Single-sex education: the pros and cons

Single-sex education (teaching boys and girls in separate classrooms or schools) is an old approach regaining momentum. While single-sex education has long existed in many private schools, it鈥檚 a relatively new option for public schools. in 2004, but by 2017 U.S. Department of Education data estimated more than 1,000 single-gender public schools. are all boys, 55 percent are all girls, and are overwhelmingly Black and Latino.

Since 2006, federal law has supported the option of single-sex education. when Education Secretary Margaret Spellings , allowing schools to offer single-sex classrooms and schools, as long as such options are completely voluntary. This move has given parents and school districts greater flexibility, but the research on its value remains a matter of debate.

Nature vs. nurture

Before weighing the pros and cons of single-sex education, consider the influences of 鈥渘ature versus nurture.鈥� Many factors affect each child鈥檚 learning profile and preferences:

• Some factors relate to the child鈥檚 nature, such as gender, temperament, abilities (and disabilities), and intelligence.
• Other influences stem from the way parents and society nurture the child: Family upbringing, socioeconomic status, culture, and stereotypes all fall under the 鈥渘urture鈥� category.

Advocates of single-sex education argue for the value of separating children from a number of different angles. The most prominent advocate is psychologist and physician Leonard Sax, whose books < (2005), (2007), and (2010), argue that boys and girls are inherently different and need different educational experiences. Others have argued that the success of women鈥檚 colleges point to a value in female-only education, where the chroniclers of the boys growing academic struggles compared to their female peers suggest that boys need girl-free education to fight the stereotype that boys can鈥檛 read.

Critics point to a lack of evidence for such claims, summarized by a 2008 New York Times article, which explained that 鈥渕any academics and progressives tend to find Sax鈥檚 views stereotyped and infuriating.” They point out that studies on the impact of single-sex education on learning often do not account for the fact that most single-sex schools are selective or draw from a different population than coeducational public schools. Former president of the American Psychological Association, Diane F. Halpern co-published “ with other scholars, lambasting sex-segregated education as 鈥渄eeply misguided, and often justified by weak, cherrypicked, or misconstrued scientific claims.鈥� The subject even inspired a where researchers and pundits squared off about the benefits and bluster of single-sex learning.

So, who鈥檚 right? Below are arguments both for and against single-sex education.

Making the case for single-sex education

Those who advocate for single-sex education in public schools argue that:

• Some parents don鈥檛 want their children to be in mixed-gender classrooms because, especially at certain ages, students of the opposite sex can be a distraction.
• A from the University of Southern California indicates girls learn better when the classroom temperature is warm, while boys perform better in cooler classrooms. If that鈥檚 true, then the temperature in a single-sex classroom could be set to optimize the learning of either male or female students.
• Evidence suggests single-sex education can broaden the educational prospects for both girls and boys. A examining students in Seoul, Korea, concluded, 鈥渕ale high school seniors attending all-boys schools show higher levels of science interests鈥�than their counterparts attending coeducational schools.鈥�
• A also reports, 鈥淸F]emale students in all-female classes experience less stereotype threat and perform better in their mathematics grades than their female peers in coeducational classes.鈥�
• Advocates claim co-ed schools reinforce gender stereotypes, while single-sex schools can break down gender stereotypes. Girls are free of the pressure to compete with boys in male-dominated subjects such as math and science, while boys can more easily pursue traditionally 鈥渇eminine鈥� interests such as music and poetry.
• Some research offers evidence in favor of co-ed education for boys but single-sex for girls. A 2011 study by Victor Lavy and Analia Schlosser titled 鈥溾�� determined 鈥渁n increase in the proportion of girls impose boys and girls鈥� cognitive outcomes鈥� in elementary schools, caused by 鈥渓ower levels of classroom disruption and violence, improved inter-student and student-teacher relations, and lessened teacher fatigue.鈥�

What critics say about single-sex education

Those who claim single-sex education is ineffective and/or undesirable make the following claims:

• The impact on learning isn鈥檛 conclusive. For instance, in one of the few studies that controlled for a host of parental, individual and school level factors, researchers analyzing Irish schools (where about one third of the students attend gender segregated schools) who attend single-sex schools compared to their mixed-school peers in science, mathematics or reading.鈥�
• Few educators are formally trained to use gender-specific teaching techniques. However, it鈥檚 no secret that experienced teachers usually understand gender differences and are adept at accommodating a variety of learning styles within their mixed-gender classrooms.
• Gender differences in learning aren鈥檛 the same across the board; they vary along a continuum of what is considered normal. For a sensitive boy or an assertive girl, the teaching style promoted by advocates of single-sex education could be ineffective (at best) or detrimental (at worst).
• It doesn鈥檛 teach genders to work together. Students in single-sex classrooms will one day live and work side-by-side with members of the opposite sex. Educating students in single-sex schools limits their opportunity to work cooperatively and co-exist successfully with members of the opposite sex.
• It perpetuates gender stereotyping. For instance, the ACLU opposes single-sex schools, claiming they are based on 鈥渏unk science鈥� to perpetuate 鈥渄isturbing gender stereotypes鈥� and are a 鈥渨aste of time鈥� that divert attention from more valuable reforms, such as reducing class size and increasing teacher training. Or as Diane F. Halpern鈥檚 put it in 鈥�…sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism.鈥�

Measuring public perception

How does the public view single-sex education? The 鈥渁verage鈥� adult has a different opinion than the graduates of these schools.

In a only 25% of adult men surveyed thought all-boys schools were 鈥渂etter鈥� than co-ed schools, with the same percentage viewing them as 鈥渨orse.鈥� Adult women were less enthusiastic 鈥� only 17% thought all-boy schools were superior, with 21% regarding them as worse. Public opinion of all-girls schools was a bit more generous: 25% of men thought they were better for girls than coed schools, and 22% said they were worse, while 20% of women viewed all-girls schools as better than coeds, with 19% claiming they were worse.

People who actually attended single-sex schools were far more supportive. Men who attended all-boys schools were 45 percent positive, claiming it was better than coed, with 29 percent saying they were worse. Women who attended all-girls schools were 41 percent positive, and 26 percent negative.

Many (often most) people answered the survey question with 鈥渘ot sure鈥� or 鈥渘o difference.鈥� Their uncertainty mirrors the overall ambiguity of the co-ed vs. single-sex school question. As is true of many educational questions, the answer for any given family often depends on context. For instance, is the school operating in a culture where a single-sex education might offer students a respite from gender discrimination? Is the school (coeducational or single-sex) reinforcing gender stereotypes or working against them? Why might the family want single-sex education for their child? Is it intended to empower the child to succeed and learn or keep them narrowly focused on acceptable gender roles?