essay about single gender schools

The Pros and Cons of Single-Gender Schools

Single-gender education is still an option for many private school families.

Single-Gender Schools: Pros and Cons

A group of schoolgirls sit talking at a table outside of school

Getty Images

Experts recommend that parents consider whether the arguments a school makes for single-gender education match their values.

While public schools have long been coeducational, families that consider private schools are almost certain to encounter single-gender options, and it is important to weigh the pros and cons.

Single-gender schools have a long history in the U.S. In fact, until the 1960s and 70s, it was common for boys and girls to be separated for at least some of their classes. Today, most K-12 classrooms are coeducational and, though there are some single-gender public schools , most are private.

Public or private, there are arguments both for and against single-gender education, and the research on the subject is mixed. Opponents say it limits vital social interaction while proponents say it is an opportunity to customize the educational experience, increase confidence and strengthen community involvement.

“I personally can’t think of any bad things that come from empowering girls and allowing them to really be confident in their leadership skills,” says Carrie Wagner, CEO of GALS Inc. and the founder and executive director of Girls Athletic Leadership School Los Angeles, known as GALS LA.

Single-Gender Education for Girls

According to research collected by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools , graduates of all-girls schools are more likely than those attending coeducational schools to impact their communities; perform better academically; consider majoring in math, science or technology; and have higher aspirations and greater motivation.

However other research , including a 2014 meta-analysis by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Whitman College, has found little evidence of benefits. Pscyhology professor Janet Hyde, one of the authors of the analysis, explained in an interview that many studies on the benefits of single-gender education fail to account for other factors that might influence success.

“Especially in the United States, parents who choose single-sex schooling, on average, have more money and more education, which all predict performance,” she said. “So if you find that the students are performing better, you don’t know if it’s due to the single sex education or the fact that they started out with these advantages.”

Vanessa Garza, founding principal at GALS LA, argues that a single-gender learning environment benefits girls by increasing confidence which, in turn, builds leadership capabilities.

“If you look around the room, who’s going to be the student body president?” she says. “It’s going to be a female. Who’s going to lead an after-school club? It’s going to be a female.”

While there can be competition, girls can also be very supportive in a single-gender setting, Wagner says.

“What you find at our school, and what I found when I was going to my own all-girls high school in Ohio, is that the girls are just super supportive of one another,” she says.

Single-Gender Education for Boys

Some education experts say that single-gender schools can help reduce behavioral issues for boys because the educational environment provides a more comfortable classroom experience.

“In single-gender schools, boys are often more willing to take risks because they don’t feel the fear of failing in front of the other sex,” says Matt Albert, executive director of the Center for Reflective Communities in Los Angeles, which works to enhance the relationship between children and parents or caregivers. “Single-gender schools can establish more relaxed environments [and] less gender stereotyping, and courses can be tailored to student needs and interests.”

Single-gender schools can also allow boys to learn and grow at their own pace, gaining confidence in their abilities without being compared to girls, who often develop some skills more quickly, Albert says.

Education experts say that one downside of single-gender education can be the lack of interaction. At some point in their lives, both boys and girls will have to learn to coexist with each other.

“Being only used to people of the same gender might pose a problem once the need to interact with the opposite sex sets in,” Albert says.

But Rachel Connell, the rector of Chatham Hall, an all-girls day and boarding school serving grades 9-12 in Virginia, says much can be done to help students gain social skills.

“With a vast array of co-curricular and extracurricular activities, any school can offer its students a broad spectrum of opportunities and interactions,” she says.

Choosing a Single-Gender School

Education experts say the best thing that parents can do when considering a single-gender school is to evaluate whether or not the environment serves their child’s particular needs.

“Parents should shut out all the other noise around parenting and schools and simply focus on what feels right for their own child,” Albert says.

That can depend on age. “Exposure to all types of diversity, including gender diversity, is critical for the development of young children,” Albert says. For older kids, he recommends that parents look first at the arguments the school makes for single-gender education. If those arguments match parental values, they can evaluate whether the school lives out its mission.

“Take a look at who the graduates are,” Albert says. “What kind of people are they? What distinguishes the school from other single-gender schools and other coed schools?”

In high school, experts say children are old enough to participate in the school decision-making process — and they should. “Parents and adolescents can have real conversations about the decision,” Albert says.

In the end, it comes down to finding the right fit. When families visit a prospective school, Connell says, it’s important that “they leave with not just a good impression but that intangible ‘good feeling’ as well.”

Searching for a school? Explore our K-12 directory .

