Introduction
After a year's worth of timed tests and multiplication tables, going into fourth grade I
hated math and my mother assures me that I regularly told her how stupid I was in
this subject. Studies show that I am not the only one who didn't do well in this
situation. Educator Whitney Ransome, director of the National Coalition of Girls
Schools, expresses the sentiments of many educators when she says, "In general, girls
are competitive, but they are collaborative. They think about how to solve a problem
together rather than try to do it ahead of the other guy (Baldauf, 1996)." The
American Association of University Women tells us in a widely publicized study,
that the majority of girls who dislike math shared my feelings. Girls tend to feel that
not doing well was a personal failure, in stark contrast with boys, who tend to believe
that math itself is not useful (AAUW, 1991). When I got to eighth grade, my efforts
in Math were thwarted once again. The math teacher at the high school I would be
going to had urged me to take the test to place out of Algebra I, which I was already
taking in eighth grade and received an A for all four report cards, as I had done
consistently since first grade. My grade school teacher advised my parents that I
would need the extra reinforcement of another year in Algebra, and the
consequences were devastating: I spent my freshman year bored and unchallenged. I
went on to take six math classes during my four years at MAA and go to the state
Math competition all four years.
To what do I attribute this success? To a truly great high school math teacher and the
fact that my high school was all-girls. I didn’t truly understand why the single-sex
aspect of MAA was so special and applicable to my experience until I started the
Johnson 2
research for this project. I’ve spent a lot of my time after starting at MAA, and since,
defending myself against people who criticize all-girls schools. The first thing I
usually hear is that it’s tantamount to a cloister and all girls who go are forced to by
prudish parents who believe their daughters will end up influenced by overexaggerated bad influences of the “real world.” My parents restricted me to any
private school I wanted to go to, and my choices were numerous in the area I grew
up. I chose MAA precisely because it was all-girls. I was tired of not being called
on, of being ridiculed by the boys in my class because of my body and because I was
“the smart kid.” In short, I was fed-up with my classmates and wanted to be in a
place where education came first. Seventh grader Leslie Cortez agrees with me. She
was one of the first students at The Young Women’s Leadership School in east
Harlem and is quoted as saying “Girls and boys may need time apart. Boys are
noisier; they’re more into girls and fashion. At my age, I need to focus on my studies
(Baldauf, 1996).”
I wish to propose, and set out to prove in the following, that single-sex schools
provide the necessary elements needed for girls to be educated to the fullest of their
potential. The all-female environment not only takes away the male - female
distractions of adolescence in the classroom, leading their attention to focus on
learning activities, but it provides much needed leadership opportunities for the girls.
Responding to these elements creates a more grounded sense of security and builds
their confidence; girls more actively participate in classroom activities and after
school activities, both academic and extracurricular.
Johnson 3
Review of Previous Research and Literature
As most children do, I went through stages of wanting to be “when I grew up,”
everything from an interior decorator to a veterinarian. But for as often as these
changed, one thing remained constant: I loved to learn. I have always been excited
about being a student, in school and of people. I consider people-watching a sport,
and after my lights would be turned out at night, I would find the flashlight hidden
underneath my pillow to continue reading instead of sleeping. It was always a
wonder to me that not everyone shared this enthusiasm for learning. As test scores
and interest levels in school steadily drop in the United States, my concern for
students, and for the educational system itself, increases and becomes the focus of
my research. The following is not to say that every angle has been covered or that all
the literature has been reviewed, but to give a sample of essential texts and studies
that have previously been conducted on educational environments. I’ve focused my
research not only on previous studies of all-girl schools, but on girls in co-ed
environments and all that they face in today’s school atmosphere.
Adolescence is a time of uncertainty, but in this time of uncertainty, we are forced to
prepare ourselves for maturity without ever knowing what it is. These years are a
critical time for making a broad array of decisions and choices that affect the rest of
your life (AAUW, 1991). During jr. high and high school, when children are
changing, both body and mind, they are most at risk to be consumed by feelings of
insecurity, enhanced by peer pressure and self-imposed beliefs about the way they
need to look in order to impress boys. The American Association of University
Women tells us in Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America that "boys tend to view
Johnson 4
these changes positively, as getting bigger and stronger," while girls think more
negatively, "reinforcing their declining self-esteem and gender stereotypes." Even
further, because boys already have the edge on self-confidence, they are more
equipped to deal with the physical changes, but media and "society tells girls that
their worth is dependent upon their appearance." These findings are expounded
upon by Peggy Orenstein's study of SchoolGirls: young girls, self-esteem, and the
confidence gap (1995). Orenstein observed several girls in two schools for a period of
one year. The girls' actions are governed by their self-esteem, both in the classroom
and outside of it. The examples their families set for them in their treatment of sons
versus daughters, the way their teachers allow their male classmates to dominate the
classrooms, and their own inhibitions and feelings of self-worth, all contribute to
their view of themselves and how they react.
History of Single-Sex Education
Although there is a long history of private, single-sex institutions in the United States
and other countries, since the passing Title IX in 1972, few public institutions have
been all-girls. Title IX, also known as the Educational Amendments of 1972, is often
cited by opponents of single-sex education. Title IX states that “No person in the
United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance (U.S. Constitution, 1972).” This is
followed by a list of exceptions and provisions. Ravitch comments, “[Single-sex
schooling’s] opponents, as one would expect, are all lawyers, not educators (1996).
The AAUW indicates in their 1995 report, Growing smart: what’s working for girls in
Johnson 5
school, that they are of the opinion that this is still true, that regardless of the benefits
of all-girl classrooms, there is no room for single-sex classrooms or schools in public
institutions. They give legal parameters for creating all-girl classes, such as to
advertise the class as a remedy for an educational problem but aimed at the specific
group that needs fixing. Voluntary participation is one of the keys to success. They
suggest for an example of what they mean by this, to offer a class to “build
confidence in mathematics,” which would be targeted at girls, but open to both
sexes. To assume that a class designed to build confidence in a subject will result in
only female students enrolling, or for a male student who tries to sign up that the
class is meant for girls is more demeaning than ignoring the problem entirely. This
seems to be a very negative way to endorse all-girls classes. However, theirs is not
the opinion shared by all.
In Title IX, integration was seen as the answer to the problems girls were facing; the
problem with it was that nothing was done to rectify past wrongs. Educational
studies in the 1940’s and 1950’s showed that “girls sat on the sidelines while boys
monopolized the toys.” To compensate for these “deficiencies” the experts advised
that girls change, “develop more grit, become more assertive, more like boys, more
normal (Cannon 1995).” This is exactly what happened in our classrooms.
Curriculum was not tailored to fit girls’ needs and bias was not taken out of teachers
or the classroom; girls were simply put in. In a country that lacks teachers under any
circumstances, resolving all of the gender equity problems in classrooms by
educating teachers is a tall order. Janet Lavin, director of admissions at all-girl
Wellesley College, that 35 years “after coeducation we see that it hasn’t been the
Johnson 6
answer,” or at least not made the answer (equity) come quickly enough (Brant,
1994). She admits that “[single-sex schools] are not a panacea for gender bias,” but
as the AAUW has suggested, perhaps it should act as a bridge to improve situations
in need of remedy (Brant, 1994). Private Institutions are one answer, but because of
costs varying from one to two thousand per year for grade schools and high school
upwards of $5,000, plus bus service, often as expensive as tuition, and even more
than $10,000 for some boarding schools, for most people, private schools are not an
option. Janice Streitmatter’s research in For girls only: making a case for single-sex
schooling, convinced her that single-sex education should be available through public
education because of the economic status needed to enroll in private single-sex
schools (1999).
