Are single-sex schools of benefit to students?

When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.

Are single-sex schools of benefit to students?

Echo Issue Outline 1999 / 21: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`They definitely had a significantly higher level of achievement in the single-sex schools, both boys and girls'
Professor Peter Cuttance, the head of the school of educational psychology, literacies and learning at the University of Sydney

`In academic success, co-education is as good if not better'
Mr Tony Hewison , the chairman of the Consortium of Co-educational Schools

In September 1997 the Australian Council for Educational Research released a report which suggested that single-sex schools, especially girls' schools, deliver no particular educational advantage to their students.
Less than a week later a news item published in The Age suggested that single-sex schools were in a state of relative decline. The report claimed that while enrolments in co-educational private schools were increasing those in single-sex private schools were falling.
It would appear, however, that the issue is far from dead.
In September 1998 the proposal that a South Australian girls' school, Woodlands Anglican School for Girls, merge with a South Australian boys' school, Pulteney Grammar, met with such opposition that Woodlands ultimately went into voluntary administration rather than amalgamate. Woodlands closed at the end of 1998.
The co-education versus single-sex schools debate used to focus on redressing the relative disadvantage suffered by girls in schools. The current debate is being waged against a background of growing concern about boys' declining academic achievement and problematic social skills.

Background
There appears to be a long-term decline in the number of students attending single-sex schools in Australia.
The number of students attending single-sex private schools has fallen by seven per cent over the last five years. Overall enrolments in private schools have increased seven per cent in the same period.
Victorian Education Department figures show enrolments in private single-sex schools fell 20 per cent in the ten year period from 1986.
Girls' school enrolments fell by one-fifth over this decade. Boys' school enrolments fell almost a quarter.
The only single-sex sector to increase number significantly in the last five years was that of state or public girls' school in Victoria where the number of students enrolled rose from 6,000 in 1991 to 7,000 in 1996.
This was largely due to the opening of a new state girls' school, Melbourne Girls' College.

There are a large number of Internet sites presenting information and opinion on this issue.
A useful place to begin is with two brief but forceful expressions of opinion - one opposing single-sex schools the other favouring them. Each of these commentators are from the United States and each is considering the issue of single-sex education for girls.
Marina Mogilevich has written a one page argument outlining what she believes are some of the dangers of single-sex education for girls. Her article titled, Wasn't Segregation a Thing of the Past ?, was published in 1994 by the Stuyvesant High School Alumni Association.
It can be found at http://www.shsaa.org/Spectator/94n2/3math.html
Deirdre Timmons has written another one page article outlining what she believes are the advantages of single-sex education for girls. Her article titled, No Boys Allowed, has been reproduced by Divine Savior Holy Angels, a school for girls in Wisconsin. It originally appeared in the Women's E-zine, Underwire.
It can be found at http://dsha.k12.wi.us/NoBoys.htm
An argument in favour of single-sex schools for boys can be found on the home page of Blackfriar's Priory School, South Australia.
The article titled, Why a Boys' School?, was written by Blackfriar's principal, Fr Martin Wallace, and can be found at http://203.23.125.33/school/boyschool.html
A far lengthy argument opposing single-sex schools for girls and boys was published in the Atlantic Monthly in April, 1998.
It was written by Wendy Kaminer and is titled The Trouble With Single-Sex Schools.
This is a substantial article (it runs for 11 pages) which gives an historical overview of single-sex- and co-education in the United States and examines the arguments for and against each before finally arguing against single-sex schools.
It can be found at http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/98apr/singsex.htm
In March 1998, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) released a report claiming that, in general, single-sex education could not be shown to benefit girls.
The report was titled Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls.
The AAUW report drew on data from Catholic and independent single-sex schools in the United States, as well as single-sex schools in Australia, Ireland and Britain.
A summary of the report can be found on the AAUW's home page at http://www.aauw.org/2000/ssprbd.html
A comprehensive examination of gender and education in Australia can be found in a report titled, `Girls, Schools ..... and Boys - Promoting Gender Equity Through Schools: Twenty Years of Gender Equity Policy Development'
The report, written by Shelley McInnis, can be accessed through the Australian Parliamentary Library. It is Research Paper 24 1995-96. It can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1995-96/96rp24.htm
It is a detailed report analysing the effectiveness of federal Government policy attempts to ensure that girls are given fair access to education and real opportunities for success.
It is a long report (33 pages) and for the purposes of considering the single-sex or co-ed issue you might want to begin by reading its treatment of Recent Developments. Under this heading are subsections titled The National Action Plan for the Education of Girls and The 'What About the Boys?' Debate. You might also want to read the report's conclusions.
The purpose of this report is not to promote single-sex education. Instead it considers how the specific needs of male and female students can be addressed, generally in a co-education setting.
An article titled, Boys' Education: is equity enough? looks at the education and broader socialisation problems facing boys.
It argues that a gender equity approach or a continuation of the National Action Plan for the Education of Girls is insufficient to address the problems of boys.
The article, which focuses on the situation in New South Wales, is written by Peter Vogel. Peter Vogel is the editor of Certified Male, a journal of men's issues, published in Australia on the Internet and as a print magazine. The article was published in the Autumn 1996 edition of Certified Male.
Though he does not address the single-sex issue, Vogel argues that specific provision needs to be made for boys irrespective of the educational setting.
The article can be found at http://www.pnc.com.au/~pvogel/cm/aut96/boysed.htm
An earlier Certified Male article, published in the Winter 1995 edition, addresses the same issue. It can be found at http://www.pnc.com.au/~pvogel/cm/wint95/girlboy.htm
The article titled, Girl-Friendly/Boy-Friendly, argues that educational reforms over the last twenty years have made schools more congenial places for girls but have not addressed the problems of boys.