7 Key Back-to-School Supplies

Mother and son in the bedroom. They are packing a backpack for school. He is packing his notebook while the mother is holding a backpack

Tags: K-12 education , parenting , students , elementary school , middle school , education

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

Attending an Online High School

Cole Claybourn Feb. 20, 2024

How to Perform Well on SAT, ACT Test Day

Cole Claybourn Feb. 13, 2024

High School Graduation Rates By State

Sarah Wood Dec. 1, 2023

Charter Schools vs. Public Schools

Jacob Fischler and Cole Claybourn Nov. 14, 2023

Understanding Media Literacy

Cole Claybourn Nov. 14, 2023

504 Plan Versus IEP: A Guide for Parents

Sally Kassab and Cole Claybourn Nov. 14, 2023

Nontraditional Student Admissions

Linda Lee Baird Oct. 31, 2023

Pros, Cons of Working in High School

Lilly Roser Sept. 29, 2023

What to Know About STEM High Schools

Sarah Wood Aug. 29, 2023

Single-sex education: the pros and cons

by: Kristin Stanberry | Updated: December 18, 2023

Print article

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’s a relatively new option for public schools. Only 34 single-sex schools were operating in 2004, but by 2017 U.S. Department of Education data estimated more than 1,000 single-gender public schools. Forty-five percent are all boys, 55 percent are all girls, and 83 percent are overwhelmingly Black and Latino.

Since 2006, federal law has supported the option of single-sex education. when Education Secretary Margaret Spellings eased federal regulations , 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 “nature versus nurture.” Many factors affect each child’s learning profile and preferences:

Some factors relate to the child’s 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 “nurture” 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 em>Why Gender Matters (2005), Boys Adrift (2007), and Girls on the Edge (2010), argue that boys and girls are inherently different and need different educational experiences. Others have argued that the success of women’s 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’t read.

Critics point to a lack of evidence for such claims, summarized by a 2008 New York Times article, which explained that “many academics and progressives tend to find Sax’s 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 “ The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling” with other scholars, lambasting sex-segregated education as “deeply misguided, and often justified by weak, cherrypicked, or misconstrued scientific claims.” The subject even inspired a New York Times debate where researchers and pundits squared off about the benefits and bluster of single-sex learning.

So, who’s 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’t want their children to be in mixed-gender classrooms because, especially at certain ages, students of the opposite sex can be a distraction.
A 2019 study 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’s 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 2017 study examining students in Seoul, Korea, concluded, “male high school seniors attending all-boys schools show higher levels of science interests…than their counterparts attending coeducational schools.”
A 2015 study out of Switzerland also reports, “[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.”
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 “feminine” 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 “ Mechanisms and Impacts of Gender Peer Effects at School ” determined “an increase in the proportion of girls impose boys and girls’ cognitive outcomes” in elementary schools, caused by “lower levels of classroom disruption and violence, improved inter-student and student-teacher relations, and lessened teacher fatigue.”

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’t 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) found no “significant difference in performance for girls or boys who attend single-sex schools compared to their mixed-school peers in science, mathematics or reading.”
Few educators are formally trained to use gender-specific teaching techniques. However, it’s 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’t 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’t 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 “junk science” to perpetuate “disturbing gender stereotypes” and are a “waste of time” that divert attention from more valuable reforms, such as reducing class size and increasing teacher training. Or as Diane F. Halpern’s put it in “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling” “…sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism.”

Measuring public perception

How does the public view single-sex education? The “average” adult has a different opinion than the graduates of these schools.

In a 2022 poll by YouGov only 25% of adult men surveyed thought all-boys schools were “better” than co-ed schools, with the same percentage viewing them as “worse.” Adult women were less enthusiastic – 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 “not sure” or “no difference.” 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?

Homes Nearby

Homes for rent and sale near schools

Why your neighborhood school closes for good – and what to do when it does

5 things for Black families to consider when choosing a school

6 surprising things insiders look for when assessing a high school

Surprising things about high school

Yes! Sign me up for updates relevant to my child's grade.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up!

Server Issue: Please try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience

Share full article

Supported by

Student Opinion

Is Single-Sex Education Still Useful?

By Patrick Phelan

Jan. 5, 2017

Note: This Student Opinion question was written by a member of an experimental Student Council we ran during the 2015-16 school year. He is a junior at an all-boys’ high school in Boston.

Are all-boys or all-girls schools still useful? What are their benefits? With the emergence of new ideas about the fluidity of gender identity , do they even still make sense?

For example, what happens if a transgender student applies to a single-sex school, or if an enrolled student transitions?