Although the AAUW does not endorse the public school option, they have done the
widest array of studies on the effects of single-sex education of any single
organization that I have found. Their 1995 guide, Growing smart, was based on a
synthesis of more than 500 studies done from 1989 through 1994. The ideas
presented are meant to benefit girls aged kindergarten through grade 12. I find it
very encouraging that the AAUW has, from all of the studies included in this survey
of girls in education, given several directives towards the inclusion of single-sex
education as solutions to some of the problems in the educational system. Critics of
the idea tend towards believing that the goal is to eliminate integrated schooling
altogether. This is absolutely not true for most supporters; Single-sex education is not
the best option for many girls, but it needs to be recognized that it is for others.
Johnson 7
In For girls only, Streitmatter reviews both single-sex classes in coeducational
environments and single-sex schools. She interviewed girls who were in a
coeducational school but enrolled in single-sex classes and found that almost all of
them felt they had benefited from the class. The girls were able to set aside their
struggle for attention from the teacher and control of the classroom and focus on
studying the presented material, unafraid to ask questions and participate. It also
positively affected some girls in their willingness to participate in other classes. I feel
that increasing participation and getting girls excited about learning again positively
affects their education in many ways, not just grades. It acts as self-perpetuating
encouragement for them dealing with higher education and career choices later in
life.
Cornelius Riordan, one of the researchers in Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging
America warns us, "these results don't necessarily mean that all schools should switch
to a single-sex format (Baldauf, 1996).” The AAUW recommends that all-girls
classrooms be used on a short-term basis; these classes are “intended as a bridge to a
fairer learning environment (1995).” There are those who believe that single-sex
schooling should be permanent however. Leonard Sax is the founder of the National
Association for the Advancement of Single Sex Public Education. In one of his
articles, he comments on those that believe, and I include myself in this group, “there
is no evidence that chromosomes themselves have any direct affect on our gender
role.”
“Are they right? If there isn’t any meaningful innate differences
between girls and boys, then single-sex education really doesn’t make
Johnson 8
much sense. If there aren’t any real differences between girls and boys
in terms of how they learn or how their brains work, then separating
the sexes may just perpetuate gender stereotypes. But if girls and boys
do differ fundamentally and innately in what they like to read, how
they study, and how they learn, then single-sex education – and the
opportunity it offers to custom-tailor learning to the student—starts to
make sense (Sax, 2002).”
Sax has not considered all of the facts in this case though. While there is evidence
that suggests there are biological differences in how female and male brains develop,
there is very little evidence to support the theory that these differences affect the way
that boys and girls learn. The focus of the issue is that girls and boys are treated
differently, which does affect how they learn. Children are subject to all these social
constructions in many other aspects of their lives. There doesn’t have to be
immutable biological differences between the sexes. Biology becomes secondary to
social construction. Even the biological evidence1 that exists, deals with the maturity
of the brain, which is that the female brain develops faster and that “the men don’t
catch up with the women until about age thirty (Sax, 2002).” This seems to have
more to do with emotional maturity and development of language skills than actual
learning differences.
While I am sure that these biological differences exist, I remain weary of using this
sort of argument to further my research. I address it here for thoroughness; I feel that
socially constructed ideology about gender have a much larger impact on girls’ lives.
Monique Wittig articulates such a belief in her essay “One is Not Born a Woman”
with the following:
1 For brevity’s sake, I will not detail the evidence supporting or denying the influence of biological
differences between the sexes, I will speak about the conclusions abstractly.
Johnson 9
We have been compelled in our bodies and in our minds to
correspond, feature by feature, with the idea of nature that has been
established for us. Distorted to such an extent that our deformed body
is what they call “natural,” what is supposed to exist as such before
oppression. Distorted to such an extent that in the end oppression
seems to be a consequence of this “nature” within ourselves (a nature
which is only an idea (1997).)
She goes on to quote Simone de Beauvoir from The Second Sex, saying “One is not
born, but becomes a woman…it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature,
intermediate between male and eunuch, which is described as feminine (Wittig,
1997).”
When confronted with this research on biological differences, I can’t help but think
of all the similar so-called reasoning based on biology that I have heard throughout
my life. Discrimination against blacks was acceptable at one point because white
racists believed that the “basic biological differences” made one race superior over
another. The pope announced that gays and lesbians were psychologically unstable
and “deviant from natural law (Barillas, 2002)” and are encouraged to repress these
“deep-seated homosexual tendencies,” even though Church Catechism recognizes
that homosexuality is not a choice (Finigan, 1997). Jews were discriminated against
during Hitler’s reign and people were shown videos of rats running through the
streets, dehumanizing an entire race based on biology. These are the most extreme
of examples, and although I do not believe that it is the objective of the Harvard
Neuroscientists who analyzed these differences to propagate misogyny, these
arguments have the potential to be used for these purposes. We have to recognize
that thousands of years of misconceptions and unfounded connections between sex
and gender is not going to disappear overnight. I do not personally believe that
Johnson 10
biological differences between men and women affect their learning styles, but I do
believe, and have found ample research on gender bias to support that girls and boys
are treated differently in the classroom.
In All girls: single-sex education and why it matters, author Karen Stabiner started out her
research thinking, as many critics of all girls schools do, that the two schools she was
evaluating would be nothing more than finishing schools with the girls learning how
to properly drink tea and make polite conversation (2002). One of the schools she
visited the Young Women’s Leadership School in Harlem, one of the few all-girl
public schools in the country. As she admits, she soon learned her mistake. She
learned that self-confidence can often be mistaken for arrogance, and girls’ schools
are not for girls who can’t “handle the rigors of a big co-ed school (Stabiner, 2002).”
Stabiner notes that these schools give girls the chance to speak in “a person’s voice,
not a woman’s voice (2002).”
The 1991 AAUW report Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America, is the widest,
most in depth study dealing with gender to be found. The report on this study, How
schools shortchange girls, looks at the part played by the educational setting (focusing
on math and science skills), adolescent career aspirations, perception of gender roles,
and self esteem. 3000 children in 12 locations nationwide, between fourth and tenth
grades were surveyed. They measured self-esteem and found that girls' self esteem
index (created from 5 components) drops off sharply in middle school from 3.93 to
2.80, by 1.13 points, while boys', significantly higher to start, drops only .31, from
4.99 to 4.68. They also found that girls (15%) are less likely than boys (28%) to argue
Johnson 11
with a teacher when they think they are right. This inhibits their actions and
abilities, affects how interested they are in pursuing their dreams, and keeps them
from aspiring to higher goals. The “higher self-esteem of young boys translates into
bigger dreams …further, boys are slightly more likely than are girls to believe that
their own career dreams will come true (AAUW, 1991).” Boys, suggested in other
research to be the focus of classrooms and curriculum in co-ed situations, are more
likely to refer to the "thing I like best about myself" as one of their talents, while girls
are most likely to say something about their physical appearance (AAUW, 1991).
The AAUW (1995) recommends that teachers “invite men and women from nontraditional careers to speak at your school” and create high expectations in the
classroom for girls and not only to encourage them to take high level math and
science courses regardless of their career interests but to show them how this can
“expand their educational and career choices.”
