Ward 1

Kaylee Ward

Professor Porter

English 1201.B59

15 April 2019

Single Sex Education

The idea of Single sex classrooms is not a new one. It has existed for a long time in in

many private schools but is relatively new for public schools. The National Association for

Single Sex Public Education has estimated that “Approximately 400 public schools now offer

some form of single-sex education” (Greatschools.org). With the raising popularity, it raises the

question of whether or not separated classrooms are more beneficial than co-ed classrooms.

Studies have been done to test this theory, and most say that the performance of girls has

improved in terms of test results, though the same is not often said for boys. The separation of

the two sexes is also speculated to promote dangerous gender stereotypes which begs the

question of if possibly better exam results are worth enforcing these stereotypes, and if boys and

girls learn differently because of their biological make-up, or if it is nurture that determines the

way they learn.

The idea of sex-separated classrooms

came about in order to be able to accommodate

the inherent strengths and weaknesses that boys

and girls possess. It is believed that boys and

girls will learn better in different learning

 Ward 2

environments. Some also believe that boys will perform better in certain subjects than girls and

girls will perform better than boys in some subjects because their brains are wired differently.

This is believed to be unavoidable, and that boys and girls brains are hardwired from birth to

think and learn differently. A study done by two elementary schools in Clarke county took this

idea and put it to the test. A class of first grade boys and second grade girls were part of an

experiment to test the strengths and weaknesses that both genders supposedly possess. In the

class of all boys, the teacher made sure to include a lot of movement in the lesson. They utilized

all different areas of the classroom in order to keep the boys moving, and even their seats were

rounded on the bottom, some of them even sitting on exercise balls, to allow “fidgeting.” The

other classroom, composed of all girls, included none of these things. They sat at normal desks

and focused on building self-confidence and determination. All the students at the school take

the same standardized test, even the ones that are in coed classrooms, and according to the

principal of the school, “they do show a lot of progress compared to the coed classrooms” (PBS).

In another study done by Relocate Global, girls exam results show that “girls appear to perform

better in single-sex

schools, particularly in

STEM subjects”

(Carruthers). This could be

because they are never

taught that subjects like

math and science are for boys, while reading and language are more for girls. Because of this,

they have no reason to believe that they would be unable to perform just as well. In contrast to

the study done in Clark country, experts from Relocate Global suggest that it is vital for children
 Ward 3

to grow up around members of the opposite sex, and then make the switch to a single-sex

classroom because that is when it is the most beneficial. This study discusses many of the

benefits for girls participating in separated classrooms but says nothing of the boys. They explain

that “It is more important than ever to raise happy, strong young women which is exactly what

single-sex schooling does” (Carruthers), but they never discuss whether this type of schooling

has any positive influence on boys. Another study done by the University of Chile found that by

separating the classrooms increased the math scores of the all-girls classes, and the boys’ stayed

the same. The language subject did not change for either sex (Paredes). Both of these studies

highlighted how different teaching styles can help students learn, but some believe that there are

different reasons as to why single-sex classrooms work better than co-ed ones that have little to

do with learning styles.

A study done in Sundsvall, Sweden focused their research on how teachers perceptions of

their students effected their learning. This study gathered that teachers generally had a positive

view of their own teaching, but “had low expectations of the boys” (Ahslund). This study

suggests the idea that it is possible people are enforcing these stereotypes of boys and girls, and

that is what is hurting them. If boys are just expected to do worse in school than girls are, they

probably will. By placing higher standards on the girls in their classroom, they will do better

because that it what is expected of them. The leaders of this study recommend that instead of just

splitting all classrooms so that boys and girls are separated, teachers should reflect on their

teaching methods and see how they can improve to meet the needs of all their students. They

introduce the didactic triangle as a way to this.

