Single Sex Education

Single Sex Education
We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. By clicking 'continue' or by continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Personal Profile

Subject List

About

News

Take a Tour

For Authors

Subscriber Services

Contact Us

Site Help

Publications
Pages

Publications
Pages

You could not be signed in, please check and try again.

Forgot password?

Don't have an account?

You could not be signed in, please check and try again.
Please enter your library card number

Introduction General Overviews Reference Works Anthologies At-risk Students Brain and Biology Gender Stereotyping and Identity Mathematics, Science, and Verbal Skills Legal Issues Developmental, Familial, and Cultural Issues

Academic Achievement

Adolescence

Gender and Achievement

Policy

Private and Independent Schools

School Culture

Social Context of Education

Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.
LAST REVIEWED: 23 August 2018 LAST MODIFIED: 28 September 2016 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0166

Education

About Education »

Meet the Editorial Board »

Copyright © 2022. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Accessibility

Single-sex education refers to both classes and schools that have only one sex, defined by a biological classification. The alternative, in which both sexes are present in class or in the school as a whole, is referred to as “coeducation” or a “mixed-sex environment.” In the latter half of the 20th century, many countries moved away from single-sex education as a predominant mode of education, particularly in the public sectors. At the same time, issues of educational equity, whether based in gender, ethnicity, or social class, have been associated with a pushback against coeducation. Many comparisons have been made in many countries to test whether there is an advantage to one gender context or another, yet the conclusions remain under dispute. Outcomes most frequently assessed are mathematics, science, and verbal performance and attitudes; educational aspirations; gender stereotyping; and self-concept. In the United States, single-sex public options, whether in one classroom or in an entire school, have increased as a result in changes in federal education regulations. Those same regulations, which preclude random assignment, make it difficult to make an appropriate comparison of the outcomes in relation to different gender contexts. Major areas of contention are that in many cases, the single-sex class or school may be different in ways that go beyond gender, and that the students and their families who choose a single-sex option may vary in crucial ways, such as having a higher- than-average commitment to education. Most of the reviews of the literature to date that encompass research from across the globe are considered to show little to no difference or are deemed inconclusive or contradictory. Research from schools in which random assignment was conducted, if possible, or that employ statistical or methodological controls to account for preexisting differences or confounding factors may help resolve the controversy. Popular views of gender and single-sex education as important determinants of student success are, however, in conflict with the results of research showing little difference and much inconsistency.
There are few general resources to help understand the theory and research surrounding the disputes over single-sex education. Some of the papers in the Reference Works and Anthologies sections can also serve as an overview, but those tend to be more technical and specialized. The works in this section were chosen for their broader assessment of the issue from multiple sides and with historical context. Liben 2015 , Riordan 1990 , and Salomone 2003 spanned the largest historical periods, whereas Gill 2004 (Australia) and Bigler and Signorella 2011 (United States) focused mostly on the 20th century. The historical perspectives help in understanding the roots of single-sex education across cultures and why single-sex education began to decline in popularity before experiencing a resurgence. Bigler and Signorella 2011 attempts to quantify the increases in single-sex classes and schools in the United States and cites several reasons for the increases, including concerns about gender equity and poor educational outcomes in schools serving low-income youth of color. Although sympathetic to educational equity issues, they were not convinced that there is empirical support for gender-separated schools or classrooms. Riordan 1990 , Riordan 2015 , and Salomone 2003 are proponents of single-sex education, although not necessarily for all students. They emphasize structural and cultural aspects of education that they feel are improved in single-sex classes or schools, with Salomone drawing heavily on several of Riordan’s studies as well as other research. Riordan 1990 and Salomone 2003 have the most extensive discussion of the arguments that members of disadvantaged groups may benefit from single-sex schooling. Riordan 2015 provides an overview of all justifications in support of single-sex schools but questions the value of single-sex classes within mixed-sex schools. Liben 2015 scrutinizes the disagreements from the perspectives of science and of values. She noted that some proponents of single-sex schooling take a “gender essentialist” approach, which leads those advocates to conclude that if there are deep and biologically based gender differences, then those differences must be reflected in educational practices. She reviewed some of the most frequently cited works that take a gender-essentialist approach. Liben also identified choice as another key value mentioned by promoters of single-sex education and discussed the clashes that occur when these different types of evidence (e.g., scientific research, values) are used in the public arena. The radio debate between Hyde and Sax in 2011 is illustrative of the challenge in reconciling the views.
Bigler, R. S., and M. L. Signorella. 2011. Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles 65:659–669.
Also serving as an introduction to Part 1 of a special issue on single-sex schooling, the paper provides a recent historical overview in the United States, and also reviews the methodological and political concerns that have accompanied legal changes in education policy in the United States.
Debate over Single-Sex Schooling . 13 October 2011. RadioTimes with Marty Moss-Coane.
The audio recording of a debate between Dr. Janet Hyde and Dr. Leonard Sax over the appropriateness of offering single-sex public schools is a good example of the disparate positions and approaches seen in this area of controversy.
Gill, J. 2004. Beyond the great divide: Single-sex or coeducation? Sydney: Univ. of New South Wales Press.
A well-written overview that may be useful for parents or non-educators in understanding the controversy. The focus is on Australia but includes comparisons to many other countries.
Liben, L. S. 2015. Probability values and human values in evaluating single-sex education. Sex Roles 72:401–426.
Liben examines single-sex schooling history in the United States and then surveys the state of current controversy from scientific and values-oriented perspectives. This article is a good overview from the perspective of someone who has serious concerns about single-sex public schools or classes.
Riordan, C. 1990. Girls and boys in school: Together or separate? New York: Teachers College.
Begins with historical and sociological overviews of the education of boys and girls in ancient Greece and Rome, medieval and later Europe, and the United States from the colonial era to the present. The later chapters present outcomes from shorter- and longer-term comparisons of different school gender environments and their correlates.
Riordan, C. 2015. Single-sex schools: A place to learn . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
For someone unfamiliar with the topic, this book would be a good general introduction. Riordan also provides a brief but useful recent historical and cross-cultural overview of single-sex versus coeducational trends in education, and an up-to-date and international overview of the research.
Salomone, R. C. 2003. Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling . New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Although the focus is on single-sex education in the United States, Salomone draws upon numerous comparisons across the globe in recounting the debates over the value of single-sex education. She sides with the need for single-sex options in some circumstances.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on
this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