Childhood gender segregation, edited by Campbell Leaper, is a compilation of five
essays done on the various possible causes and consequences of gender segregation
amongst young children. The ages identified in this book range from infancy to
college, but mainly stay focused on the Kindergarten to middle school age. It
provides a clear segway into the research done by the AAUW on self-esteem drops in
girls. It shows that this research is not specific to school aged children, nor to
education. The drift towards same sex playgroups starts as early as age 2. The
reasons behind it are all hypothesized, but one recurring theme is play style, where
boys have a more active, aggressive approach to playing, and a louder, more vocal,
and vigorous approach to playing, which most girls act wary of. The conclusion is
Johnson 12
also drawn that all-girl play groups foster “achievement of interpersonal closeness”
while all-boy play groups foster a spirit of competitiveness where dominance and
assertion are favored as the form of communication. Both bear a remarkable
resemblance to the style of males in the classrooms involved in various studies done
on single-sex education, even those at the high school level. Schoenberg’s study
from 2000, although narrow, shows this clearly that even in a setting where girls
have no discernable disadvantage2, girls felt better about the all-girl labs because they
felt that more decisions were made with all of the group members working together.
As early as age 4, before even Kindergarten, children know something of the gender
associated with adult occupational roles. At this same age, they can distinguish
between toys in the “boy” and “girl” category, but still choose to play with both
(Leaper, 1994). It is not until early elementary school that these categories begin to
have a part in regulating their actions. Directly following this, chronologically, is the
confidence gap that girls experience starting at approximately age 8, described above
in the AAUW report Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America.
Another AAUW report titled Separated by sex, did not convince its researchers that
single-sex education was the answer, although it does propose that all-girls classes
may inspire confidence and spur an interest in learning as compared to co-ed classes.
They concluded this despite the fact that the study did not include any exploration of
the psychological attitudes of the girls involved, and only quantitative measures of
academic performance were used, focused on achievement, aspirations, and
academic behaviors. Although the researcher feels that the “results should be
2 Meaning, that in this case that the modification was not addressing a specific problem and that
Johnson 13
generalizable to nationally representative populations,” other portions of the study
recognize the narrow field of research (AAUW, 1998).
The AAUW report, Separated by Sex, concludes that single-sex schooling only seemed
to make a difference when comparing Catholic all-girl schools versus Catholic coeducational schools (1998). It is unclear how they arrived at this conclusion
considering the lack of data available for public schools in the United States. The
researcher categorizes the qualities of "good" schools in terms of measures of
academic achievement and equity. She lists the pattern that she has identified
associated with "good" schools as smaller school size, a curriculum constrained to
academics, and constructivist teaching methods3 shared by all faculty. She stipulates
that these characteristics are common in single-sex schools, but are not exclusive to
them. I found this to be a compelling argument, but as schools in the Chicago
Catholic School System follow similar philosophies and mission statements to each
other, it would follow that if differences are found between single-sex and co-ed
schools, the findings would be significant beyond teaching methods. There are fewer
variables between single-sex and co-educational Catholic schools than there would
be even between other types private institutions. Unfortunately, the only single-sex
public school in the Chicago area, the Young Women’s Leadership Institute,
declined to participate in my research.
grades did not differ significantly before the experiments were done in the modified lab groups.
3 Students are encouraged to become actively engaged in their own learning.
Johnson 14
The majority of Gender and subject in higher education focuses on both the concrete
experiences of male and female students, and the meanings they attach to these
experiences (Thomas, 1990). Kim Thomas examines two divisions:
masculinity/femininity and arts/science. She examines the emphasis of researchers
on issue of subject choice rather than increasing the participation of girls in school.
She also examines the assumption that not only are girls not measuring up to boys,
but that math and science are more important and difficult than subjects that girls
typically excel in, such as English and the humanities. She compiles some
interesting research done on the different aspects of discrimination against girls in
coeducational environments. A large part of this is dedicated to teacher bias in favor
of boys in terms of time and attention, and even consciously catering their lessons
towards male interest because they are more likely to be disruptive. Teachers’
attitudes towards sexual harassment are another issue conveyed; behavior is often
dismissed as inevitable, "natural," or just "boys being boys." Thomas argues that the
absence of equity in textbooks is yet another aspect of a girl’s education that fails
girls' aspirations. However, this might only be a start to change these books; girls'
need positive female images and role models.
Self-esteem is also affected by sexual harassment, a growing problem in coeducational schools. Streitmatter considers the threat of sexual harassment and
concern for safety at school as one of her key factors (1999). The girls in Orenstein’s
study deal with everything from being ignored in the classroom to sexual harassment
from their classmates to eating disorders and negative body image. Much of the way
the girls' schoolwork is affected is embedded in their competition with other girls
Johnson 15
over boys and the way they are treated in the classroom and at home in comparison
with the boys in their lives.
Hostile hallways: bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school, is a 2001 comparison
to a study of the same questions done in 1993. Harris Interactive, commissioned by
the AAUW views their most dramatic findings to be 1) students are much more
informed in 2001 than they were in 1993 as to their schools' sexual harassment policy
and 2) eight in ten students have experienced sexual harassment, but since 1993 there
is a greater percentage of boys who say they have been harassed. While this is true,
the percentage of girls who are harassed is significantly higher than that of boys. The
fear of being harassed or having already been harassed during school affects the
behavior of students in the classroom. Not wanting to go to school, cutting class or
school, having difficulty paying attention and studying, and not participating as
much in class are just some of the results linked to sexual harassment. Since the
majority of sexual harassment is between opposite sexes, it is logical to conclude that
these numbers would decline in a single-sex education setting. While this could be
made into a study in and of itself, I was unable to include this aspect in my research
because several schools asked for questions concerning sexual harassment not to be
included. Sexual harassment is a growing concern for young girls in school today
and the AAUW makes connections between these statistics and incidents of extreme
school violence such as the Columbine school shooting in Colorado (2001).
Method and Research
I used various chapters in The handbook of interview research (2002), as well as Effective
interviewing of children from Zwiers & Morrissette (1999), to guide the development of
Johnson 16
my surveys. They stress the importance of keeping questions neutral so that the
students answer freely and in their own opinion. The project was explained in as
much detail as the principal or school contact wished, but asked to keep the nature of
the information from the girls until after the survey. The consent form was discussed
and signed; a copy of this consent form can be found labeled as Appendix A.
Because of the stress placed on this neutrality and because of my own strong
opinions, I explained nothing about my project to the girls until after they had
finished filling out their surveys. They were told only that I was doing research for
my senior project at DePaul University. They were assured that no one from the
school would have access to their answers and that each survey would be read
individually, so anything they wanted to write would be read. The consent form was
explained, and the students were given a copy to keep for their own records. This
consent form can be found labeled as Appendix B. After the surveys, the students
were given the option of asking questions about my major and my research. I had
originally intended to follow up the surveys with focus groups or individual
interviews, but so much information was collected from the surveys, and so many
opinions were found throughout, that I found it unnecessary to use anything further.
The aim of this research is to assess the possible benefits of an all-girls educational
environment when compared with a co-educational environment. I have considered
five all-girl institutions, all private, Catholic institutions with a variety of resources
and in a variety of Chicago neighborhoods with very different demographics, and
two co-educational institutions, also private and Catholic. Surveys were given to 219
High School Junior and Senior girls. 161 were students at all-girl schools, 58
Johnson 17
students were from co-ed schools. The survey given to the all-girl schools can be
found labeled as Appendix C. The survey given to the female students at co-ed
schools can be found labeled as Appendix D. The vast majority of the questions had
categories given, but the students were encouraged to explain their responses or to
change these categories if they felt they were inadequate.
