Single Sex Education

Do single sex schools actually create better academic outcomes?

I went to an all girls’ school. I don’t know if I would have preferred a co-educational setting but my father was adamant that I would do better at an all girls’ school. But is there really a good rationale for separating the gender. Historically girls simply weren’t educated formally as there seemed little point, females obviously not being cut out for intellectual rigour!

Luckily that has changed but single sex education persists and I have taught in both a state run girls’ and boys’ school.   This blog is going to use Bigler et als’ (2014) chapter to consider the reasons why single sex education still persists and whether it should. I will caveat this by saying their discussion focus on US education, though I think much is applicable in the UK and argues against single-sex education, whilst it does provide evidence to support their statements it may be a little biased, but it should get you thinking.

Rationale 1 – It works for all students

This is the simple argument that it works. But does it? The research is quite mixed, though some meta-analyses do find positive effects others find little or no effect. It is also necessary to look at the quality of the studies as there are many factors that might produce a positive effect such as why students select single sex education, the socio-economic status of those selecting it, and student motivation, that may have a great influence on outcome than single sex education per se. Therefore any research into this needs to be scrutinised and interpretations of data need to be cautious.

Rationale 2 – It works for some students

Last week I wrote about ‘at risk girls’ so does single sex education work for them? If the presence boys affects the self-concept of some girls then clearly single sex education should increase this self-concept (self-esteem, locus of control etc.). Actually it doesn’t seem likely that it does and targeted interventions using peer support are more effective.

Rationale 3 – It works by capitalising on gender differences

Some argue that the cognitive capacities (maturation, aptitudes, disruptive behaviour, participatory style and interests) of boys and girls differ and therefore by separating the genders we can target teaching more appropriately. Overall in many of these areas there are ‘average’ differences. I don’t want to go into too much detail but as I have previously pointed out this may be as much to do with the environment than biology (e.g. behavioural expectations). So there are a couple of things we ought to bear in mind: both boys and girls will benefit from instruction that aims to improve skills – whether or not they ‘match’ gender; gender as a proxy for cognitive maturity is not particularly effective as there will still be a huge amount of variation within the classroom – though it may be less controversial that testing; there is evidence that academic outcomes for both genders can be harmed by using teaching styles that are aimed at a specific gender; in terms of behaviour there is more overlap between genders than disparity; evidence suggests that teacher gender has no effect out motivation, achievement or engagement.

Rationale 4 – it works by reducing sexism

I wrote about teacher bias and gender and it seems that by separating gender should remove the problem of teacher attention being directed at boys, but remember the most disruptive students will get the most attention regardless on gender, but in a co-educational classroom this gender bias can be removed with suitable training and without separating students by gender. It seems there is little comparitive evidence between single sex and co-educational schools about teacher expectations and outcomes – but from my own experience I would say that there must be as gender biases are pervasive in single sex schools and openly discussed. Perhaps teachers need more training on this rather than separating out the genders?
Peer sexual harassment is worth noting – it does have links to poor mental health, body image and self-esteem and therefore being in a single sex environment could have beneficial effects. However there is not research on the effects of this in single sex envrionments. However ideally we would be better to prevent its occurrence in the first place with suitable educational programmes.

Rationale 5 – it works by reducing attention to gender

This is seen in the uptake of more ‘masculine’ subjects by girls in single sex schools, however even in single sex classrooms by inducing negative gender stereotypes we can undermine academic performance. It seems obvious tjat there would be less labeling on gender in single sex classroom – again there is no research available on this. There seems little support for the idea that heterosexual attraction (relationship formation, attention to appearance) causes any noticeable differences between single sex and co-educational settings and in fact there is more disordered eating and body dissatisfaction in single sex girls’ schools.

In summary

There will always be people who will argue that single sex education is a better option, and perhaps for some it is. However there is insufficient evidence to argue that separating genders is beneficial for educational outcomes, however training teachers to be more aware of gender bias, and including programmes for students on social and academic achievement goals are likely to produce a better result.

Reference:
Bigler RS, Hayes AR, Liben LS. Analysis and evaluation of the rationales for single-sex schooling. Adv Child Dev Behav. 2014; 47:225-60.