Women's Rights
›
Women's Rights in Education
›

Credit: Michelle Frankfurter, Jacquelyn Martin / AP Photos

Support our on-going litigation and advocacy work
Donate now

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
The ACLU Women’s Rights Project works to ensure that girls and boys receive equal educational opportunities and are not subjected to different treatment in the classroom based on their sex.
In recent years, many school districts have introduced programs that allow for expanded use of single-sex education, often presenting these programs as quick-fix solutions to the array of problems facing many public schools. This trend accelerated sharply in October 2006, when the U.S. Department of Education announced new Title IX regulations that make it easier for public schools to implement single-sex classrooms.
These programs are often based on junk science about how girls’ and boys’ brains develop and disturbing gender stereotypes. On the basis of these sex-based generalizations, schools separate male and female students and subject them to wildly different teaching strategies. For example, advocates of sex-segregated schools have trained teachers that:
Although these ideas are hyped as “new discoveries” about brain differences, they are in fact only dressed-up versions of old stereotypes, and treating boys and girls differently in the classroom is the definition of sex discrimination.
Creating sex-segregated schools and classrooms is also a waste of time and effort that diverts resources from initiatives that actually will improve the education of both boys and girls, such as reducing class sizes and increasing teacher training. Moreover, these sex-segregated classes deprive students of important preparation for the real, coeducational worlds of work and family.
The ACLU opposes sex segregation in public education that perpetuates antiquated gender stereotypes.
The ACLU Women’s Rights Project works to ensure that girls and boys receive equal educational opportunities and are not subjected to different treatment in the classroom based on their sex.
In recent years, many school districts have introduced programs that allow for expanded use of single-sex education, often presenting these programs as quick-fix solutions to the array of problems facing many public schools. This trend accelerated sharply in October 2006, when the U.S. Department of Education announced new Title IX regulations that make it easier for public schools to implement single-sex classrooms.
These programs are often based on junk science about how girls’ and boys’ brains develop and disturbing gender stereotypes. On the basis of these sex-based generalizations, schools separate male and female students and subject them to wildly different teaching strategies. For example, advocates of sex-segregated schools have trained teachers that:
Although these ideas are hyped as “new discoveries” about brain differences, they are in fact only dressed-up versions of old stereotypes, and treating boys and girls differently in the classroom is the definition of sex discrimination.
Creating sex-segregated schools and classrooms is also a waste of time and effort that diverts resources from initiatives that actually will improve the education of both boys and girls, such as reducing class sizes and increasing teacher training. Moreover, these sex-segregated classes deprive students of important preparation for the real, coeducational worlds of work and family.
The ACLU opposes sex segregation in public education that perpetuates antiquated gender stereotypes.