My research questions address a number of the critiques of the existing studies on
single-sex schools as well as other patterns that emerged from student responses.
One of the most prevalent interpretations of the results of these studies from critics is
that the schools assessed have better resources, smaller classrooms, and college
preparatory attitudes. For this reason, I decided to constrain my study to look at all
college preparatory schools with similar classroom size so that there will be
similarities in the attitudes towards education.
Through all of the literature and research on the topics of education and gender in
education that I have reviewed from this project, I have concluded that girls’ active
participation in their own education is key to success. The students were asked to
evaluate themselves on participation, the quality of their work, and time spent on
homework for Math, Science, English, History, and Technology classes. They were
also asked about their college plans and various other questions that will be revealed
as the research findings are discussed.
For reasons that will be explained later, the study was constrained to schools with
similar class sizes and a college preparatory attitude. The average class size of the
schools is between 9 and 24 students per classroom. They all have a college bound
Johnson 18
rate of 90% or higher. The schools have various levels of resources and demographic
information. There is less of a variation among co-ed schools because of a lower
participation rate. Many co-ed schools declined to be involved in the survey, and the
approximately half of responses from the co-ed schools are from students who were
willing to complete the survey during their lunch period, while many of the students
at all-girl schools were given class time to complete the survey. This could perhaps
indicate that the responses from co-ed students are the most outgoing and interested
students.
Mother McAuley High School is on the southwest corner of the city, home to
approximately 2000 girls. Tuition at McAuley is $6000 per year. $244,000 in aid
was awarded last year, 2.5% of what would be full tuition money. The largest
scholarship that is awarded is $3000 and is merit based. Most of the scholarships are
$500 and almost all are based on merit or given because more than one sibling
attends Mother McAuley or Brother Rice. Brother Rice is a boys school located
directly next to Mother McAuley; the two schools combine for certain classes. 99%
of all Mother McAuley students attend college. 48 responses were collected from
Mother McAuley; responses were collected during a Junior Theology course, so that
students from the Honors, Advanced Placement, and College Preparatory tracks
would be included.
Notre Dame High School for Girls is Northwest of the city. Current enrollment is
460; the average class size is 20 girls. Tuition to Notre Dame is $5,800. 74% of
students receive financial aid and they gave away $57,000 in aid last year,
Johnson 19
approximately 2% of what would be full tuition. All of the scholarships are based on
academic achievement or leadership. Most of the scholarships are only considered
for renewal if the student maintains a 3.8 GPA or higher. 95% of all Notre Dame
students attend college. Their population is described as 50% Hispanic; 20% African
American; 20% White; 10% Other. Every student takes the ACT, and the average
score for the school is 18. All of the students surveyed at Notre Dame were seniors
age 18 and older; 14 surveys were collected from Notre Dame.
The third all-girl school has asked to remain anonymous so I will refer to them as
Southside Preparatory. They have recently merged with an all-boy school on the
South side of Chicago and have formed a rather unique co-institutional situation.
They combine for some clubs, share facilities for sports and other extracurricular
activities, but remain single-sex for the school day. 1187 are enrolled between the
two campuses, 283 of which are in the girls’ school. The average class size is 19.
Their full tuition amount is $6,945, which not one single student paid last year. A
sum of $1,390 is awarded to everyone who applies, bringing tuition down to $5,555.
50% of students receive aid over and above this award; a total of $400,000 was
awarded last year. More than $2.7 million in aid is given each year, 33% of all
tuition. It is rare to give a full tuition award, but the average award is $1000, the
largest is $2500. The population is described as one third each: Hispanic, African
American, and White. This is the first year that this school has existed as an all-girl
campus, so the college-bound and ACT information has not yet been compiled. 40
responses were collected from Southside Preparatory.
Johnson 20
Mt. Assisi Academy, or MAA, was the fourth all-girl school surveyed. Mt. Assisi is
located in the Southwest suburbs of Chicago and home to 375 students. The average
class size is 22; tuition is $4850. 95% of students take the ACT, and the average
score is 22.4. $20,000 in aid was awarded last year, based upon a combination of
need and merit, 1% of the full tuition; the awards are generally between $500 and
$2000. The Parent Association does cover full tuition in the event of the death of a
parent. 95% of MAA’s students are White, 3% Hispanic, 2% is Asian and African
American combined. 8 responses were collected from MAA, all seniors over the age
of 18.
Josephinum High School is on the city’s near north side, with an enrollment of
approximately 250 girls. “The Jo,” as it is known to it’s students, boasts on their
website that “Education is the key to these young people's success in life, and the Jo
graduates 98 percent of students, some of whom are the first women in their family
to complete high school and go to college.” In comparison to the other schools
involved in this survey, only 27% of their budget comes from tuition. The principal
described their demographic information to me as 60% Hispanic, 40% Black with a
2% varying group of White, Asian, and Native American girls. This has shifted from
60% Black, 40% Hispanic with the recent demolition of Cabrini Green, a
neighboring housing development. 90% of Josephinum graduates go on to college;
the average ACT score for those who choose to take it is between 16 and 18. Tuition
is $4500. All Financial aid is awarded based on need, is on a first come first serve
basis, and usually involves a work-study program. Less than 10 girls were awarded
Johnson 21
full tuition last year, and awards vary in size. Their student to teacher ratio is 9:1.
51 responses were collected from Josephinum, close to all of their Junior and Senior
classes. At this school in particular, there was a definite emphasis in my
conversation with the principal on the importance of providing good leadership and
role models for the girls. When I arrived, the principal was leafing through some
college pamphlets that had just come into their guidance office, and was commenting
on one in particular that had a picture including some racial diversity, but couldn’t
be commended for having as many girls as boys. She told me that since coming to
work at Josephinum, these are the kinds of things she always looks for. She also
expressed her concern over accepting money from the government’s No Child Left
Behind program because it required her to release information about her students for
military recruitment.
The first of the Co-educational schools is located on the North side of Chicago. This
school asked to remain anonymous. There are 370 students enrolled, the average
class size being 24. Tuition is $5675. The total amount of financial aid given out last
year was approximately $300,000, mostly need based with the average award being
$2500; this amounts to 14% of full tuition. The population of the school is 44%
Hispanic, 30%White/Non-Hispanic, 8% Black/Non-Hispanic, 7% Asian, and 9%
Bi-racial. The average ACT was not released, but described as just above the
National Average4. Their college bound rate was 92% for last year’s graduating
class. This year’s information is not yet available. 34 responses were collected from
this school.
Johnson 22
Carmel High School is in the far north suburbs of Chicago. They average
approximately 3 points above the state average on ACT scores, at 23.7 and 99% of
students go on to college. There are 1350 students enrolled at Carmel, and the
average class size is 24. Tuition is $6030. A tuition award is given to incoming
freshman who score above the 98th percentile on the entrance exam. Their
population is 90% White, 10% Minority students. 24 responses were collected from
Carmel High School.
In most circumstances, class time was allotted or the students were asked to
complete the surveys at home and return them. Special mention must be made of
the conditions under which the survey was given to the students of Carmel high
school. All of the responses from Carmel were collected from students willing to
give up part of their lunch period to complete the survey.
The National ACT average is a Composite score of 20.8; the state average is slightly lower at 20.1
for the class of 2002.
4
Johnson 23
Results and Conclusions
The history of formal education as we understand it begins with single-sex schools.
Men learned hunting, jousting, and estate management. As Imperialism began to
take over, these studies were replaced with a classical education. It was less
acceptable for women to study anything but the arts or domestic affairs. Very few
women outside of convents had the privilege of studying the sciences, philosophy,
and literature. Even within convents, very few had the materials necessary for
education of this sort. It was necessary to present a sizable dowry to enter one of
these convents.