In “ Old Tactic Gets New Use: Public Schools Separate Girls and Boys ,” Motoko Rich provides some context about the educational role of these schools:

Single-sex education, common in the United States until the 19th century, when it fell into deep disfavor except in private or parochial schools, is on the rise again in public schools as educators seek ways to improve academic performance, especially among the poor. Here at Charles Drew Elementary School outside Fort Lauderdale, about a quarter of the classes are segregated by sex on the theory that differences between boys and girls can affect how they learn and behave. ... The theory is generally held in low regard by social scientists. But Ms. Flowers notes that after the school, where nearly all students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, started offering the classes two years ago, its state rating went from a D to a C. Similar improvements have been repeated in a number of other places, causing single-sex classes to spread to other public school districts, including in Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.

But questions about the mission of single-sex education have become especially relevant at women’s colleges in recent years thanks to an evolving understanding of gender identity. In a 2014 Op-Ed, “ Who Are Women’s Colleges For? ”, Kiera Feldman writes:

But today, women’s colleges are at a crossroads their founders could never have foreseen, struggling to reconcile their mission with a growing societal shift on how gender itself is defined. A handful of applications from transgender women have rattled school administrators over the past year, giving rise to anxious meetings and campus demonstrations. On April 29, the Department of Education issued new guidance: Transgender students are protected from discrimination under Title IX.

And in another 2014 piece, “ When Women Become Men at Wellesley ,” Ruth Padawer introduces us to Timothy Boatwright, who was raised a girl and checked “female” when he applied, but introduced himself at college as “masculine-of-center genderqueer.” He asked everyone at Wellesley to use male pronouns and the name Timothy, which he’d chosen for himself. Ms. Padawer writes:

Some two dozen other matriculating students at Wellesley don’t identify as women. Of those, a half-dozen or so were trans men, people born female who identified as men, some of whom had begun taking testosterone to change their bodies. The rest said they were transgender or genderqueer, rejecting the idea of gender entirely or identifying somewhere between female and male; many, like Timothy, called themselves transmasculine. Though his gender identity differed from that of most of his classmates, he generally felt comfortable at his new school.

Students: Read these articles, then tell us:

— What do you think are the benefits of single-sex education? What do you think are the drawbacks? Do you think students learn better in single-sex environments?

— Do you think single-sex institutions should still exist now that new ideas and research about gender identity are flourishing? Why or why not?

— If so, how do you think they should review applications from transgender people? What do you think should happen if someone in a single-sex school transitions while enrolled?

— Have you ever attended an all-girls or all-boys school, camp or club of some kind? What did you think of the experience?

— If you’ve never attended a single-sex school or camp, would you like to? Why or why not?

— What else, if anything, would you like to say about this topic?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Students walk through the gates of Newington, as protestors hold signs against the school's plans to go co-ed.

Why do we have single sex schools? What’s the history behind one of the biggest debates in education?

Lecturer in Gender and Cultural Studies, University of Sydney

Professor, University of Sydney

Senior Lecturer in Health Education, University of Sydney

Disclosure statement

Jessica Kean receives funding from an Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative grant 'Australian Boys: Beyond the Boy Problem'.

Helen Proctor receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Kellie Burns previously received funding from the University of Sydney, Equity Prize.

University of Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

When students walked through the sandstone gates of Sydney’s Newington College for the first day of school last week, they were met by protesters .

A group of parents and former students had gathered outside this prestigious school in the city’s inner west, holding placards decrying the school’s decision to become fully co-educational by 2033.

Protesters have even threatened legal action to defend the 160-year-old tradition of boys’ education at the school. One told Channel 9 they fear the change is driven by “woke […] palaver” that will disadvantage boys at Newington.

Newington is not the only prestigious boys school to open enrolments to girls. Cranbrook in Sydney’s east will also go fully co-ed, with the decision sparking a heated community debate .

This debate is not a new one. What is the history behind the single-sex vs co-ed divide? And why does it spark so much emotion?

Read more: As another elite boys' school goes co-ed, are single-sex schools becoming an endangered species?

What is the history of the debate?

Schools like Newington were set up at a time when the curriculum and social worlds for upper-class boys and girls were often quite different. Boys and girls were thought to require different forms of education for their intellectual and moral development.

The question of whether it’s a good idea to educate boys and girls separately has been debated in Australia for at least 160 years, around the time Newington was set up.

In the 1860s, the colony of Victoria introduced a policy of coeducation for all government-run schools. This was despite community concerns about “ moral well-being ”. There was a concern that boys would be a “corrupting influence” on the girls. So schools were often organised to minimise contact between boys and girls even when they shared a classroom.