 Ward 4

Ahslund defines the didactic triangle as something to be used because “it emphasizes

teaching, learning, and teachers’ responsibilities for the students’ academic outcomes”

(Ahslund). They state that this theory “is a tool that could be used for reflection and critical

review of teaching/learning, as an aid for researchers and teachers in structuring and interpreting

classroom activities” (Ahslud). By using the triangle, it is possible to analyze the content of the

class, the focus of the teacher, and the relationship between the teacher and their students. In this

case, the triangle is made up of three axes and three aspects. The axes are teacher–student,

teacher–subject, and subject–student, and the aspects are teaching, rhetoric, and methodology.

The teacher-student axis highlights “classroom interactions and group processes, as well as the

ability to handle them” (Ahslud). This axis deals with the teacher’s ability to manage conflict and

meet the needs of all students in the class, regardless of their gender or learning style. This axis

links the intention of the teacher directly to the environment of the classroom, and the

performance of the students. The teacher-subject axis is the teacher’s way of managing the

content they need to impart on their students. According to Ingela Ahslud, this “includes the

teaching experience, oratory abilities, understanding of students’ perspectives, and capacity to

achieve a given communicative goal” (Ahslud). This means that the teacher needs to be aware of

the way that they communicate both with words and through body language and be sure that it is

benefitting the students. The last axis is the subject-student axis. This axis seeks to reflect on the

ability of the teacher to be able to convey information in a way that all students will be able to

understand, again this is regardless of gender or learning style. The didactic triangle refutes the

idea that classrooms need to be modified based on gender and instead suggests that all students

can learn in a co-ed environment, as long as they are treated equally, and the teacher alters the
 Ward 5

lesson plans to fit each class instead of trying to teach the same information the same way to

every class they have.

A Swiss psychologist named Jean Piaget, who is known for his work in child

development, contributes to this subject in the form of his theory of cognitive development. In

his theory, Piaget disagrees with the assumption that intelligence is a fixed trait. He explains that

“cognitive development [is] a process which occurs due to biological maturation and interaction

with the environment” (McLeod) rather than something genetic. Intelligence, according to this

theory, is determined by seeing and doing, and can be improved upon. The idea that boys and

girls have different brains, even if it were proven to be true, is completely irrelevant according to

this theory. If children are exposed to the exact same things when developing, they will most

likely think and behave almost the exact same way.

A study almost in direct opposition to the one researched by Relocate Global, both boys

and girls were placed in the same classroom, but it was completely gender neutral. A class of

twenty-three seven-year-old boys and girls from Lanesend Primary school spent a term with all

the different ways in which both sexes are treated completely removed. The issue of gender in

childhood has become increasingly controversial, so this study was not universally accepted.

Some critics even claim that this experiment “places an unhealthy emphasis on [gender identity],

at an age when children are too young to ask questions” (Hoyle). The experiment was done to

prove the hypothesis formulated by Dr. Javid that boys’ and girls’ learning abilities do not

depend on their gender, and that their brains are in fact the same. Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist

at Aston University, agrees with this statement and adds that it is “nurture, not nature, [that]

makes girls love dolls and boys like Lego” (Hoyle). This can be seen when psychometric tests
 Ward 6

were performed at the start of the experiment. Some responses from the children include: “All

but one girl believe boys are ‘better’ than them and their self-perception is largely limited to their

appearance. One pupil, Kara, says ‘girls are better at being pretty’ while another, Tiffany,

declares ‘men are better at being in charge.’ The boys are similarly old-fashioned: little Louis

says “girls look after the child and boys do lots of cool stuff,” while Bradley declares “men are

more successful because they could have harder jobs.’” (Hoyle). None of these children are born

with these ideas. It is a known fact that children are most impressionable when they are young,

and it can clearly be seen here that

stereotypes are being enforced at a

young age, possibly without

caregivers even noticing. Even

before they’re born, parents will

design nurseries with pink walls

and dolls if they are having a girl,

and they will have a blue room

with more “boyish” toys. Then when they are very young, they are told that these certain things

like dolls and dress-up clothes belong to girls, while trucks and comic books belong to boys. This

creates a very dangerous situation for children. By telling them from the time they are born that

they are not to play with dolls because that is a “girl thing” they are, either knowingly or

unknowingly, teaching boys to be less feminine and girls to be less masculine because that is just

the way it is. Enforcing these stereotypes could be the origin for the belief that boys and girls

learn differently, because when girls are told to sit down and be quiet while boys are encouraged

to be engaged and speak up, they will absolutely seem like they need to be in different
 Ward 7

environments in order to learn. After the three-month experiment came to a close, there were

mixed results. One student who went into the experiment unaware of the gender stereotypes

found out just how different some individuals think boys and girls are, but was still unphased and

ready to continue with her plans to become a lawyer despite what anyone had to say about it.