Eventually, it was no longer necessary to join the Church to study. All-girl schools
emerged as the solution for families who could not afford to hire private tutors for
their daughters. For centuries, the wealthy have chosen single-sex schools for their
children to attend. Monks and nuns were the first to educate because they were the
educated. The purposes of these first schools were very different for males and
females, but since then, Catholic and other private institutions have changed their
goals to meet the needs and demands of our expectations as a society. All-girl
schools are no longer finishing schools where women learn to behave well and how
to give successful dinner parties. Before Title IX assured that there must be equal
opportunity, all-girl schools were some of the first to offer women’s sports teams. It
is important to focus, not on the idea that these schools are religious institutions, but
on the fact that when comparing co-ed and all-girl private, religious institutions, the
all-girl schools are outperforming the co-ed institutions in many respects. Only half
of the students in the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago schools are Catholic. Their
Johnson 24
policies do not discriminate based on race, ethnicity, or religion (Archdiocese of
Chicago, 2003).
Many still assume that being enrolled in a girls’ school is punishment, or that all girls
who go are forced to by prudish parents who believe their daughters will end up
influenced by over-exaggerated bad influences of the “real world” in a co-ed school.
The girls I surveyed proved quite the opposite. 61% of the single-sex students said
that it was their decision to attend an all-girl school. 69% of the girls said that they
now prefer the single-sex environment and would not prefer to be at a co-ed school.
Many of the co-ed students who said that they considered attending an all-girl school
said that it was a parent’s decision not to send them there or that there were no allgirl schools nearby.
Anti-religious imagery abounds in arguments against girls’ schools. Opponents
speak of “cloistering girls away,” Carol Moseley Braun even called the idea of a girls
school “sinister (Sax, 2002).” This couldn’t be further from the truth. All-girl
schools eliminate the problem of vying for teacher attention over the boys, and allow
girls to have all of the much-needed leadership positions.
Without a doubt, Jr. High and High School is one of the most influential times in a
person’s life. During this time, skills will be learned that will be needed throughout
the rest of our lives. It is important that this time is used to focus on learning these
skills rather than focusing on the distractions and other elements of life that so often
overtake us.
Johnson 25
There are those who criticize the idea of Single-sex schools and say that it simply
postpones these problems instead of solving them. Perhaps if we can educate more
girls in a temporary system, they can take over the fight for gender equity in the
classroom by being teachers and role models for the girls of the next generation. The
goal is of course, gender equity within complete integration, but in the meantime, we
need to recognize that the system is still flawed even though it has been integrated. It
is not equal simply because girls are allowed to enroll. Perhaps single-sex schooling is
simply a postponement, but we must not forget the girls who are going through
school before integration becomes synonymous with equality. We cannot use them
as test subjects for our goal of gender equity.
Describing parents of an all girls school:
A lot are feminists who felt that the work in the public school system
was proceeding too slowly for the protection of their daughters. It’s
easy to make the choice if you have the money, but they’re only
postponing the problem, not solving it. The problem of gender equity
is a problem of society at large. Girls can’t stay in an expensive
cocoon. The problem will appear later – in college or in their career. I
just hope they’ll be sufficiently empowered to deal with it then
(Cannon, 1995).
This woman is speaking negatively, or at least tentatively, of single-sex schools, but
she makes two key points that work in favor of the single-sex argument. The
problem will appear, but it will appear later. It is, in essence, buying time. It is
creating a solution for those who are not interested in having their daughters cast to
the side until “society at large” resolves the problem of gender equity. It is an
empowering experience for young women. At all-girl schools, there is no limit to
what the girls can achieve. There are no boys to compare themselves to, so no
shortcomings, real or imaginary, can be found. No comparisons can be made.
Johnson 26
The years in middle school and high school shapes the person you will become.
Girls who experience sexual harassment, abuse, and marginalization come to expect
it. One of the most horrible and powerful, controlling elements of an abusive
situation is if a woman feels as though she deserves no better. I think it is a small
step to see the connection between first grade girls wearing pants on “skirt flip-up
day” rather than making sure that the boys, and that they themselves, know that it is
inappropriate to flip up the skirt of a girl. “[School] can also be a place of outright
insult and harassment. Larkin’s ordinary high school girls related endless episodes of
crotch grabbing, tit-pinching, and so on. Girls who objected to being “rated” on
their physical attributes as they walked down the school halls were accused of being
unable to take a joke. When girls fought back, rating guys’ butts, for instance, the
boys became verbally abusive. Girls as young as ten reported imitation “gang bangs”
on the playground (Cannon 1995).” “‘[Harassment] can be life-altering,’ she says,
pointing to girls who drop out of math and science rather than face hostility and
name-calling. More disturbing are those girls who have dropped out of school
because they couldn’t take it, and in the process, lost their future chances at good
education, jobs, and even successful marriages and relationships. The AAUW report
found that female dropouts have a much higher poverty rate than males, regardless
of race. Female dropouts are twice as likely as male dropouts to be poor,
perpetuating the cycle of silence and low esteem (Cannon 1995).” This is not good,
it is not right, and it is a fight that we must continue to struggle against, but it is a
reality for many school-aged girls. It is no longer legal for someone to use your
gender as a reason not to hire, not to enroll, but there is nothing illegal about not
Johnson 27
believing in yourself, not finishing your education, expecting or accepting failure.
These are now the most damaging things standing in the way of success for young
girls today. As a poster in the guidance office of one of the all-girl schools I visited
said, “Attitude is a little thing, that makes a BIG difference!”
There are flaws in the arguments for single-sex education, of course. Compelling
cases can be made for both viewpoints. One of the major points is that it has not
proved to be nearly as beneficial to boys as it is to girls, although there are merits to
all-boy schools. By bringing up things such as sexual harassment, comfort levels and
adolescent hormones, we assume that all high school students are heterosexual,
when this of course is not true. These are just a couple of the many reasons that we
should not force single-sex learning environments on all students. It needs to be a
choice, and it is a choice that many girls are making for themselves. In recent years,
all-girl high schools and women’s colleges have changed their marketing attitude.
Jadwiga Sebrechts of the Women’s College Coalition said “reading the brochures,
you never even knew it was a women’s college until the last line.” “Now the cover
of Smith’s new brochure reads, “Why choose a (SHH!) Women’s college (Brant,
1994)?” Several of the websites from the all-girl schools surveyed for this project use
it as one of their biggest marketing ploys. Mother McAuley has an entire section
called “Girls Rule” that includes quotes from graduates and a list of reasons for
“Why all girls?”
Cornelius Riordan, a sociology professor in Rhode Island, assures us that the results
of single-sex school studies don’t “necessarily mean that all schools should switch to
Johnson 28
a single-sex format. The more that these schools remain rare and special, the more
effective it will be (Baldauf, 1996).” He also says that “the gains are stronger,
though, for minority students and those from low-income families than for students
overall (Viadero, 2002).
Another argument often heard is that single-sex schools do not properly prepare you
for the workplace and other real life situations that will never exist as single-sex
environments. Lindsay Walsh, a high school senior is quoted in an article in USA
Today speaking out against single-sex schools. Her opinion is a conglomeration of
several aspects of this argument, and all aspects are arguments that I have run across
numerous times.