Other colonies followed suit. The main reason the various Australian governments decided to educate boys and girls together was financial. It was always cheaper, especially in regional and rural areas, to build one school than two. So most government schools across Australia were established to enrol both girls and boys.

One notable exception was New South Wales, which set up a handful of single-sex public high schools in the 1880s.

These were intended to provide an alternative to single-sex private secondary schools. At that time, education authorities did not believe parents would agree to enrol their children in mixed high schools. Historically, coeducation has been more controversial for older students, but less so for students in their primary years.

Placards from the Newington protests, saying 'Why after 160 years?'

A changing debate

By the 1950s, many education experts were arguing coeducation was better for social development than single-sex schooling. This was at a time of national expansion of secondary schooling in Australia and new psychological theories about adolescents.

In following decades, further debates emerged. A feminist reassessment in the 1980s argued girls were sidelined in co-ed classes. This view was in turn challenged during the 1990s , with claims girls were outstripping boys academically and boys were being left behind in co-ed environments.

Which system delivers better academic results?

There is no conclusive evidence that one type of schooling (co-ed or single sex) yields better academic outcomes than the other.

Schools are complex and diverse settings. There are too many variables (such as resourcing, organisational structures and teaching styles) to make definitive claims about any one factor. Many debates about single-sex vs co-ed schooling also neglect social class as a key factor in academic achievement.

A close up of a student in a Newington blazer with the school crest and tie.

What about the social environment?

Research about the social outcomes of co-ed vs single-sex schools is also contested.

Some argue co-ed schooling better prepares young people for the co-ed world they will grow up in.

Others have suggested boys may fare better in co-ed settings, with girls acting as a counterbalance to boys’ unruliness. But it has also been argued boys take up more space and teacher time, detracting from girls’ learning and confidence.

Both of these arguments rely on gender stereotypes about girls being compliant and timid and boys being boisterous and disruptive.

Key to these debates is a persistent belief that girls and boys learn differently. These claims do not have a strong basis in educational research.

Read more: We can see the gender bias of all-boys' schools by the books they study in English

Why such a heated debate?

Tradition plays a big part in this debate. Often, parents want their children to have a similar schooling experience to themselves.

For others it’s about access to specific resources and experiences. Elite boys schools have spent generations accumulating social and physical resources tailored to what they believe boys are interested in and what they believe is in boys’ best interests . This includes sports facilities, curriculum offerings, approaches to behaviour management and “old boys” networks.

Many of these schools have spent decades marketing themselves as uniquely qualified to educate boys (or a certain type of boy). So it’s not surprising if some in these school communities are resisting change.

More concerning are the Newington protesters who suggest this move toward inclusivity and gender diversity will make boys “second-class citizens”. This echoes a refrain common in anti-feminist and anti-trans backlash movements , which position men and boys as vulnerable in a world of changing gender norms. This overlooks the ways they too can benefit from the embrace of greater diversity at school.

As schools do the work to open up to more genders , it is likely they will also become welcoming to a wider range of boys and young men.

Private schools

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Operations Manager

Senior Education Technologist

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Single-Gender Public Schools in 5 Charts

Single-gender education has long been a pillar in the world of private schools, but in the past decade, several big-city school districts have opened all-boys schools designed to improve academic achievement and social-emotional skills for non-white students. Those efforts have been widely praised for the resources they are bringing to some of society’s most disadvantaged children, but also have raised concerns over whether girls of color are being unfairly left behind in this rising trend.

An Education Week Research Center analysis of federal data found that while there are more all-boys public schools in the country, more girls attend single-gender public schools. While U.S. Department of Education data indicate that there are more than 1,000 single-gender public schools, this analysis excludes juvenile-justice facilities and alternative, special education, and vocational schools. Of the schools we examined, most are racially and economically segregated: the students enrolled are overwhelmingly black and Latino and are 1.5 times more likely to qualify for free or low-cost meals than their peers nationwide.

Below is a profile of the nation’s single-gender public schools, including answers to these questions:

Where are single-gender schools?
Are they in urban, rural, or suburban areas?
Do single-gender schools serve more boys or girls?
What is the racial makeup of these schools?
Are they more likely to serve students in poverty?

Reporting: Corey Mitchell | Data Analysis: Alex Harwin & Francisco Vara-Orta | Design & Visualization: Francis Sheehan A version of this article appeared in the November 15, 2017 edition of Education Week as Snapshot: Single-Gender Education

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

A mean female leader with crossed arms stands in front of a group of people.

Sign Up & Sign In

Single sex v co-ed: which is better for kids' education?

For an issue that looms so large for parents and societies, there are surprisingly few controlled studies that compare single-sex and co-education schools.

