Running head: PROS AND CONS OF SAME-SEX SCHOOLING The Pros and Cons of Same-Sex Schooling Katheryne Ayers Wright State University ECE 3500: Families, Schools, and Communities 1 PROS AND CONS OF SAME-SEX SCHOOLING 2 Abstract Same-sex schooling is on the rise in the United States, with more than 500 schools in the country offering learning environments when students are separated by gender. Proponents argue that boys and girls have different learning styles and that separating them reduces distractions, increases classroom performance and provides opportunities for girls to thrive in typically maledominated subjects like math and science. Opponents argue that same-sex schooling environments reinforce gender-based stereotypes and have no real impact on student learning. While federal law supports the right for single sex schools to exist, research on the effects of single-gender classrooms has shown that separating children based on gender has very little impact on their learning and that the academic disparity based on socio-economic status is more prominent than the gap based on gender. Keywords: co-educational, same-sex schooling, same-sex education, single sex education, learning environment, gender, sex, stereotypes, sexism PROS AND CONS OF SAME-SEX SCHOOLING 3 The Pros and Cons of Same-Sex Schooling Most students begin their formal education in co-educational, or mixed gender schools, with boys and girls taking classes together, learning the same skills and subjects and being taught with generally the same methods. Same-sex schooling continued to be popular well into the 19th century, especially in secondary schools, but John Dewey and his theories on progressivism in education popularized mixed gender learning, and it was the predominate force in American schools by the end of the 20th century (Vanze, 2010). At the turn of the 21st century, however, there has been a growing trend toward single sex learning environments, where male and female students attend schools exclusively with members of their own sex. In 2002, when the National Association for Single Sex Public Education was founded, there were only a dozen public schools offering single sex classrooms; by 2012, that number had increased to over 500, of which 390 were coeducational schools offering single-sex classrooms while retaining co-ed activities, and the remaining schools being fully single sex campuses (National Association for Single Sex Public Education, 2013). The idea of separating students based on sex is based on the idea that girls and boys learn differently and that separating students by gender will encourage them to branch out and pursue subjects of interest that are stereotypically dominated by the opposite sex (Smyth, 2010). While the rise in single sex schooling does not seem to pose a threat to traditional coeducational settings, the rapid increase in the number of these schools has led to an increase in research in order to determine whether or not these single sex schooling environments provide any benefit for the students they serve. Single sex education in the United States is not a new concept; colonial era families educated their children separately based on gender, with boys being taught a trade by their fathers or a skilled craftsman, and girls being educated in homemaking by their mothers PROS AND CONS OF SAME-SEX SCHOOLING 4 (Barbour, Barbour, & Scully, 2011). Gradually, as the responsibility of education shifted to brick-and-mortar schools, co-education became the norm, especially with the passing of the Title IX amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 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” (United States Department of Education, 2015), with separate activities for one gender permitted only if a comparable activity is offered for the other gender. As a result of Title IX, very few schools had the chance to offer single sex classrooms. This changed dramatically at the dawn of the new millennium with the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, which allowed public school districts to use federal money to create and support same-sex classrooms and schools as a means of increasing educational outcomes and providing more education options for parents (United States Department of Education, 2005). The regulations in the NCLB Act paved the way for changes to the wording of Title IX, which came in 2006, permitting same-sex schooling under the conditions that enrollment is voluntary and that schools cannot use the provisions in the Act to deny certain benefits or participation in activities based on gender (Vanze, 2010). With support from the federal government, more and more districts began the process of forming single-sex schools or implementing same-sex classrooms within their buildings. Proponents of same-sex schooling argue that having all-girls and all-boys classrooms can help increase student performance based on the idea that boys and girls learn differently. Advocates suggest that co-educational settings advantage girls but disadvantage boys, and the best way to give all students the best educational opportunity is to split them by gender and place them in a setting that can accommodate boys’ and girls’ so-called ‘hardwired’ learning PROS AND CONS OF SAME-SEX SCHOOLING 5 differences (Gibb, Fergusson, & Horwood, 2008). Another big draw for same-sex school is the perceived lack of distraction by the presence of students of the other gender, especially at the middle and high school level, where the distraction can manifest itself in a variety of ways, whether it’s “dressing to impress the other gender, competition for teacher time and attention, or sexual harassment” (Jackson, 2010), although many of these arguments do not take into consideration the existence of gay, lesbian and bisexual