I don’t want to learn in an environment that isn’t at all realistic. If I
were off in an all-girl school it would be an admission of inferiority –
that I was there because I couldn’t quite compete with males. If I don’t
learn to compete now, when am I going to learn (Welsh, 2002)?
I was unable to find any studies dealing with graduates of all-girl schools in terms of
performance in the workplace. Sax cites a study that says, “girls who graduate from
girls-only high schools are six times more likely to major in math and science than
are girls who graduate from coed high schools (2002).” Viadero cites a study that
found Australian students in “single-sex schools scored, on average, 15 to 22
percentile points higher than peers in coeducational settings (2002).” In spite of the
lack of data, it seems logical to conclude that if girls are more self-confident in high
school, single-sex students score higher on tests designed to gauge college
performance, and are more likely to major in traditionally high paying and male
fields, that there would be no discernable problems in the workplace. These sound
Johnson 29
like arguments from someone who does not understand that single-sex schools have
evolved from the finishing schools that have existed in the past. Why would anyone
see an all-girl school as an admission of inferiority unless you already consider
women to be inferior? Nothing about these schools gives girls the idea that they are
inferior to men. They prepare girls for a life of success and reinforce their selfconfidence. Peggy Orenstein explains in her book, Schoolgirls,
Without a strong sense of self, girls will enter adulthood at a deficit:
they will be less able to fulfill their potential, less willing to take on
challenges, less willing to defy tradition in their career choices, which
means sacrificing economic equity (1994).
Orenstein found in the girls from her study that their low self-esteem made them
"unable to withstand the small failures necessary for long-term academic success
(1995)." Failing to recognize that not every girl has a positive experience in a co-ed
environment because some do, is an atrocity to those girls failed by a system that
caters to men. Hopefully some day, girls like Lindsay Walsh will be the standard
American schoolgirl. She is not discriminated against in her classes, she is free to
share her opinions without fear of repercussions from classmates, and she enjoys
hearing viewpoints other than her own. The problem is that not all girls are getting
Lindsay’s education. They face increasing amounts of sexual harassment from
fellow students, apathy from teachers, and obsession with material things including
their appearance. Putting a girl like Lindsay into a single-sex school probably would
not influence her education in many ways. Students like her prove that our goal of
equity is attainable. It is the other girls that I am concerned about.
Johnson 30
Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women, asks us “But why
do we want to teach our children that avoiding problems is the best way to deal with
them (2002)?” In some respects, she is correct. Running away from adversity is not
something that we should be teaching our children. But sometimes, when the
choices are limited and the problems are large enough, removing a component from
the argument can be a viable option. What’s wrong with taking the easy way? By
taking out one of the factors, the solution becomes easier to find. So far there has
been no panacea for sex-discrimination. Until we find one, this is a simple and
immediate solution for an immediate problem. Feminism is about equality and
facing problems, but it’s also about options. Are all school systems discriminatory
towards girls? Absolutely not, but those that are, need a dramatic change. “Some
people who support same-gender schools argue that it is harder to reform the nation’s
entire school system than it is to tinker with a few models that address specific
problems (Baldauf, 1996).” I must ask a counter to Kim Gandy: Why would we
want to subject our children to sex-discrimination at such an early age? The more of
life they have without being discriminated against, the more change they have of
building self-confidence that will later equip them not to stand for discrimination.
They will learn the concepts of why discrimination is unjust before they have learned
to passively accept it as their lot in life. Ravitch comments, “[Single-sex
education’s] opponents, as one would expect, are all lawyers, not educators (1996).
Parents want immediate answers. The legal experts are interested only in the long
term; educators are interested in what gets the job done now.
Johnson 31
One of the things that many critics allude to in their arguments against single-sex
schools is that parents who send their children to single-sex schools are more likely to
be involved in their children’s lives, which positively affects their schoolwork. This
argument is usually used to perpetuate the idea that the existing research doesn’t
conclusively prove anything.
Perhaps those positive research results reflect not the school itself but
what kind of students—and parents—the school attracts. Maybe, for
instance, parents who choose single-sex are more ambitious for their
daughters, care less about producing a ‘popular’ teenager, take a bigger
hand in their children’s education (Pollitt, 1994).
The girls were asked to rate their parents by how involved they were in their school
life. The following scale was used:
1
My parents are not involved at all. They don’t even look at my report card.
2-4 They look at my report card and make sure that I go to school.
5-7 They ask me about homework and tests sometimes, but pretty much leave
me to my schoolwork.
8-10 They are very involved and regularly ask how school is going, when I have
tests, and what classes are giving me a hard time
What I found was that 11% of students in all-girl schools said that their parents
didn’t even look at their report card, as compared with 3% of the co-ed students who
said the same. Three of the all girl students even wrote in a “0” rating. If the results
are looked at in terms of a single high category and a single low category, splitting
the responses into a “0-4” category and a “5-10” category, the results are
approximately proportionate. 29% of all-girl students as compared to 28% of co-ed
students fall into the lower half, leaving 71% of all-girl students and 72% of co-ed
students with involved parents. This indicates that whether or not parental
involvement does improve the quality of a student’s education, as I believe it can, it
is not something that has influenced the results of this survey.
Johnson 32
In many of the studies I reviewed, girls have been shown to be lacking in
participation in Math, Science, and Technology. Myra and David Sadker have been
studying “the gender gap” in education since the 1970’s when a difference between
their own seemingly identical doctoral programs became apparent. In Failing at
Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls, they discuss the different ways in which girls are
silenced in the classroom.5 “The college classroom is the finale of a twelve-year
rehearsal, the culminating showcase for a manly display of verbal dominance
(Sadker, 1995). As bell hooks describes in “Talking Back,” speaking aloud can be a
rite of initiation and a test of courage; it can mean the “movement from object to
subject – the liberated voice (1989).” The Sadker studies show that men are twice as
likely to monopolize a discussion; women are twice as likely to be completely silent
(1995). Of the more active students, those who “blurt out answers, sometimes way
off the mark, before other students formulate their ideas,” are more likely to be men
(Sadker, 1995). When a teacher calls on a student, they wait longer for men to
answer; when women do speak, they are more likely to be interrupted. They are also
more likely to preface their response with a self-devaluating statement such as “I’m
not sure if this is what you want...” or “This is just a guess, but…” or speak in “such
a soft and tentative manner that their classmates don’t even bother to listen (Sadker,
1995).” The Sadkers also report that after women make a comment, a teacher is less
likely to make eye contact with a female student, less likely to offer praise, and less
likely to offer constructive criticism or challenge a female student to improve upon a
5
Their discussion stems from a Harvard University classroom experience, but similar situations are
described by Orenstein and elsewhere in the Sadker work, to exist in middle school and high school
classrooms.
Johnson 33
correct, but incomplete response. All of these things are critical feedback needed for
improvement, the reason for being a student in the first place.