Same-same: Markers that show differences between the genders narrowed to almost nothing by the time they got to year 11.

But some data that does exist, says Garry Falloon, Professor of STEM Education in the Macquarie School of Education, suggests that overall there is no reason for schools not to go co-ed, at least when judged by levels of student achievement.

Popular perceptions that girls do better at single-sex schools and boys at co-ed schools are generally not supported by studies, including Pahlke, Hyde and Allison’s 2014 meta-analysis involving 1.6 million kids in 21 countries. Available research indicates that for boys’ and girls’ schools considering going co-ed for social and cultural reasons, there appears to be no educational reason not to do so.

“Across the markers researchers used, looking at attitudes towards maths, science and performance, there was negligible difference – they used the words ‘minute at best’.” Falloon comments.

All the markers that show differences between the genders narrowed to almost nothing by the time they got to year 11.

Falloon also points to a more recent Queensland study that looked at the confidence levels of boys and girls attending single-sex high schools that found no difference between the two.

“What was really interesting, as a general rule of thumb, was that as kids got older and went through schooling systems, all the markers that show differences between the genders narrowed to almost nothing by the time they got to year 11.

“However, in primary school boys had marginally better self-efficacy than girls did – that is, the sense of belief in one’s ability to do something, which we know is a strong determinant for achievement. But when they got to the middle school in years 7 and 8, the girls had started to catch up.”

The findings of the Queensland study, published last year in the Australian Journal of Career Development , supported those of the 2014 meta-analysis of 184 studies involving more than 1.6 million students from kindergarten to year 12 from 21 nations, including Australia.

Changing times: Single sex schools, historically based on assumptions about biological differences between genders, are becoming less common.

The meta-analysis researchers commented that: “A theoretical assumption underlying many single sex programs is the view that gender differences and psychological characteristics relevant to learning are substantial and are biological in nature – what we have called the large biological differences assumption.

“Boys therefore need to be taught differently. According to this view, boys and girls should have better outcomes in single-sex classrooms compared with co-educational classrooms. Data from this study does not support these assumptions. They show no substantial advantage for either boys or girls across an array of academic markers and outcomes.”

Single sex schools are becoming less common, Falloon points out. “If you look at the history, a lot of it was based on assumptions about biological differences between the genders, and that boys because of their physical and biological characteristics learn differently to girls.”

New hope for sport head trauma patients
How to kick those COVID kilos for good

In the Queensland study, for instance, an analysis of outside space at schools found that boys’ schools had a lot more of it – not counting playing fields, but the immediate space just outside classrooms.

“A lot of those ideas around boys needing large areas to run around and burn off energy and so on, are almost built into the environment of these schools. But those kinds of differences – or these assumptions that the ways boys and girls live demand a certain type of schooling –aren’t supported by the data in terms of achievement or self-efficacy.”

The study also reported that mixing genders tends to demystify and normalise relationships between the sexes.

“The Australian study reported that as the kids get older, they co-operate seamlessly together, and they relate together - differences diminish.”

The ‘girl power’ approach

The theory that girls are dominated by boys in co-ed classrooms – particularly in domains such as maths and science – and their performance therefore suffers, is again not supported by the 2014 meta-analysis, Falloon says.

Full speed ahead: A tendency for girls to engage more in sport and leadership in single-sex schools had diminished by the upper years of high school.

“Girls in single-sex schooling showed only trivial differences from those in co-ed schools for the outcomes of maths performance and attitude, and science performance,” Falloon says. “Moreover, girls’ educational aspirations were not higher when they were in single sex environments.”

One area that did have a small, negative effect on girls’ self-efficacy was gaming and social media, “which was not surprising really, given what we know about teens and social media”.

In single-sex schools, the meta-analysis found there was a tendency for girls to engage more in sport and leadership – aligning with the perception that boys can often be critical of girls’ engagement in sport – but any differences had diminished by the upper years of high school, and girls were engaging as much as boys at co-ed schools.

Please explain: Why is petrol so expensive
Tricks used by phone scammers exposed in new study

Falloon says when it comes to private single-sex schools, there are perceptions that children will have greater opportunities – “and that may be the case, but not necessarily because they achieve better, but because within those environments children may have connections and networks that can facilitate access to certain things that may not be available to others.”

Ultimately, it comes down to personal choice and what works best for individual children – and which social outcomes are valued.

“My personal opinion on this, if your son or daughter is thriving in a single sex environment, then don’t feel you have to change to co-ed … and vice versa,” says Falloon.

“When it comes to individuals, both school types have their place.”

Garry Falloon (pictured) is a Professor in the Macquarie School of Education

Look Into Education

Education leadership: the pros and cons of co-ed vs single-sex education.