This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
New!
Follow this author to stay notified about their latest stories.
Got it!
Single-sex teaching remains one of the most polarising issues in education , unresolved by decades of research, but the evidence from some schools is showing that whatever doubts remain it belongs in the 21 st century.
For some, single-sex teaching is an anachronism, a relic of the days when gender roles were rigidly defined and the futures mapped out for boys and girls were very different.
Despite this, single-sex schools remain popular. In the U.K. single-sex teaching predominantly takes place in the private sector. The Independent Schools Council’s latest census shows that although the number of exclusively single-sex schools has been steadily falling for the last two decades, around one in five classes are still made up entirely of one sex or the other.
In the U.S., single-sex education is much less widespread and more than 90% of private schools are co-educational. An explosion of interest has seen the number of single-sex public schools increase from just two to more than 500 in the last 20 years, but that still represents a tiny fraction of the total.
Academic evidence on the effectiveness of single-sex teaching is ambiguous. A study published earlier this year in the American Psychological Association’s journal Psychological Bulletin found the differences in achievement between pupils at single-sex and co-ed schools were trivial.
But while the nature of the study – analyzing 55 years’ worth of data – gives it authority, other work paints a different picture. Research in South Korea, for example, where students are randomly assigned to single-sex or co-ed schools, points to higher test scores and a higher rate of college attendance among single-sex school students.
Other research shows more localized effects. After looking at test and exam results from every state school in England, researchers at Bristol University suggested boys might do better in English if they were taught in single-sex classes, but maths and science were best taught in co-ed classes.
And the example of two English schools shows it is through localized interventions that single-sex education is being given a new lease of life.
At David Young Community Academy in the northern city of Leeds, pupils are taught in single-sex classes for English, maths and sciences. Principal Ros McMullen says the decision to move away from co-ed was taken to tackle a culture of low aspirations among girls. The school identified one of the key reasons for this was that the girls were more interested in impressing the boys than in studying.
“It is all contextual,” she says. “It is about the culture that the children come from. We needed to break that culture and allow girls to be clever.”
The solution was to remove the distraction – boys – in core subjects and the result is that while achievement overall has risen, among girls it has “rocketed”, says McMullen. Behaviour has also improved, although McMullen is wary of attributing too much effect to a single cause.
Around 60 miles further south, the Haywood Academy near Stoke-on-Trent has also introduced single-sex classes, although in this case solely in maths and only for middle-ability pupils. Assistant headteacher Mel Roberts says staff had identified that while boys were vocal in group work they were less enthusiastic about independent working. For girls, worried about looking stupid in front of the boys, it was the other way around.
The result of splitting pupils into all-boy and all-girl classes is that boys are more prepared to knuckle down to work on their own and the girls are more involved in group work. The project is still in its first year at the school but early signs are both genders are making better than expected progress.
As at David Young, the introduction of single-sex teaching was a response to a specific situation, in Haywood’s case the reluctance of girls to speak out in class. “It is making sure we get the balance right, and the balance was not necessarily right for both sets of students in mixed groups,” Roberts says. “Now the girls will do group work because they don’t feel intimidated.”
Switching to single-sex teaching is not without its problems. At David Young Academy, McMullen says teaching some lower ability boys’ groups has become more challenging but the benefits have outweighed the disadvantages.
Even so, she says it works only because of the school’s particular circumstances. “It all depends on the aspirations and culture of the children,” she adds. At Haywood, it is maths that is the factor. “I’m not saying it wouldn’t work in other subjects,” Roberts says. “But in maths, especially at that level, girls aren’t particularly confident.”
While debate will continue to rage about the merits of single-sex teaching, and research will no doubt continue to suppor
Mama I Sin Sex Video
School Girl Porn Anal
Teen Ass Webcam Porn

Single Sex Education

Report Page