Because of the importance of participation, it was the first question that the students
were asked. Participation levels in Math, Science, Technology, and History were
significantly higher at Single-sex schools. Only in English is participation higher at
the co-ed schools. I asked the students to evaluate themselves on participation and
found that the differences lie not in the top students, but in the average to below
average students. As I looked at the statistics I realized that although there were
similar percentages of top students, it seemed a lot more of the co-ed students were
not participating at all. So from this, I decided to calculate a different statistic. This
time, I would take out the top students and just look at the students who responded
with a 1-5 on the following scale:
1 Only when I’m called on
2 Less than 5 times per quarter
3 Every two or three class periods
4 Once or twice a week
5 Once per class period
6 Several times each class period
In Math classes, the Single-sex students were only slightly less likely to say that they
only participated when called on or volunteered a response less than 5 times per
quarter. 39% of single-sex students said that they participated at least once each class
period, compared to 37% of co-ed students. I find it particularly important to note
that although there is often a larger percentage of co-ed students who responded with
“several times each class period,” when you consider the students below that, you
begin to see larger differences. A larger portion of the single-sex students stay in the
Johnson 34
middle range instead of dropping straight to the bottom. Essentially, the number of
very active participators (in both the single-sex and co-ed schools) are weighting the
statistics. When we remove the top students (students who responded with a 6:
several times each class period), we see a more distinct problem. 59% of those co-ed
students fall straight to the bottom with the response of “1: only when I’m called
on,” while only 46% of single-sex students say the same. 20% of single-sex students
stay at the top of that group with a response of “5: Once per class period,” while only
8% stay at the top of that group.
Math Participation
45%
40%
Math Participation without top
achievers
40%
60%
35%
30%
50%
26%
23%
25%
59%
32%
35%
20%
23%
16%
co-ed
15%
10%
all-girl
46%
40%
34%
33%
30%
all-girl
20%
20%
5%
5%
10%
0%
1 to 2
3 to 4
5
responses
6
co-ed
8%
0%
1 to 2
3 to 4
5
responses
In science class, 25% of students responded that they participated less than 5 times
per quarter or only when they were called on, compared with 44% of co-ed students.
46% of single-sex students said they participated at least once per class period,
compared with 39% of co-ed students. When the average to below average group is
looked at, 57% of co-ed students fall to the “1: only when I’m called on” category,
while only 31% of single-sex students responded this way. 32% of single-sex students
stayed at the “5: once per class period,” while only 20% stayed at the top.
Johnson 35
Science Participation without top
achievers
Science Participation
45%
44%
60%
40%
35%
50%
30%
29%
40%
26%
25% 25%
20%
57%
18%
15%
23%
20%
16%
all-girl
co-ed
30%
36%
32%
31%
23%
20%
all-girl
20%
co-ed
10%
10%
5%
0%
0%
1 to 2 3 to 4
5
responses
6
1 to 2
3 to 4
5
responses
The most significant of the participation rankings is for Technology. 52% of the coed students surveyed responded that they participate less than 5 times per quarter.
Included in this percentage is that 39% of the respondents never volunteer a
response; they only participate when the teacher calls on them. Only 38% of singlesex students responded that they participate less than 5 times per quarter. 39% of
single-sex students and 33% of co-ed students participate once or more each class
period. 23% of single-sex students and 15% of co-ed students fall in between these
categories, responding that they volunteer between once every third class period and
once per week. This shows that although there is a similar proportion of girls with
high participation in the classes, the overall percentage of students participating every
third class period or more frequently is much higher for the all-girl students. 62% of
all-girl students participate at least every third class period, while only 48% of co-ed
students participate at the same level. When the middle to bottom category is looked
at, 69% of co-ed students fall to the “1: only when I’m called on” category while only
44% of single-sex students find themselves next to silent. 29% of all-girl students stay
Johnson 36
at the top in the “5: once per class period” category while only 11% stay actively
engaged.
Technology Participation
Technology Participation without
top achievers
60%
50%
70%
52%
69%
60%
40% 38%
50%
30%
40%
23%
24%
24%
15%
10%
all-girl
co-ed
20%
15%
9%
44%
30%
27%
20%
20%
all-girl
co-ed
11%
10%
0%
29%
0%
1 to 2 3 to 4
5
6
1 to 2
responses
3 to 4
5
responses
Even in History classes, where participation has not been known to be a problem, a
notable difference is seen. 33% of co-ed students say they never volunteer an answer,
while only 19% of all-girl students say the same. The survey responses show that
participation is much higher in single-sex schools. When we remove the top students
(students who responded with a 6: several times each class period), we see a more
distinct problem. 25% of those single-sex students say they only participate when
called on, while 45% of co-ed students say the same.
Johnson 37
History Participation
History Participation without top
achievers
45%
40%
41%
60%
35%
55%
50%
30% 29%
25%
20%
15%
26%
24%
24%
23%
19%
15%
40%
all-girl
co-ed
38%
31%
25%
30%
31%
all-girl
20%
20%
co-ed
10%
10%
5%
0%
0%
1 to 2 3 to 4
5
6
1 to 2
responses
3 to 4
5
responses
The results are clear, but I leave it up to the students to explain them. The following
were responses concerning all-girl schools from the question “What do you think are
the major differences between all-girl and co-ed schools?”
“I think you're more focused. You don't have to worry about things
like feeling weird if you raise your hand.”
“Its definitely easier to concentrate because there are no temptations of
staring at guys all day. That definitely helps my grades.”
“You can pay attention easier during class instead of looking at the
cute boy in class.”
“you're not afraid to ask questions; you feel more comfortable.”
“Personally, I feel that I have learned better at McAuley than I would
have at a co-ed school because I'm not afraid to raise my hand and ask
or answer questions, but I'm not sure I would have at a co-ed school. If
I were to go into a co-ed school it would be different than going into a
co-ed school 3 years ago. I am more self-assured now.”
Johnson 38
The girls were asked to tell me how high a math field, a science field, and a
technology field were ranked as possibilities for an undergraduate major. The co-ed
students were more likely to rank Math and Science as “top 10” or higher, but the
all-girl students were slightly more likely to rank Technology as “top 10” or higher.
Of the girls who did rank Math on their list, 37% of single-sex students ranked it as
one of their “top 5” fields, as compared to 32% of co-ed students.
The students were also asked if they were interested in pursuing education after a
bachelor’s degree. These results seem to vary so much by school, that a bigger
sample would be needed to recognize if the results are related to the single-sex or coed status of the school. Overall, 83% of all-girl students and 95% of co-ed students
said Yes or Maybe when asked if they were interested in pursuing a medical, law, or
masters degree. This could also be affected by the fact that the percentage of college
bound girls is 100% for co-ed students and only 97% for all-girl students.
One of the things I became quite interested in during my research was the idea of a
co-institution. The basis of this is that an all-girl and an all-boy school combine for
resources and for certain classes and clubs. I have found no body of research for this
and set out in my surveys, particularly interested in surveying girls in these schools to
see if the co-educational element to these classes (generally high level math, science,
and technology courses) has any effect on whether girls enroll. It is also a growing
practice for a co-ed school to make separate sections of a class for the boys and girls.
Several of these partner schools exist in the Chicagoland area. The girls in co-ed
schools were asked if they would enroll in a class that had separate sections for girls
Johnson 39
and boys. The students in the all-girl schools were asked if they would see sharing
their classroom with boys as a barrier for a class that they wanted to take. I found
that it is much more important to the students of a co-ed school that they stay in coed classes than it was for girls to stay in all-girl classes, although 69% of the students
in all-girl schools prefer to be in an all-girl school. The students in all-girl schools
focused their answers on things such as “why would I let a boy stand in the way of a
class I wanted?” or “of course I would still enroll. It’s about the class, not the people
in it.” 85% of the girls in all-girl schools said that they would still enroll in the class,
11% said it depended on the class, and only 4% said that they would not enroll in the
class. Only 59% of the girls in co-ed schools that they would definitely enroll in the
class; 25% said that even though it was a course they wanted to take, they liked boys
in their classes too much to enroll in an all-girl class; 11% said they would consider it
depending on the class, and 6% wrote in that they would only enroll in a single-sex
gym or sexual health class6.