September 16th, 2021

education leadership curriculum considerations

The interactions between girls and boys at school influence how women and men relate as equals in the workplace. This is part of the reason why advocates for coeducation say it is a way to socialize young people so they are better prepared for their futures in the workforce and society.

Coeducation and Curricula

Coeducation is the integrated education of males and females at schools and learning facilities. Coeducational schools reflect the diversity of society. Co-ed schools typically offer a curriculum that is accessible to all students and encourages a wide range of learning opportunities. By minimizing gender-linked stereotypes in coursework, educational opportunities can appeal to individuals’ interests, aptitudes, and motivations as opposed to categories like gender.

On the other hand, proponents of single-sex education say students can also flourish academically in single-gender classrooms. The National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE) asserts that schools that use best practices for gender-specific teaching may be more successful at teaching to boys’ and girls’ strengths.

Research shows the benefits and drawbacks of both models of education. In the past few decades, studies, including a comparison of same-sex and coeducational schools by the U.S. Department of Education, produced mixed results that are not conclusive enough to fully endorse either. Researchers on both sides of the debate continue to work and adapt to current education trends.

Benefits of Co-ed and Single-Gender Formats

Education leaders must evaluate both the merits and obstacles of the different learning environments. Here are common arguments for both coeducation and single-sex education.

The Case for Co-ed

Offers school diversity—students will find it easier to adapt in many different environments.
Teaches equality and tolerance—co-ed schools treat students to be tolerant of each other.
Promotes socialization—students enrolled in mixed classrooms experience being with members of the opposite sex and are comfortable interacting with each other.
Prepares students for the real world—students are exposed to an environment that reflects the larger society.
Improves communication skills—studying in co-ed schools can help an individual communicate in different ways.
Challenges sexism—a co-ed environment gives students the chance to express themselves and share their views.

The Case for Single-Gender Education

Lessons tailored to unique interests and skills—curricula in single-sex classrooms are developed without the influence of social expectations based on gender roles.
Ease of forming relationships—camaraderie forms naturally without concerns about cliques and social status.
Minimizes distractions—students focus more on academics and extracurriculars.
Removes double standard—girls and boys might be held to obviously different standards in co-ed environments but might not in single-sex schools.
Breaking down gender stereotyping—students confidently pursue interests without the assumption of female- and male-dominated subjects.
More relaxed environment—there is less of a desire to impress the other gender.

How Aspiring School Leaders Can Maximize Student Success The debate over coeducation vs single-gender education is just one of several educators are facing today. School leaders must incorporate changing attitudes to build effective educational models. William Woods University’s Online Education Specialist in Educational Leadership degree prepares individuals who are often already teachers to be leaders at the school-district level. This Education Specialist degree program features courses like Issues in School Superintendency, which examines the historical perspectives and issues that superintendents face—knowledge that can help educators maximize student success.

The Importance of Building Media Literacy Skills
Education Leaders on Teaching Climate Change

Posted in Curriculum Advances , School Leaders

No Comments

The Philosophy Behind Single-Sex Education: Tailoring Learning to Gender-Specific Needs

This essay about the educational approach and philosophy of single-sex schools examines how these institutions aim to tailor the learning environment to the unique needs, preferences, and styles of either boys or girls. It highlights the belief that gender-specific pedagogy and curriculum can more effectively address the developmental differences between genders, focusing on teaching strategies, classroom activities, and subject matter designed to overcome traditional gender stereotypes. The essay also discusses the potential benefits of single-sex education, including a learning environment free from the social pressures of co-educational settings, which may foster greater confidence and participation among students. Additionally, it touches on the criticisms of single-sex schooling, such as the argument that it may reinforce gender stereotypes or inadequately prepare students for a co-ed world. Ultimately, the essay presents single-sex education as a model that advocates for customized teaching approaches to enhance academic and personal development. More free essay examples are accessible at PapersOwl about Single Sex School.

How it works

The concept of single-sex education, a subject that has sparked considerable discourse and contemplation within the realm of education, is underpinned by a philosophy deeply entrenched in the notion that segregating boys and girls in educational settings yields benefits. This discourse delves into the educational methodology and ideology of single-sex schools, investigating how these establishments endeavor to furnish an atmosphere custom-tailored to the distinctive learning modalities, preferences, and developmental requisites of either gender. By centering on gender-specific pedagogy and curriculum, single-sex schools champion an educational paradigm that purports to enable students to reach their zenith.