students. Proponents also cite the increased confidence in girls, and the belief that the absence of the opposite sex will break down gender-based stereotypes by encouraging girls to enroll in typically masculine pursuits like math and science, and boys to pursue typically feminine activities such as art, language arts and theater (Feniger, 2010). On the opposite side of the argument, opponents of same-sex schooling refute the idea that boys and girls learn differently. Brain researchers have found very few developmental differences in children’s brains based on their gender (Halpern, et al., 2011). Opponents also find that in some scenarios, gender-based stereotyping becomes worse in single-gender classrooms, where often boys are engaged in boisterous, competitive situations while girls are placed in calm, cooperative settings. These stereotypes tend to reinforce the idea that girls cannot be loud or competitive and that boys cannot be quiet or cooperative (Jackson, 2010). Being in a coeducational classroom also allows students greater opportunity to interact with peers of the opposite sex in comparison to single-sex schools, and encourages the development of positive relationships between boys and girls (Halpern, et al., 2011). Although the vast majority of the modern same-sex public schools and classrooms in the United States have only been formed within the last fifteen years, extensive research has been carried out to determine the efficacy of these schools, as well as drawing on the experiences and PROS AND CONS OF SAME-SEX SCHOOLING 6 research on same-sex education in other countries. In a study of over 20,000 Israeli secondary students, researchers found that there was no academic difference in mathematics, physics or biology courses between girls in an all-girls school and the co-educational school (Feniger, 2010). Same-sex schools tend to be higher achieving due to competitive enrollment (many have a waiting list) and rigorous curriculum, but research has also found that there is no discernable difference when compared to coeducational schools with a similar curriculum. Single-sex schools also tend to use teaching styles based on gender stereotypes, and this can have a damaging effect on children. Research shows that while it is important for girls to be able to read stories with female heroines, it is equally important for boys to do the same; in the same vein, if rationally feminine interests and learning styles are used at an all-girls school, it ignores the students who hold other interests, puts students at risk of developing more stereotypical views of gender., and discourages the idea that “kids are more than their gender” (Jackson, 2010). In conclusion, the modern version of same-sex schooling is still a relatively new concept in the United States, but early research seems to indicate that there is no real significant difference between the achievement of students in a single-sex classroom and students in a mixed gender classroom, provided they have similar curriculums. Some studies show that samesex school can encourage further gender stereotyping and reduce the opportunity for students to interact with members of the opposite sex, leaving them unprepared for the real world without truly addressing the challenge of the gender gap, or the socio-economic inequalities that have a bigger bearing on the academic success of American students—research found that both students from ethnic minorities and students from low socio-economic backgrounds excel in same-sex learning environment, not because of the single-gender environment, but typically because of the more rigorous curriculum and higher expectations. Perhaps it would be a better option to place PROS AND CONS OF SAME-SEX SCHOOLING more of a focus on how to help the most struggling learners, typically poor children from working class families, rather than schools leading children into the very same gender stereotypes they’re meant to avoid. 7 PROS AND CONS OF SAME-SEX SCHOOLING 8 References Barbour, C., Barbour, N. H., & Scully, P. (2011). Families, Schools and Communities (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Feniger, Y. (2010). The Gender Gap in Advanced Math and Science Course Taking: Does SameSex Education Make A Difference? Sex Roles, 670–679. Gibb, S. J., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008). Effects of single-sex and coeducational schooling on the gender gap in educational achievement. Australian Journal of Education, 301-317. Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J., . . . Martin, C. L. (2011). The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling. Science, 1706-1707. Jackson, J. (2010). ‘Dangerous presumptions’: how single-sex schooling reifies false notions of sex, gender, and sexuality. Gender and Education, 227–238. National Association for Single Sex Public Education. (2013). NASSPE: Schools. Retrieved September 29, 2015, from http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm Pahlke, E., Hyde, J. S., & Allison, C. M. (2014). The Effects of Single-Sex Compared With Coeducational Schooling on Students’ Performance and Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1042–1072. Smyth, E. (2010). Single-sex Education: What Does Research Tell Us? Revue française de pédagogie , 47-55. United States Department of Education. (2005). Guidelines regarding Single Sex Classes and Schools. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/t9-guidelines-ss.html PROS AND CONS OF SAME-SEX SCHOOLING 9 United States Department of Education. (2015). Title IX and Sex Discrimination. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html Vanze, J. S. (2010). The Constitutionality of Single-Sex Public Education in Pennsylvania Elementary and Secondary Schools. Journal of Constitutional Law, 1479-1507.
