. Since
that time, the number of pupils scoring high on the GCSE exam
has risen from 40 percent to 79 percent. Dr. Alan Davison,
the principal, comments that "Men and women's brains
are different. It is crucial that we in education recognise
that" 6.
The "before and after" experience of schools undertaking
this transformation has been so consistent, and so impressive,
that the British Secretary of Education two years ago asked
the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) to
investigate whether this model should be applied widely
throughout Britain, in a wholesale conversion of coed schools
to single-sex academies 7.
Researchers at Manchester University in England recently tested
this approach more formally. They assigned students at five
public schools either to single-sex or to coed classrooms.
68 percent of boys who were assigned to single-sex classes
subsequently passed a standardized test of language skills,
vs. 33 percent of boys assigned to coed classes. Among the
girls, 89 percent assigned to single-sex classes passed the
test, vs. 48 percent of girls assigned to coed classes
8.
Third category of evidence: academic studies comparing
single-sex schools with coed schools
Cornelius Riordan, professor of sociology at Providence University
in Rhode Island, has published a series of studies comparing
short- and long-term outcomes of graduates of single-sex Catholic
schools in the United States with graduates of coed Catholic
schools in the United States. Riordan's research is notable
because of the great care he takes to control for all relevant
variables, including socioeconomic status, race, and ability
at time of school entry. On a variety of measures, Riordan
has found that girls in single-sex schools consistently outperform
girls at coed schools. In Riordan's studies, the beneficial
effect for boys is smaller than it is for girls (contrast
this finding with Graham Able's report (see above) that the
benefits of single-sex schooling are greater for boys than
for girls). Riordan has done the most systematic work demonstrating
that the beneficial effects of single-sex schooling are
most impressive for children from underprivileged backgrounds
10.
As Riordan observes, that finding is a corollary of one of
the most basic and robust facts in educational research: namely,
that school variables always impact performance of children
from underprivileged backgrounds. Consider a child from an
affluent family with a mother and father who are both college
graduates and who care about the child's schooling. That child
is likely to do well, almost regardless of what school they
attend -- at least that's what many studies have shown. If
the home atmosphere favors learning, that outweighs almost
anything the school does. But now consider a child whose only
parent is a single parent trying to work three jobs to make
ends meet, and there are few college graduates in that child's
neighborhood, and no library. That child is at high risk.
A single-sex school allows that child to focus on academics.
The beneficial effects are huge and well-documented.
Researchers at the University of Michigan compared graduates
of Catholic single-sex high schools with graduates of Catholic
coeducational private schools. Boys in the single-sex high
schools scored better in reading, writing, and math than did
boys at coed high schools. Girls at the single-sex schools
did better in science and reading than girls in coed schools.
In fact, these researchers found that students at single-sex
schools had not only superior academic achievement, but also
had higher educational aspirations, more confidence in their
abilities, and a more positive attitude toward academics,
than did students at coed high schools. And, girls at the
single-sex schools had less stereotyped ideas about what women
can and cannot do11. The same University of Michigan team
later reported that the beneficial effects of single-sex education
don't end after students leave the school. They found that
graduates of single-sex schools were more likely to go to
a prestigious college, and more likely to aspire to graduate
school or professional school, than were graduates of coed
schools. That finding held for both girls and boys
12.
In one remarkable study of 2,777 English high school students,
girls at coed schools were found to lose ground to boys in
science and vocabulary as they progressed through high school.
Exactly the opposite occurred at single-sex schools: the girls
at single-sex schools outperformed both the boys at single-sex
schools and the boys at coed schools. Again, this study reported
the familiar pattern: girls at single-sex schools on top,
followed by boys at single-sex schools, then boys at coed
schools, with girls at coed schools doing the worst
13.
Not just better students; more well-rounded people
The benefits of single-sex schools are not only academic.
Just as importantly, single-sex education has been shown to
broaden students' horizons, to allow them to feel free to
explore the own strengths and interests, not constrained by
gender stereotypes. A British researcher compared the attitudes
of 13 and 14 year-old pupils toward different subjects. Students
at coed schools tended to have gender-typical subject preferences:
boys at coed schools liked math and science and did NOT like
drama or languages, whereas boys at single-sex schools were
more interested in drama, biology and languages. Likewise,
girls at girls-only schools were more interested in math and
science than were girls at coed schools
14 .
Andrew Hunter, now the principal of Merchiston Castle School
in Edinburgh (Scotland) agrees. Having taught in both coed
schools and single-sex schools, Mr. Hunter observes that there
is "a subtle and invidious pressure towards gender stereotyping
in mixed [= coed] schools. Girls tend to be cautious about
going into subjects or activities which are thought of as
essentially boys' things, but in boys' schools boys feel free
to be themselves and develop, to follow their interests and
talents in what might be regarded as non-macho pursuits: music,
arts, drama."15). Brian Walsh, who has been a principal
at both boys' schools and coed schools, made this observation:
"Boys ordinarily do not even try to sing in a coed school,
whereas they love choral singing in a boys' school; in the
coed setting they make fun of French pronunciation, whereas
in the single-sex setting they enjoy becoming fluent in French;
in drama, they muck up or clown around to avoid seeming imperfect
in a coed setting, whereas they excel at drama when by themselves"
16.