At the heart of single-sex education lies the premise that boys and girls diverge not solely in physical attributes but also in their cognitive processes, emotional maturation, and even in their social interactions. Proponents of single-sex schooling posit that these disparities necessitate disparate instructional approaches and scholastic milieus to ensure that each gender can flourish academically and personally. For instance, it is commonly argued that boys may thrive in a more kinetic, competitive scholastic ambiance, whereas girls might demonstrate prowess in a collaborative, communicative environment. Hence, single-sex schools adapt their pedagogical methodologies, classroom engagements, and even evaluative techniques to harmonize with these gender-specific learning predilections.

Furthermore, the curriculum in single-sex schools is frequently crafted with the aim of subverting conventional gender stereotypes, particularly in terms of subject preferences and vocational aspirations. For female students, this might entail a heightened emphasis on STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), domains where women have historically been underrepresented. Conversely, for male students, this could entail fostering involvement in the humanities and linguistic studies, cultivating emotional acuity and interpersonal communication competencies often overlooked in male-centric education. This bespoke approach endeavors not only to level the educational playing field but also to embolden students to pursue interests and vocations unencumbered by societal preconceptions.

Another pivotal facet of the single-sex educational ethos is the creation of a scholastic environment liberated from the societal pressures and distractions that can arise in coeducational settings. Advocates assert that segregating genders in the classroom permits students to concentrate more fervently on their academic pursuits, engage more freely in scholastic dialogues, and take intellectual risks without apprehension of judgment from the opposite sex. This milieu, proponents contend, fosters self-assurance, leadership proficiencies, and a proclivity for venturing beyond one’s comfort zone.

Despite its merits, single-sex education is not devoid of critique. Some posit that it inadequately prepares students for the real-world dynamics of coeducation, wherein men and women must coexist and collaborate. Others argue that it perpetuates gender stereotypes rather than dismantling them. Nonetheless, proponents of single-sex education maintain that the advantages, encompassing tailored instructional methodologies, a commitment to confronting gender biases in academic content, and an atmosphere conducive to focused study and self-assurance, outweigh these apprehensions.

In summation, the ethos of single-sex education is founded on the conviction that gender-segregated environments can more efficaciously cater to the distinctive learning modalities and developmental requisites of male and female students. By embracing gender-specific pedagogies and curricular frameworks, single-sex schools endeavor to furnish an educational milieu that empowers students to excel academically, transcend traditional gender barriers, and burgeon into self-assured, well-rounded individuals. While the dialogue concerning the efficacy and ethical implications of single-sex education persists, it remains a compelling educational approach that extols the virtues of personalization in the educational experience.

Cite this page

The Philosophy Behind Single-Sex Education: Tailoring Learning to Gender-Specific Needs. (2024, Mar 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-philosophy-behind-single-sex-education-tailoring-learning-to-gender-specific-needs/

"The Philosophy Behind Single-Sex Education: Tailoring Learning to Gender-Specific Needs." PapersOwl.com , 1 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-philosophy-behind-single-sex-education-tailoring-learning-to-gender-specific-needs/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Philosophy Behind Single-Sex Education: Tailoring Learning to Gender-Specific Needs . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-philosophy-behind-single-sex-education-tailoring-learning-to-gender-specific-needs/ [Accessed: 12 Apr. 2024]

"The Philosophy Behind Single-Sex Education: Tailoring Learning to Gender-Specific Needs." PapersOwl.com, Mar 01, 2024. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-philosophy-behind-single-sex-education-tailoring-learning-to-gender-specific-needs/

"The Philosophy Behind Single-Sex Education: Tailoring Learning to Gender-Specific Needs," PapersOwl.com , 01-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-philosophy-behind-single-sex-education-tailoring-learning-to-gender-specific-needs/. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

A RESOURCE CREATED BY:

Academic performance and single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland

Female students in all-female classes experience less stereotype threat and perform better in their mathematics grades than their female peers in coeducational classes, with no difference in their language grades..

Cite this Article

Eisenkopf, Gerald, et al. "Academic performance and single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland." Journal of economic behavior & organization 115 (2015): 123-143.

Eisenkopf, G., Hessami, Z., Fischbacher, U., & Ursprung, H. W. (2015). Academic performance and single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland. Journal of economic behavior & organization , 115 , 123-143.

Eisenkopf, Gerald, Zohal Hessami, Urs Fischbacher, and Heinrich W. Ursprung. "Academic performance and single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland." Journal of economic behavior & organization 115 (2015): 123-143.

Gerald Eisenkopf

Zohal hessami, urs fischbacher, heinrich w. ursprung.