One participant who was changed by this experiment was the teacher of the class, Andre, who

before the program referred to his female students as “sweet pea” and his male students as

“mate” admitted after the experiment that it made him cringe to watch himself before, and he

would try to continue the gender neutral approach. It is unclear whether test results changed in

any way, but students were described as being “more ambitious than ever” and they “realize

[they] could achieve more and be stronger” (Hoyle). So, in conclusion, the gender-neutral

classroom, if nothing else, did improve the attitudes of most students and started to break down

the strongly enforced stereotypes that they had been exposed to their whole lives.

To build on the subject of gender stereotypes and bias, another dispute about single-sex

classrooms is based on the fact that gender is a spectrum. Especially in the last few years, the

ideas about the fluidity of gender identity has called into question how certain students could

even be placed in a single-sex classroom. Patrick Phelan, writer for the New York Times, brings

up the very relevant question, “what happens if a transgender student applies to a single-sex

school, or if an enrolled student transitions?” (Phelan) Some women’s colleges are already

seeing this phenomenon. According to Phelan, “a handful of applications from transgender

women have rattled school administrators over the past year” (Phelan) and leave them at a

crossroads as they decide what to do about transitioning students. When applying to go to an all-

women’s school, they apply as female but choose to identify as anything but in later years.

Transgender students are protected under Title IX, which states "No person in the United States
 Ward 8

shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial

assistance” (Title IX and Sex Discrimination). This, however, only goes so far and if they

administrators really wanted to kick them out, they could and would find a way. Children are

particularly in danger when it comes to transition or identifying as anything other than the gender

they were assigned at birth. It is thought by most adults that children have no idea how they feel

and are no where near old enough to be deciding such things. A poll done on Debate.org shows

that 76% of the people that took the survey say that they would not want children to be able to

decide what gender they want to be, many citing that “they are far too young for such a decision”

and some say that there is no choice because they are born the gender that they are and there is

no changing it. The idea that children are to young or do not know enough about their identity to

make these decisions is mostly false. According to Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of gender

identity development, children as young as three years old know most of the differences between

boys and girls and can label people as one or the other, though they still believe that people can

be either. By age six or seven, “most children understand gender consistency, the idea that they

are one gender and will remain that gender for life” (Oswalt). Most who are on the opposing side

of letting children choose their own identity also reject the fact that it does not have to stay that

way their entire life. The fact that gender is a spectrum also includes that it can change over time,

sometimes never settling at one place or another. By implementing a strict single-sex classroom

environment, those children who are stuck somewhere in the middle or even opposite of where

they “should” be, regardless of whether their parents are supportive, will be completely ledt in

the dust and not knowing where they stand.

 Ward 9

It can also be argued that a strictly single-sex school environment does not equip

students with the tools to deal with situations in real life. Very few environments in the real

world are completely single-sex. Especially in the times of today, where women are free to work

at places they never would have been allowed into in the past, like NASA or the Armed Forces,

people are always going to have to work with members of the opposite sex. Children do not have

the chance to learn the social skills to interact with each other if they do not have contact before

they graduate. The headmaster of a coeducational college in Brighton made headlines with his

comment that “pupils of all-girls schools could be at a ‘huge disadvantage’ in later life because

they had not socialized with boys” (Hunt). Obviously, sex-separated schools will not completely

eradicate any kind of communication between the two sexes, but they will have much less of an

opportunity to interact as they would in a co-ed environment.

