Single-sex education, also known as single-gender education, is the practice of conducting education where male and female students attend separate classes or in separate buildings or schools. The practice was predominant before the mid-twentieth century, particularly in secondary education and higher education. Single-sex education in many cultures is advocated on the basis of tradition as well as religion, and is practiced in many parts of the world.
Contents |
In Australia, the proportion of students from independent schools attending single-sex schools, dropped from 31% in 1985 to 24% in 1995. In secondary schools, 55% of boys and 54% of girls went to single-sex schools, in 1985. However by 1995 the proportion attending single-sex secondary schools had dropped to 41% of boys and 45% of girls.[1]
In Bangladesh, a large number of city schools and colleges are single-sex institutions except for universities. Notable all Cantonment schools (non-residential schools run directly by Military), Zilla Schools ( run directly by Government), Cadet colleges ( residential schools run directly by Military) are single-sex schools.
In the 17th century, schooling was first introduced to females, however it was very limited and usually was restricted to religious instruction and needling. Later in the mid-19th century schooling was still separated by sex so to the extent that boys and girls had separate entrances and recess areas. After compulsory education, single-sex classrooms were first introduced in some Ontario schools when a gap was noticed between the achievement in literacy for boys and the lack of achievement in mathematics for girls. Recently, there has been a change in reasons behind creating single-sex classrooms. A shift has been discovered in achievement in boys’ learning. Since the mid-1990s, boys' achievement stakeholders have noticed a lag in boys achievement when compared to girls. This lag has been noticed in several different subject areas.
In India, boys are said to do better in single-sex classrooms because of the varying educational needs of boys when compared to girls. The number of single-sex state schools has dropped substantially over the past 40 years, from 2,500 to 400. Some argue that same-sex schools are vital for the conservative Indian culture, especially when figures indicate that, as of 2002, 53%[2] of girls in the Indian population actually attend schools. Conservative parents in the Indian culture may decide to withdraw their daughters at the age of puberty onset because of fear of exploitation by male personnel within the school.[3] It is also believed that by having single-sex classrooms the students will be able to focus more on their education, as they will not have the distraction of the other sex. A study in New Delhi showed that students from single-sex classrooms were more stressed when compared to their co-educated counterparts. The study argues that co-education schools provide opportunities for students to interact with their peers which de-stresses students and creates a friendlier, more relaxed environment.
However, in the Middle East in most places it is mandatory for schools to be single-sex schools. Each school accepts boys or girls exclusively. In places where sharia is the law, students attend sex-segregated public schools. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, single-sex public schools have been in place since the Islamic Revolution.[4]
In the United Arab Emirates, private schools are mostly coeducational, while public schools are segregated.
In Israel secular schools are usually coeducational and religious schools are usually single-sex, although there are exceptions.
Single-sex schooling was traditionally the norm for secondary schools in the United Kingdom, especially for private, grammar and secondary modern schools, but most UK schools are now coeducational. In the state sector of the U.K. education system, the only single-sex primary schools are Winterbourne Junior Boys' School and Winterbourne Junior Girls' School (both in the London Borough of Croydon). The number of single-sex state schools has fallen from nearly 2,500 to just over 400 in 40 years. According to Alan Smithers, Professor of Education at Buckingham University, there was no evidence that single-sex schools were consistently superior. However, a 2009 analysis of Key Stage 2 and GCSE scores of more than 700,000 girls has revealed that those in all-female comprehensives make better progress than those who attend mixed secondaries.The largest improvements came among those who did badly at primary school, although pupils of all abilities are more likely to succeed if they go to single-sex state schools, the study indicates.[5] A government-backed review in 2007 recommended that the sexes should be taught differently to maximise results, amid fears that girls tend to be pushed aside in mixed-sex classrooms. A major longitudinal study of over 17,000 individuals examined whether single-sex schooling made a difference for a wide range of outcomes, including academic attainment, earnings, marriage, childbearing and divorce [6]. The authors found that girls fared better in examinations at age 16 at single-sex schools, while boys achieved similar results at single-sex or co-educational schools.[7] Girls rated their abilities in maths and sciences higher if they went to a girls’ school, and boys rated their abilities in English higher if they went to a boys’ school, i.e. gender stereotyping was weaker in the single-sex sector.[8] Later in life, women who had been to single-sex schools went on to earn higher wages than women who had been to co-educational schools.[9] However, men who had been to single-sex schools were more likely to end up divorced. In 2011, an overview of this research published in the highly respected journal Science shed serious doubt on this body of findings. Its authors argued that "although SS outcomes may at first appear promising, apparent advantages dissolve when outcomes are corrected for preexisting differences".[10] The study's authors argue that most or all evidence in favor of single-sex education comes from improper comparisons, and that, when compared to students with similar entry-level test scores, the single-sex students do not show any improvement.[10]
