Ashley+Brogger

he Success of Single-Sex Education is Still Unproven
Bracey, Gerald W Education Digest, The 02-01-2007 [|Jump to best part of document] [|Your Summary Note] 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 not enough sound, definitive research to be used to guide educators and policymakers.

Until the late nineteenth century, education in the United States was a single- sex affair. Initially, only boys attended school, with girls being eventually-as a means of saving money-the schools were gradually merged. It was also hoped that the presence of girls would have the effect of tempering boys' "rough behavior." Ironically, it is that same rough behavior which is now often heard as being a rationale for the use of separate classrooms.

Title IX, which was passed in the year 1972, pretty well wiped out single- sex schools and classes in the public sector. In addition to this, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision requiring the Virginia Military Institute to admit women set very narrow conditions under which single- sex classes or schools would be permitted.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which was President Bush's renewal of President Lyndon Johnson's Elementary and secondary Education Act of 1965, authorizes funds for such schools and classes, but the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has never issued regulations governing their existence. It tried to do so in 2004, but the reactions from such organizations as the American Association of University Women (AAUW) were so swift and severe that the proposed regulations have never been enacted.

Four Camps

For a variety of reasons, interest in single- sex education is growing. There are essentially four camps which happen to be surrounding the topic:

1. Those who hold with the belief that coeducation is best. Such groups as the AAUW and the Feminist Majority Foundation, along with such individual researchers as David Sadker, from American University, take the position that if girls are suffering in coeducation settings, then the appropriate target for reform is the coeducation setting. The AAUW reviewed the research literature that existed in 1998 and reached the conclusion that the qualities of single- sex classes that seemed to elevate achievement were the qualities which one would hope to find in any effective classroom.

2. Those who hold with the belief that coeducation is best but that sometimes the ideals of coeducational education cannot be realized and single- sex classes and schools are viable alternatives when we find ourselves to be in such situations. For the most part, these people are interested in the matter of gender equity and concerned that girls don't receive it in a coed setting.

For example, some observations have shown teachers paying more and more helpful kinds of attention to boys than to girls but being unaware of their behavior toward them in this regard. This group would also like to use single- sex classes for the purpose of increasing the enrollment of girls in advanced mathematics and science classes and increasing the achievement in these classes.

3. Those who hold with the belief that separate schools are best for some groups. The most systematic theorist to be found in this arena is Cornelius Riordan, from Providence University. Riordan thinks that single- sex settings are needed only for students who are at risk. Such students, Riordan contends, are schooled in an atmosphere that is hostile to academic achievement. The single- sex academy changes this. (Riordan also holds the belief that single- sex classes will lack sufficient power to counter the anti-learning atmosphere; the whole school must be involved.)

According to Riordan, single- sex schools set a different tone: "Single- sex schools are places where students go to learn; not to play, not to hassle teachers and other students, and not primarily to meet their friends and have fun. Aside from affluent middle class communities and private alternative schools, coeducational schools are not all about academics.... The problem is not just about youthful anti-intellectualism, antisocial behavior, athletics and rock concerts, sexual harassment, heterosexual attraction and subsequent distraction, and the contentiousness that comes from increased diversity in the schools ; it is about all these things and more."

For Riordan, it is the act of choosing such a school that sets everything else into motion.

4. Those who hold with the belief that boys and girls learn so differently that single- sex schools will maximize learning. The leading advocate for this position is Leonard Sax, who was the founder of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education. Sax lays out differences in the ways that girls and boys see, hear, and draw (i.e., girls draw nouns, and boys draw verbs).

These differences are often studied at the microlevel of neurons and the macrobehaviors of a classroom-an enormous gap that Sax leaps in a single bound. Unfortunately, he often grossly distorts the data to make a point. Modest correlations in a single study become universal, deterministic, causal effects.

Heading There Anyway

Still, in the May 2005 issue of Scientific American, neuroscientist Larry Cahill indicates that neuroscience is moving in the direction of Sax: "A generation of neuroscientists came to maturity believing that ' sex differences in the brain' referred primarily to mating behaviors, sex hormones and the hypothalamus. That view, however, has now been knocked aside by a surge of findings that highlight the influence of sex on many areas of cognition and behavior, including memory, emotion, vision, hearing, the processing of faces and the brain's response to stress hormones."