At many coed schools, it's not "cool" for kids to
be excited about school. The game of who likes who, who's
going out with who, who's cool and who's not, is what's really
important at most coed schools. That's seldom the case at
single-sex schools. Edison Trickett and Penelope Trickett,
comparing students at private single-sex schools in the United
States with students at private coed schools in the United
States, found that students in the single-sex schools had
a far more positive attitude toward academics than did students
in coed schools. This finding held for both boys and girls.
The students at the single-sex schools also developed better
organizational skills, and were more involved in classroom
activities 17.
References
1. Clare Dean, "Inspectors say girls' schools
are the best," Times Educational Supplement, October
9, 1998. You can read this on-line by going to the search page of the
Times Educational Supplement, enter Clare Dean as the author,
"Inspectors say girls' schools are the best" as
the title, and 1998 as the date of publication.
2. Alison Gordon, "In a class of their own: boys
benefit even more than girls from single-sex schools, A-level
grades study reveals," in The Mail on Sunday (UK), June
11 2000, p. 42. If you would like to read Graham Able's complete study, you
may send an e-mail to NASSPE, or call us at 301.972.7600,
or send a fax to 301.972.8006.
3. John O'Leary, "Exam should be taken a year
early," The Times (London), September 1, 2001. For scores
for the year 2000, see John O'Leary, "Single-sex schools
top exam league," The Times (London), September 2, 2000.
4. Marlene Hamilton. Performance levels in science
and other subjects for Jamaican adolescents attending single-sex
and coeducational high schools, International Science Education,
69(4):535-547, 1985.
5. Judith O'Reilly, "Mixed school hits new heights
with single-sex classes." Sunday Times (London), August
20, 2000.
6. The Mill Hill story is told in the Times Educational
Supplement (London, UK), "News & Opinion," August
25 2000, "London School Segregates. . ."
The quotation from Dr. Davison comes from this same article.
You can read this online by going to the search page of the
Times Educational Supplement.
7. Nicholas Pyke, "Blunkett plans single-sex classrooms."
The Independent (London), August 20, 2000, p. 8. Note: On
June 8, 2001, Mr. Blunkett was 'promoted' to the post of Home
Secretary. The new Education Secretary is Estelle Morris.
8. Julie Henry, "Help for the boys helps the girls,"
Times Educational Supplement (London, UK), June 1 2001.
You can read this article online by going to the search page
of the Times Educational Supplement, enter "Help for
the Boys" in the headline, leave the author blank, and
search from May 2001 to July 2001. (You must leave the "author"
blank, because the author's last name was misspelled "Hendry"
in the byline.)
9. Anthony Pilone, principal of the Myrtle Avenue Middle
School in Irvington, New Jersey, came up with precisely this
idea in 1994. Unlike some of the affluent English schools
where this experiment has been undertaken, Irvington is a
lower-income African-American community on the outskirts of
Newark. Just as at Shenfield High, all students at the Myrtle
Avenue Middle School continued to take the same classes, but
for each subject there was now one class for the girls and
a separate class for the boys. It didn't take long to see
results. After just one year, test scores began rising. More
importantly, Pilone sensed a new enthusiasm for learning among
his 600 students.
Then a new superintendent came to town. The new boss, Peter
Carter, informed Pilone that the single-sex arrangement was
a violation of Title IX, the Federal law barring sex-segregated
education in public schools. Carter ordered Pilone to shut
down the program. "I'm not saying it was good or bad,"
Superintendent Carter explained. "It was simply illegal."
Pilone was outraged. Creating the single-sex environment was,
in his words, "probably the only thing I have ever done
as a principal that had the full support of the staff, the
parents, the students and the administration. It just went
so well," he said. "But now we are back to where
we were."
10. Cornelius Riordan. Girls and Boys in School: together
or separate? New York: Teachers College Press, 1990.
11. V. E. Lee and A. Bryk. Effects of single-sex secondary
schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78:381-395, 1986.
12. V. E. Lee and H. M. Marks. Sustained effects of
the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors,
and values in college. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82:578-592, 1990.
13. J. D. Finn. Sex differences in educational outcomes:
a cross-national study. Sex Roles, 6:9-25, 1980.
14. A. Stables. Differences between pupils from mixed
and single-sex schools in their enjoyment of school subjects
and in their attitudes to science and to school. Educational
Review, 42(3):221-230, 1990.
15. Quoted in: Elizabeth Buie, "Today's sexual
evolution," The Herald (Glasgow), November 21 2000,
p. 16 .
16. Quoted in: David Riesman. A margin of difference:
the case for single-sex education. In J. R. Blau (editor),
Social roles and social institutions, Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press, 1990, pp. 243-244.
17. Edison Trickett, Penelope Trickett, et al. The
independent school experience: aspects of the normative environment
of single-sex and coed secondary schools, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74(3):374-381, 1982.
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|