John Fairhurst has watched the academic performance of his students decline slowly
over his years as a high school principal. It wasn’t just scores on standardized tests
that were disintegrating, but that “Students just don’t seem to care about learning
any more.” He listened to the studies telling him that students in single-sex
classrooms “have more zest for learning,” and implemented separate classes. Since
There are several questions that come out of these results that I find myself unable to answer and in
need of further research to do anything other than speculate. Why are the co-ed girls unwilling to take
a class just because there will be no boys involved? Why is it so important to have boys in the
classroom? This emphasis on “needing” as one student wrote in, or preferring boys in the classroom,
indicates an emphasis on interaction instead of an emphasis on learning. They were told that the class
was only being offered as an all-girl class and that it was a class they wanted to take. Does this also
indicate a dependence on boys?
6
Johnson 40
1994, his students’ test scores have risen in boys by 26 percent and girls by 22 percent
and the girls outperform the boys (Sax, 2002).
Since this school was not concerned about deficiencies harming girls’ performances,
but still experienced improvements, I decided to investigate the interest level in
learning, not just in school performance. The girls were asked how often they read a
book unrelated to class work. 10% of single-sex students surveyed make time to read
a book once a week or more in addition to their class work. Only 2% of co-ed
students read the same. Of all the girls who responded that they do read outside of
the classroom, 55% of single-sex students make time for at least one book every other
month, only 30% of co-ed students said the same. However, 34% of single-sex
students said that they never read outside of schoolwork, while only 19% of co-ed
students said the same.
Reading Habits
40%
30%
all-girl
20%
co-ed
10%
0%
1/week
1/month
every other
month
less often
summer only
never
As I thought about the ways the girls reacted to being asked these questions, one
thing stood out above the rest. Even though the co-ed students who took the survey
were largely volunteers, not one of them asked me anything about my project. The
all-girl schools invariably asked me why I was asking these questions, what my
Johnson 41
project was about, questions about college, or inquired after how well my research
was going. They were genuinely interested in the survey and my research. I went
into the co-ed schools expecting the same questions and inquiry and found none.
Janet Gallagher, director of the Women’s Rights Project for the ACLU, said the idea
that girls and boys inevitably distract each other is an “enormously dangerous”
presumption, one that reminds her of her days in Catholic school, where girls were
encouraged to think of themselves as “walking occasions of sin (Gutmann, 1996).”
Contrary to what Ms. Gallagher believes, I have no interest in perpetuating the
stereotype that boys and girls inevitably distract each other. I disagree with people
like Michael Gurien who believe that there are biological differences in the ways girls
and boys think and learn (2001). This preoccupation is however, something that
exists in our culture. It is not inevitable, it is learned. Girls learn it through the
media, from friends, from parents, from teachers. Not every girl will be distracted by
males in her classroom, but we cannot ignore a problem simply because there is a
larger one causing it. Sexual harassment and consensual sexual interaction are both
increasing at younger ages. Girls are suffering the more brutal repercussions, and
schoolwork, so much a part of every young person’s life, suffers along with it. June
Larkin, author of Sexual Harassment: High School Girls Speak Out, is quoted as saying
“Silence, loss of self-esteem, verbal harassment, and high school dropout rates aren’t
supposed to be the fruits of thirty years of women’s liberation (Cannon, 1995).”
We can’t expect miracles overnight. Everything in a girl’s life today is telling her
that she needs to be beautiful in the world to succeed. A frightening shift has
Johnson 42
happened in the media and pop culture today. Young women are portrayed as
though they are no longer rejecting that they are sexual objects, they are embracing it
and using it as a supposed empowering image. Creators of popular culture are
targeting an increasingly young audience. The emphasis is on sexual interaction,
between boys and girls, whether implied or actual. Girls are taught how to yield
their sexuality as a weapon or as a tool before they have even entered puberty. This
culminates in school, when impressing the opposite sex becomes the focus of each
day.
Today’s beauty is largely artificial though. Girls can spend hours every morning
applying makeup, styling their hair, and dressing for the school day. Students at allgirl schools are notorious for not caring how they dress or look for their school day.
This is best described in the words of the students themselves.
We wake up ten minutes before our ride comes, brush our teeth, put
on deodorant, and walk out the door, others have to get ready.
I think the major difference is that at an all-girl school we are more free
and don't worry about appearance or what we say. At a co-ed school,
you have to worry about that because you might want to impress the
other sex.
I think all-girls schools are more focused on academics and school
related activities. Girls do not have to spend hours a day getting ready
for school, so that time can be used studying for tests, finishing
homework, etc.
One student summed this up more succinctly than I could ever hope to. “I don't have
to get ready in the morning, so you can get up later, so you can sleep longer, so you
think better.” Appearance was not mentioned in any of the questions, and yet this
aspect of school life appeared in many unexpected places throughout the surveys.
Johnson 43
The co-ed students envy this aspect of all-girls schools even if they reject every other
aspect of it, and the all-girl students continually praise it. It was one of the most
common responses when the girls were asked to name the major differences between
single-sex and co-ed schools; some girls added a reference to it when they were asked
if they were looking forward to attending an all girl school or if they would rather be
at a co-ed school. They also use it as part of their explanation to people who react
negatively to the idea that they attend an all-girl school. It seems that this vanity is
universal, but it is also resented. Girls resent the idea that they must make
themselves artificially beautiful to be found attractive, but still believe that they must.
In most cases, single-sex education does not eliminate this belief; there is nothing to
suggest that these girls are rejecting pop culture stereotypes, it has simply been
eliminated it as a factor in the school day.
As I was talking after my surveys with one of the principles, she had an interesting
opinion of the co-institutional campuses that I was so interested in. She related that
it is usually the girls’ school that is merged into the boys’ school and given their
name. After this happens, the administration changes as does the curriculum and a
lot of other things about the school. It becomes a boys’ school that admits girls
instead of an all-girl school. Unfortunately, when these campuses start popping up,
the girls are often losing some of the benefits of being in an all-girl environment. In
the case of appearance, they are seeing boys in the hallways, during lunch, and for
certain classes. Do the students still have the same disregard for their appearance
that seems to be such a positive experience for many of them? It seems unlikely that
they would. The point is that this has still not solved the problem of girls focusing on
Johnson 44
their image and appearance when they are surrounded by the opposite sex, it is
simply a temporary hiatus from this obsession – enough of one to focus on their
schoolwork.
There are so many things that we would all like to fix about the educational system,
about the lives of women in general, that it often seems such a daunting task that we
feel is going nowhere. I believe that the research offered here is a positive addition to
the growing body of research surrounding single-sex education but that more is
always needed. An in-depth study of sexual harassment concerning what single-sex
schools would mean for it is certainly a large area to be covered, something that was
not possible in this study.
Replying to a complaint that it is no less than sexual segregation, June Larkin,
author of Sexual Harassment: Girls Speak Out, bluntly states my exact position on this
issue when she says, “We’re fooling ourselves if we think girls are getting an equal
education in the co-ed classroom. As the years move on, boys take more and more
of the verbal space and girls say less and less. … Girls are already segregated in the
schools and they’re suffering from it. We need to make changes now, not five years
from now (Cannon 1995).” I firmly believe, and feel that I have presented sufficient
evidence in the previous pages to convince others, that single-sex schooling is one of
the changes that we can make now. As I’ve said before, it is a temporary, but
immediate solution to a long-standing problem. We come closer to solving this
problem the time, but for some of us the process is too slow. We must take what we
know and put it into practice so that we can truly say that no child is left behind.