American Association of University Women



American Association of University Women

November 12, 1997, Educational Foundation Conference



Do girls and boys learn better in schools and classes that separate them by sex? Does single-sex education deserve a greater place in the nation’s public school system? For many in the educational community and beyond, these have become pressing questions as public clamor has mounted for some good news about the nation’s schools.

In an educational landscape marked by problems of low achievement, violence, drugs, poverty, sexism, and racial and ethnic tension, the emergence of single-sex education has been regarded by some as a rare glimmer of hope, a promise of a way out. Buoyed by good press and wide public interest, single-sex classes and even some single-sex schools are cropping up with increasing frequency across the country, testing the limits of social policy and anti-discrimination laws.

Information, however, has not kept pace. While there has been considerable exploration of the legal and political issues surrounding single-sex education (classes or schools attended by students of only one sex), there has been comparatively little examination of the educational implications and the research in the field.

The idiosyncratic nature of current single-sex education in K-12 schools and classes makes it a less than ideal research subject. Because single-sex education takes place at present in limited arenas and under widely varying conditions, comparisons are difficult to draw from site to site, and findings about the strategy’s effectiveness are often subject to interpretation. Acknowledging these problems, researchers discussed contexts in which the practice has been linked with positive results for students, along with contexts where results have been negative or mixed, and explored possible reasons for the differences.

As inevitably occurs when a distinguished group of experts has the opportunity to engage in debate, the roundtable generated many points of disagreement and several profound, unanswered questions. This notwithstanding, the following basic points of consensus emerged from the discussion:

• There is no evidence that single-sex education in general “works” or is “better” than coeducation. The “success” or “failure” of any K-12 single-sex education initiative is relative to a particular group of students in a particular setting and a given set of academic or social objectives. Claims that single-sex education is inherently “better” or “worse” than coeducation beg the questions: What constitutes a “good” education? And for whom?

• No matter whether in a coed or a single-sex setting, educators and policymakers need to work further to identify the components of a “good education.” It is a mistake to view gender as “the key variable” that determines a school’s effectiveness, noted many researchers at the roundtable. Educators, they said, should not look solely to single-sex classes or schools to provide a good education.

• Single-sex educational programs produce positive results for some students in some settings. However, researchers do not know for certain whether the benefits derive from factors unique to single-sex programs, or whether these factors also exist or can be reproduced in coeducational settings.

• The long-term impact of single-sex education on girls or boys is unknown. The absence of longitudinal data on single-sex education in elementary and secondary schools makes it impossible to assess the long-term harm or benefits to any groups of students.

• No learning environment, single-sex or coed, provides a sure escape from sexism. Single sex classes and schools can reinforce stereotypes about men’s and women’s roles in society just as coeducational programs can.

• Single-sex education covers so broad a gamut as to defy most generalizations. Included under the broad umbrella of single-sex education are both school-wide programs and individual classes, programs that are part of the regular school curriculum and programs that take place after the end of the traditional school day, programs that are required as well as programs in which participation is voluntary, and programs to remedy perceived gender inequities along with programs to simultaneously bolster racial and cultural pride. Evaluating the single-sex component of these programs requires considering the different cultural, social, and institutional factors that can influence outcomes in each case.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download