My daughter and her husband were somewhat bemused by their young children's really stereotypical toy preferences. Their daughter preferred dolls and tea sets, while their son preferred balls, trains, and construction sets. Would this be the result of sex or culture? This would be hopelessly confounded, of course, in everyday life.

But Cahill mentions one study in which monkeys displayed the same gender-stereotype toy preferences as my grandchildren had shown-a result which was not likely to be arising from the effect of a gender-biased human culture. But even if they are hardwired, the question of whether gender differences are sufficiently important to warrant single- sex schools is yet to be determined.

Is there research that bears on all this? Not much-or at least, not much that holds up to close scrutiny. The fact that single- sex schools are schools of choice means that the research gold standard of random assignment to treatment is impossible. The best that it is possible for one to do is to look at those studies that statistically controlled for variables that could influence the data.

Research Weakness

Such a look reveals the single- sex schools area as being one of particular research weakness. A 2005 review of quantitative studies by Fred Mael and his colleagues at the American Institutes for Research for ED started with 2,221 studies and ended up with 40 that met the methodological criteria for inclusion. Many studies failed in terms of not controlling for such factors as selective admissions, socioeconomic status, financial advantage, religious values, prior learning, or ethnicity.

In addition, because of the fact that there are so few U.S. public single- sex schools, in order to be able to reach conclusions, one has to rely on generalizations or inferences from research in the public sector of other nations or from studies which were conducted in the United States that compare religious schools to public schools or religious single- sex schools to religious coeducational schools.

Maybe Harmful

The review which was done for ED was forthright: "As in previous reviews, the results are equivocal." Although there is "some" support for the concept that single- sex schools are beneficial, there is also "limited" support which was shown for the conclusion that they are harmful or that coed schooling works better.

The 40 studies which still remained, out of the large number which were originally considered, that did meet the methodological criteria for inclusion examined 33 outcomes, including such factors as the achievement of girls, achievement of at-risk students, self-concept and self-esteem, high school completion rates, college completion rates, career aspirations, eating disorders, "distractions" in the classroom, the behavior of boys, sex -based stereotypes, juvenile delinquency, and duration of first marriage.

There have also been several qualitative evaluations of single- sex experiments, but the experiments themselves generally came to naught because of the fact that they were not initiated as being attempts to produce gender equity. They were, rather, intended as means to achieve other ends.

In the largest of these experiments, former California Governor Pete Wilson (1991-99) established six sets of single- sex schools. Each set of these schools contained a school for boys and a school for girls, as a means of staving off Title IX complaints.

To Help Others

Wilson's interest was simply in the matter of expanding choice options of various kinds. The school systems that established the schools viewed the money for the project simply as being an added resource to help deal with existing problems, especially in terms of educating at-risk students.

Democrats did not support the schools and agreed to fund them only because of the fact that doing otherwise would have meant holding the entire state budget hostage to a $5 million project. When the Democrats regained the governor's mansion two years later, the funding ceased, and five of the six sets of schools shut down.

Similarly, there was a middle school in Southern California which was turned into a single- sex school although both sexes attended at the same campus. The focus, once again, was not really on gender issues. The school had chronically performed poorly on tests given to its students and was "reconstituted" as a single- sex school as a means of getting the school 's test scores up. The obsession which existed there with test scores prevented teachers from talking about broader gender equity concerns.

This is not to say that there has not been any interesting information which has emerged from the studies. In the case of the middle school, for example, teachers came to feel that they should teach only one sex in order to stay "in role." Teachers said they could adopt a "humane" role with the classes which were made up of girls but had to take on an "authoritarian" persona in order to be able to cope with the boys. They found shifting back and forth between roles for the two sexes to be fatiguing.

Moreover, five of the six pairs of the schools which were established by Wilson were housed on the same campus as a coed school, and there was some evidence that gender stereotypes, rather than being diminished, were actually being increased. The single- sex schools got labeled as "preppie," "bad," or "gay."