Daniel Willingham, a cognitive scientist, took a more statistical approach to study this

subject and analyzed a few studies dealing with single-sex classrooms, and concluded that most

of them show very little, if any, academic improvement. He cites a report from the department of

education that reported mixed effects when reporting on single-sex classrooms, but says they

“generally [showed] a positive conclusion for single-sex classrooms in short-run academic

outcomes” however he also states that “there was no indication of a boost to longer-term

outcomes” (Strauss). A different study that spanned 21 nations and included over 1.6 million

K-12 students, concluded that “with proper controls, analyses show that single-sex classrooms

don’t help students much” (Strauss). This article also mentions that in almost all of these

experiments, children are not randomly assigned to single-sex classrooms, parents have to opt-in.

So the studies that have been published in support of the single-sex classroom and show

improvement, however small, could be a result of personal preference of the students. If there
 Ward 10

was a control group of children that were not allowed to opt-out of the separated classroom, there

could be different results because not all of the children will prefer it.

In conclusion, the idea that boys and girls learn differently because their brains are

different in largely based on pseudoscience, and it is nurture, not nature that determines the

capability of boys and girls in the classroom. By not exposing children to members of the

opposite sex in schools, they may not be as prepared for the real world and their job

environments as those in co-ed schools. By reducing the gender-stereotypes that are placed on

impressionable, young minds, a difference has been seen in their ambitions and performance.

Though the academic performance of girls in single-gender classrooms has been known to go up,

however slightly, this could be based on the fact that they prefer that type of environment, and

the same is not largely said for boys. The cons outweigh the pros for the idea of single-sex

classrooms. Due to the stereotype enforcement and lack of preparation for the real world, the

slight increase in girls’ academic performance is not enough to support this idea.
 Ward 11

Works Cited

Alber, Rebecca. “Gender Equity in the Classroom.” Edutopia, George Lucas Educational

Foundation, 27 Jan. 2017, www.edutopia.org/blog/gender-equity-classroom-rebecca-alber.

Ahslund, Ingela. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Gender Differences: What about Boys and Girls in

the Classroom?” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research,

no. 4, 2018, p. 28. EBSCOhost, doi:10.26803/ijlter.17.4.2.

Carruthers, Heather. “Is Single-Sex Education Still Relevant Today?” Editorial | Relocate

Magazine, 24 Oct. 2018, www.relocatemagazine.com/articles/education-is-single-sex-

education-still-relevant-today.

Hoyle, Antonia. “What Happened When a Primary School Went Gender-Neutral.” The

Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 15 Aug. 2017,

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/happened-primary-school-went-gender-neutral/.

Hunt, Elle. “Single-Sex Schools Offer No Advantages and Feed Stereotypes, Psychologists

Told.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 14 Sept. 2016,

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/14/single-sex-schools-offer-no-

advantages-and-feed-stereotypes-psychologists-told.

Mcleod, Saul. “Jean Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development.” Simply Psychology, 6 June

2018, www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html.

Oswalt, Angela. “Early Childhood Gender Identity And Sexuality.” Mental Help , 2017,

www.mentalhelp.net/articles/early-childhood-gender-identity-and-sexuality/.
 Ward 12

Paredes, Valentina. “Mixed but Not Scrambled Gender Gaps in Single-Sex

Classrooms.” Working Papers, University of Chile, Department of Economics, 2018.,

2018, eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=405aa8d0-cc4a-4d52-8615-

19ff6f13a103%40sdc-v-

sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=edsrep.p.udc.wpaper.wp470&d

b=edsrep.

Phelan, Patrick. “Is Single-Sex Education Still Useful?” The New York Times, The New York

Times, 5 Jan. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/learning/is-single-sex-education-still-

useful.html.

“Single-Gender Classrooms.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 19 Sept. 2016,

www.pbs.org/video/inside-education-single-gender-classrooms/.

Strauss, Valerie. “Kids Don't Learn Better in Single-Sex Classes - Meta Analysis.” The

Washington Post, WP Company, 11 Feb. 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-

sheet/wp/2014/02/11/kids-dont-learn-better-in-single-sex-classes-meta-

analysis/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3de6d4ec7f5.

Title IX and Sex Discrimination. US Department of Education, 25 Sept. 2018,

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html.