In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of single-sex public education in the 1996 case of United States v. Virginia. This ruling, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concluded that single-sex education in the public sector is constitutional only if comparable courses, services, and facilities are made available to both sexes. The No Child Left Behind Act contains provisions (sections 5131.a.23. and 5131c, 20 U.S.C. section 7215(a)(23), and section 7215(c)) designed by their authors — senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) — to facilitate single-sex education in public schools. These provisions led to the publication of new federal rules in October 2006 to allow districts to create single-sex schools and classes provided that 1) enrollment is voluntary, and 2) comparable courses, services, and facilities are available to both sexes. The number of public schools offering single-sex classrooms rose from 11 in 2002 to 540 in 2009, according to the web site of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education.[11] Single-sex education is usually only an option for individuals who come from an affluent background. In the United states the number of publically funded single-sex classes has risen astronomically with only 3 in 1995 to over 250 in 2006. However, only 50 schools are single-sex schools, the remainders are schools that offer single-sex classrooms.
The topic of single-sex education is controversial. Advocates argue that it aids student outcomes such as test scores, graduation rates, and solutions to behavioral difficulties. Opponents, however, argue that evidence for such effects is inflated or non-existent, and instead argue that such segregation can lead to increased prejudice and cost students social skills.[10]
Advocates of single-sex education believe that there are persistent gender differences in how boys and girls learn and behave in educational settings, and that such differences merit educating them separately(though they do not argue that all girls learn one way and all boys learn another way: they believe in both differences between genders and diversity within the genders.) One version of this argument holds that brains of males and females develop differently (a difference that has not been shown to extend to learning)[10]. Proponents reference these developmental differences to argue that by separating students according to sex, the educator is able to meet the needs according to the developmental trajectory of the different genders.
While its advocates bring up a significant number of studies in its support, high-profile publications have disputed the validity of this body of evidence. A systematic review commissioned by the US Department of Education found that the results of studies on the effects of single-sex schooling are equivocal, with some studies showing single-sex education to be beneficial while others showing it to be harmful.[12] In September 2011, the journal Science published a study deeply critical of the evidence behind positive effects of gender segregation in schooling, arguing that the movement towards single-sex education "is deeply misguided, and often justified by weak, cherry-picked, or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence." The study goes on to conclude that "there is no well-designed research showing that single-sex (SS) education improves students' academic performance, but there is evidence that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism."[10]
Advocates believe that single-sex education has a wide array of positive effects. For example, they believe that graduation rates are improved for students in single-sex classrooms, and that grades and test scores are increased when students are separated by sex. A number of studies support their position. For example, a University of Virginia study found that boys from single-sex schools were more likely to take courses in arts and foreign languages when compared to boys in coeducational schools. Other studies have argued that by having single-sex classrooms girls are able to develop a greater sense of self-efficacy in areas such as physics; have improved math performance; and have greater opportunities to engage in physical activities and more interactions with their teachers during physical education without competition from male students. Proponents also argue that single-sex schools are more beneficial for girls as they don’t need to worry about sexual harassment or have to deal with troubling behavior that often exists with boys. They also argue that coeducational schools lead to greater gender stereotyping.
Opponents of single-sex education, including the authors of the Science article referenced above, argue that it is not single-sex education that is producing positive results with students but rather it is the motivation of the teacher and the resources that are available. There is a lack of quality research in the field to attribute success to single-sex schooling rather than extraneous factors. They believe that by having a single-sex school the children are not prepared for the real world, where they would need to communicate with members of the opposite sex. They argue that coeducational schools break down sexist attitudes through interaction with the opposite sex. Other opponents of single-sex education also argue that it is coeducational schools create a feeling of safety and a sense of mutual respect. Some opponents also argue out that gender segregation may have detrimental effects on transgender students.