Introduction
Methodology

The gender gap in academic performance might be explained in part by stereotype threat, or the anxiety or concern that individuals of a certain identity (e.g., woman) feel when they risk confirming negative stereotypes about that identity (e.g., women’s inferior mathematics ability). Here, it is suggested that having any male students in the classroom might prime gender-based stereotypes for female students, leading to worse performance on stereotypically “male” subjects such as mathematics. However, it is hypothesized that there would be no difference in performance in non-stereotypically “male” subjects such as language.

It has been suggested that single-sex classrooms in these stereotypically “male” subjects may be advantageous for female students. If single-sex schooling reduces gender-specific stereotype threat, it is hypothesized that girls in single-sex classes would do better in their mathematics grades than girls in coeducational classes. The researchers take advantage of a natural experiment due to a Swiss high school administration’s random assignment of female students to either all-female or coeducational classes to study the peer effects of classroom gender composition on academic performance of female high school students. The students’ academic performance is observed over a time period of up to four years.

Single-sex schooling improved the performance of female students in mathematics. This positive effect was particularly large for female students with high academic achievement prior to entering high school. Single-sex schooling also strengthened female students’ self-confidence in their mathematical abilities and increased their chances of attributing these abilities to their own efforts rather than outside factors such as talent or luck.

Female students in single-sex classes obtained better math grades than female students in coeducational classes, with an average performance increase of approximately 7–10% within the range where most students score.
Single-sex schooling benefitted female students regardless of prior abilities. However, female students with higher estimated academic abilities benefitted more than less talented female peers with a one point higher score on the math qualifying exam associated with 45% of a grade point more in the single-sex classroom and only 31% of a grade point more in the coeducational classroom.
Single-sex schooling benefitted female students regardless of teacher gender. However, the effect was smaller for girls in classes with female teachers compared to male teachers.
In addition, female students in single-sex classes evaluated their mathematics skills more positively (average 2.382 vs. 2.032 on a scale of 1-4) and were more likely to attribute their performance in mathematics to their own efforts rather than to talent or luck (average 3.402 vs. 3.051 on a scale of 1-4).
Female students in single-sex classes performed equally to female students in coeducational classes.
Teacher gender had no impact on female students’ performance in either single-sex or in coeducational classes.
There was no difference in how female students viewed their language skills in single-sex or coeducational classes.

In sum, single-sex schooling improves the performance of female students in mathematics classes but not in language classes, suggesting that reducing gender-based stereotype threat has real effects on academic performance. Moreover, female students who demonstrated high pre-existing ability on the entrance exam benefitted the most from single-sex classrooms, which underlines the relationship between the beneficial effects of all-girls schooling to the absence of gender-specific stereotype threats.

The researchers exploited a natural experiment at a high school in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Like most Swiss high schools, this school is run and financed by the local canton (state) and applies standard curricula and teacher recruitment policies. Since the school has a focus on teaching pedagogical subjects, which allows many of the school’s graduates to skip the first-year courses at the University of Teacher Education (located in the same town), it attracts many female students, and 80% of students are female. In order to provide male students with more peers of their gender in classes, the school board arbitrarily assigns incoming female students to coeducational or single-sex classes for the entire four years of education. Students and their parents cannot influence the assignment, so the assignment is de facto random. The coeducational classes have about 22% male students. All students experience the same curriculum and examinations in the core subjects, taught by the same teachers, which means the students’ grades in math and German are comparable across parallel classes.

The researchers observed the performance of 808 high school students (668 female) who entered the school (9th to 12th grade) between 2001 and 2008 in both math and German, which are compulsory courses. The researchers also conducted a survey to gauge female students’ experiences in their math classes and beliefs about their mathematic abilities.

Top of Page
Authors & Citations
Related Studies

Related GAP Studies

A cash transfer program in Kenya significantly boosted school enrollment among adolescent girls and elevated expectations for completing secondary education.

Effects of a single cash transfer on school re-enrollment during covid-19 among vulnerable adolescent girls in kenya: randomized controlled trial.

Peer-led sex education significantly boosts contraceptive use and demand while reducing unmet contraceptive needs among Ethiopian adolescent girls.

Effectiveness of peer-led education interventions on contraceptive use, unmet need, and demand among adolescent girls in gedeo zone, south ethiopia. a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Home / Essay Samples / Education / Single Sex Schools / Single-Gender Schools: Unraveling the Debate

Single-Gender Schools: Unraveling the Debate

Category: Education
Topic: Single Sex Schools

Pages: 1 (477 words)

Downloads: -->

Introduction

Advantages of single-gender education, social development and gender equality, concerns and limitations.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Importance of Education Essays

After Graduation Essays

College Essays

Brittany Stinson Essays

Critical Thinking Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->