The NCLB Act calls for schools to adopt curricula and programs that are supported by scientifically based research. The U.S. Department of Education favors single- sex schools. But it is hard to see, currently, how any such schools could be justified by the weak and contradictory research evidence which now exists. AUTHOR_AFFILIATION By Gerald W. Bracey

From Principal Leadership AUTHOR_AFFILIATION Gerald W. Bracey (gbracey1@verizon.net) is an independent researcher and writer, an Associate of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, and a fellow with the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University-Tempe. Condensed from Principal Leadership, 7 (December 2006), 52-55. Published by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), 1904 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191, from which related educational materials are available by contacting NASSP. The Success of Single- Sex Education is Still Unproven

Byline: Bracey, Gerald W Volume: 72 Number: 6 ISSN: 0013127X Publication Date: 02-01-2007 Page: 22 Type: Periodical Language: English

Copyright Prakken Publications, Inc. Feb 2007

Why We Must Try Same-Sex Instruction
Laster, Carol Education Digest, The 09-01-2004 [|Jump to best part of document] [|Your Summary Note] EDUCATORS have not been teaching to the learning style of boys, nor have they kept up with recent findings in brain research on the developmental differences between boys and girls. Significant differences in the brains of boys and girls begin in the womb. Neurons in the brains of girls are much more densely packed than in boys.

Scientists have known for years that girls develop faster than boys, a fact confirmed through advanced technology. The pace of brain development of girls is of larger magnitude and longer duration than boys. Girls ' brains have been found to be three to four years ahead of boys from age 7 to 22. Men don't catch up with women until around age 29. Electroencephalogram patterns of a 17-year-old boy 's brain resembled those of an 11-year-old girl.

With all the education reform efforts about, with new accountability standards so high, school districts nationwide struggle to balance budgets and increase student achievement. One way that would not cost districts additional dollars might be to offer single-sex classes in our public schools.

Research on single-sex classes is more abundant outside the United States due to our 1972 Title IX laws, generally prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education programs receiving federal financial assistance. But U.S. Secretary of Education Rodney Paige has announced his intention to propose amendments that would allow flexibility in Title IX, allowing single-sex schools and/or classes.

Researchers-for or against single-sex education-agree that schools must have focus, discipline, involved parents, and caring, knowledgeable teachers who know how to communicate their subject matter. While many people will disagree with single-sex education, this researcher feels it must be considered because it can be a viable option to meet students' learning needs.

The study done here sought to learn of any differences in boys ' and girls ' achievement when educated in single-sex or coed classes. It also wanted to learn if there were fewer discipline problems for boys or for girls in the single-sex classes. The study used a group of 33 girls, 33 boys , and a coed group of 33 sixth-grade boys and girls.

Student lists were computer generated; all three included a diverse representation of the student population, but no special education students. Students rotated between, and were taught by, three separate teachers. One taught math/social studies, one science and computer, and one English/reading. The school curriculum was not altered for anyone. Students had opportunities to interact with members of the opposite sex during such activities as band, music, library, and/or physical education.

The math/social studies teacher reported the coed group fairly normal with some discipline problems. The all- girls ' group was described as neat, organized, well-mannered, hardworking, and seeming to bring out the best in each other. The all- boys ' group was more active than the all girls ' or coed group. In same-sex classes, achievement and test scores improved. The math/social studies teacher recommended same-sex educational settings.

More Motivated

The science/computer teacher reported the girls in the same-sex class as more open to ask questions, determined to make the highest grade on all tests, more motivated, and loving the challenge of the subject areas. He reported that the single-sex boys ' group was more active than the single-sex girls ' group or the coed group, and that the achievement of the boys in the single-sex class was lower than the single-sex girls ' or the coed class because the boys required more redirection to stay on task than the other two classes.

In math, the coed group scored highest on the tests when compared to the single-sex girls ' or single-sex boys ' group. This instructor explained that, although she felt it was a good study, pressure to perform for students in the single-sex classes was very high. She also expressed that coed groups are more like "real life" where the sexes are not separated, and that single-sex education might be more appropriate at the elementary level.

The principal of the middle school having the study reviewed the test scores and noted high scores in both the single-sex girls ' and single-sex boys ' groups. He stated that he felt the study supported the findings that indicated that girls perform better in math and science and boys perform better in language arts and reading when placed in single-sex groups.

Test Data

The test data for this study comes from the Mississippi Curriculum Test, given each May for grades 2 to 8. Results are for the single-sex girls ' group, single-sex boys ' group, and coed group in reading, language arts, and math in 2003.

