Critical Reaction: Single-Gender Education

In early March, in a feature article for The New York Times Magazine, writer Elizabeth Weil examined an increasingly popular topic of discussion in public education – single-sex schools and classrooms. The piece (titled “Teaching Boys and Girls Separately”) explores gender-specific education from social, academic, and biological perspectives and introduces the primary arguments for and against the practice. Many supporters of single-sex education, for instance, contend the biological learning differences are so great between boys and girls that separating their learning environments is the only reasonable option for improving school achievement. Opponents, on the other hand, often claim that single-sex education is inherently unequal and simply reinforces gender stereotypes.
Weil offers an extensive and evenhanded look at the subject in her article, citing relevant studies and describing how single-gender education looks in different schools around the country. More importantly, however, she allows readers to consider the essential questions in this progressively contentious debate: Is single-sex education the best solution to the problems and failings of our public schools? Can single-sex education lead to increased academic achievement for all students?
Naturally, the debate comes at a time when many school administrators and elected officials are searching for ideas and ways to “fix” the “failures” of public schools and their students – particularly ways and ideas that can be implemented cheaply and more or less immediately (Weil, 2008). In these regards (money and speed), single-sex education is an attractive option to consider. For the most part, splitting formerly coed classes into single-sex classes does not require overwhelming resources – unless, of course, the goal is to switch an entirely coed school into a single-sex institution for only one gender or the other. Daily schedules will need tweaking and faculty will require training (and perhaps new instructional materials) tailored to the specific gender of the students they will be teaching, but otherwise there are few practical obstacles in making the switch possible. The real challenge, of course, is ensuring the need for and absolute benefit of single-sex classes.
In “The Success of Single-Sex Education is Still Unproven,” independent researcher Gerald Bracey identifies four “camps” of thought in the single-sex education debate. The first camp believes coeducation is the best approach. They feel based on the available data and research that single-sex education is unable to offer any opportunities that coeducation is not. Further, they argue that if coeducation is failing students then researchers and educators need to discover the root of the problem and ways to address it (2007, p. 23). The second camp also believes that coeducation is the best method, but that single-sex education can be beneficial as well, especially as it relates to gender equity and providing girls with the same educational opportunities as boys (2007, p. 23). The third camp similarly supports a combination of coeducation and single-sex education, but believes that single-sex classes are only needed for “at-risk” students. These students, this camp argues, can benefit from the improved “academic tone” single-sex classes often provide (2007, p. 23-24). And the fourth camp believes that all students would benefit from single-sex classes due to the extreme learning-style differences between boys and girls (2007, p. 24).
Ultimately, Weil (2008), like most people in the field writing about the subject, does not provide the answers to this multi-faceted situation. She acknowledges the malleable nature of the existing information in this area of research and the tendency for researchers, administrators, and/or policy makers to interpret the data in ways that suit their purposes. Further, she discusses the overwhelming need for qualitative and quantitative results to definitively support (or disprove) varying theories behind single-sex education. In particular, she refers to a 2005 study by the Department of Education comparing single-sex and coed schooling, writing, “The authors started out with 2,221 citations on the subject that they then whittled down to 40 usable studies. Yet even those studies did not yield strong results…” Likewise, Bracey offers a similar statement about the inconclusive nature of the research and statistics surrounding single-sex education. He writes, “The debate about the subject of single-sex education is something which has been going on for some years now. Despite the fact of this longstanding discussion, there is still not enough sound, definitive research to be used to guide educators and policy makers” (2007, p. 22).
Part of the problem comes from the fact that single-sex education in public schools is, in a way, still a relatively new practice. Of course, the concept of single-sex education is not new as both private and parochial schools have followed the model for many years, but the modern movement in public schools is only about ten to fifteen years old, initiated in large part by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (Friend, 2006). Specifically, the “Innovative Program” provision of NCLB lets school districts apply for specific funding for research or experimentation with single-sex education (Friend, 2006). As a result, qualifying schools have a legal way around the1972 Title IX legislation prohibiting gender or racial discrimination in any educational program that receives federal funding (Friend, 2006).
However, even before NCLB some schools were experimenting with forms of single-sex education, first as a response to the perceived “girls’ crisis” of the late 1990s when researchers and educators noticed that far fewer girls were pursuing careers in math and science, then in response to the “boy’s crisis” that began in the early part of this century and continues today (Weil, 2008). This current “crisis” results from the rather stark achievement gap between girls and boys in school and, as of late, has focused especially on male minority students. In fact, as Weil notes, “While there’s some dispute over whether there’s an ongoing education crisis for white, middle-class boys, there’s no doubt that public schools are failing poor minority students in general and poor minority boys in particular” (Weil, 2008).
Another “problem” in the debate over single-sex education stems from the fact that the majority of research and case studies that exist either come from private schools or schools in other countries where conditions are very different than the average American public school, particularly in an urban environment (Friend, 2006). One important factor that some researchers note in this comparison is the aspect of parental involvement. By enrolling their children in private or parochial schools, parents are taking an active role in their child’s education and making a choice about the type of instruction they will receive. Of course, there is also the financial reality of attending a private school, which puts the experience out of reach for those who cannot afford the tuition.
Overall, most researchers and educators seem to agree the current research does not absolutely “prove” or “disprove” any theories regarding the relative dominance or inferiority of single-sex education compared to coeducation (Friend, 2006). As Weil notes, “The data do not suggest that they’re clearly better for all kids. Nor do they suggest that they’re worse” (2008). There simply are not enough relevant data yet on which to base decisive opinions. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to question any positions either strongly promoting or strongly denying the overall benefit or success of single-sex education. In education, there are many variables to consider when developing ultimate conclusions and/or policies and the single-sex education debate is perhaps too “new” or “fresh” for absolutes at this point.
However, due to the inconclusive and conflicting nature of the current research surrounding single-sex education it does seem reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that single-sex classes might prove beneficial and worthwhile for some students. In the very least, it seems harmful to rule out the possibility entirely.

Bracey, G. (February 2007). The success of single-sex education is still unproven. The Education Digest, 72(6) 22-26.

Friend, J. (2006)). Research on same-gender grouping in eighth grade science classrooms. Research in Middle Level Education Online. 30(4), 1-15.

Weil, E. (2, March 2008). Teaching boys and girls separately. New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=teaching%20boys%20and%20girls%20separately&st=cse&oref=slogin.