In reading, 100% of girls in the single-sex group and 100% of girls in the mixed group scored at advanced and proficient levels; 93% of girls not included in the study were at advanced and proficient levels, as 7% of the girls were at minimal and basic levels. Comparing reading scores of girls in the single-sex group (100%) to those in the mixed group (100%) yields no difference in reading performance.

As 97% of boys in the single-sex group were at advanced and proficient levels, 3% were at minimal and basic levels; 85% of boys in the mixed group were at the advanced and proficient levels, while 15% were at the minimal and basic levels.

As 94% of boys not included in the study were at advanced and proficient levels, 6% were at minimal and basic levels. Comparing reading scores of boys in the single-sex group (97%) with those in the mixed group (85%), results do reflect a difference.

In language arts, 87% of girls in the single-sex group were at advanced and proficient levels as 12% were at minimal and basic levels; 84% of girls in the mixed group were at advanced and proficient levels as 16% were at basic and minimal levels. As 78% of girls not included in the study were at advanced and proficient levels, 22% were at minimal and basic levels. Comparing girls ' language arts scores in the single-sex group (87%) to the mixed group (84%) yields only a slight difference.

As 88% of boys in the single-sex group were at advanced and proficient levels, 12% saw basic and minimal levels; 70% of boys in the mixed group were at advanced and proficient levels as 30% were at minimal and basic levels. Some 93% of boys not included in the study had advanced and proficient levels as 7% had basic and minimal levels. Comparing boys ' language arts scores in the single-sex group (88%) to boys in the mixed group (70%) shows a fairly large difference.

In math, 94% of girls in the single-sex group were at advanced and proficient levels, as 6% hit minimal and basic; 92% of girls in the mixed group were at advanced and proficient levels as 8% hit minimal and basic. As 71% of girls not included in the study hit advanced and proficient levels, 29% were at basic and minimal. Scores of girls in the single-sex (94%) and mixed groups (92%) showed little difference.

As 84% of boys in the single-sex group did math at advanced and proficient levels, 16% hit minimal and basic; 90% of boys in the mixed group were at advanced and proficient levels as 10% hit minimal and basic. As 85% of boys not included in the study hit advanced and proficient levels, 12% hit basic and minimal. Comparing math scores of boys in the single-sex group (84%) to those in the mixed group (90%), boys did better in the mixed group.

This study was done to learn if differences existed between achievement on the Mississippi Curriculum Test of boys and girls in single-sex and mixed groups and if discipline problems fell if students are grouped by gender. The only data on discipline problems were the narrative reports by the teachers included in the study citing fewer discipline problems in the single-sex groups than in the mixed.

This study showed no difference in girls ' reading performance in the single-sex group compared to the mixed, but boys in the single-sex group performed at a higher level compared to the mixed. There was only a slight difference in girls ' language-arts performance in the single-sex group compared to the mixed, but a fairly large difference for boys : They performed at a much higher level in the single-sex group than in the mixed. In math, girls saw only a small difference between single-sex and mixed-groups, but boys in the mixed group performed at a higher level, than boys in the single-sex group. The implication for schools might be to allow parents the option of placing their children in a same-sex class.

Compelling

While these research findings are not significant statistically, they are compelling as reported by the test results. More research to determine the effects of separate educational settings is needed in the United States.

Efforts should be made to improve educational outcomes for children by providing parents an array of educational options to meet their children's needs, while also ensuring appropriate safeguards against discrimination. Existing single-sex classes and schools need to be evaluated to determine how and if they improve achievement of both boys and girls over a period of time. AUTHOR_AFFILIATION Carol Laster is Assistant Principal, Oak Grove Central Elementary School, 893 Oak Grove Road, Hernando, Mississippi 38632. Why We Must Try Same-Sex Instruction =My Notes=

David Bordwellbordwell Ashley

To create a page...
>
 * 1) Click on the edit button [[image:edit.jpg]]
 * 2) Type the title of the page. Use a descriptive title not just "notes 1."
 * 3) Highlight the text and click the link button in the menu bar.
 * 4) In the Page Name text box **__add your name to the end of the title of the page__** and press add link.
 * 1) This will create a hyperlink to a page that doesn't exist. When you go to the page you will be prompted to edit this new page. **__Make sure that you choose the Notes page template.__**