Arguments supporting single-sex schools
Those who support single-sex schools usually start from the claim that boys and girls develop differently both psychologically and socially and thus their educational requirements are different.
With regard to differences in psychological and social development, it is claimed that boys are either more aggressive or more assertive and thus tend to monopolise teacher attention.
The tendency for male students to monopolise teacher time has been noted by Dr Victoria Foster of the faculty of education at the Wollongong University.
Dr Foster has suggested, for example, that the common perception that boys have more literacy and reading problems than girls is a distorted view because one of the reasons boys are more frequently referred to remedial programs is that when they do experience learning difficulties they are more disruptive than girls with the same problems.
Dr Foster has claimed that research indicates that girls' learning difficulties or behavioural problems have to be very marked before they are attended to.
It is also claimed that boys prefer a more competitive environment while girls work better co-operatively.
These points have been made by Judith Wheeldon, headmistress at Sydney's Abootsleigh.
Ms Wheeldon has claimed that the sexes learn differently - girls, for example tending to need more talk and discussion and learning well through co-operation, with boys tending to be more overtly competitive and to prefer working individually.
From this position it is then claimed that if boys and girls require different things of schools it is both more efficient and effective to educate them separately.
This point has been made by Ms Rosa Storelli, the principal of Methodist Ladies College, who argues that though it is possible to cater for the needs of both boys and girls in a co-educational setting, it is more effective to educate them separately.
Ms Storelli has noted that as the principal of an all girls school she is not constantly having to ask herself whether the school is providing for both sexes equally. Instead, Ms Storelli has maintained, 'All my time is spent on ... how to impart knowledge.'
There are also those who stress that it is it extremely difficult to cater for both boys and girls in a co-educational setting.
Professor Rachel Sharp, a sociologist has argued that many `co-educational schools are boys' schools with gilrs in them'. By this she appears to mean that the basic values and organisational structures of these schools are better suited to boys than girls.
There are other critics who have suggested that since the 1980s, when the special educational needs of girls began to be addressed in Australia and overseas, co-educational schools have progressively become places that better cater for girls than boys.
Girls' superior performance in the final years of secondary education in Australia has been said to suggest that many schools as they currently operate are not meeting the needs of their male students.
It has further been suggested that co-education impacts restrictively on both boys and girls subject choice, tending to reinforce social stereotypes so that a majority of girls avoid science and maths while a majority of boys avoid the arts and humanities.
This position has been summarised from the female students' perspective by Diana Thorp, writing in The Australian.
Ms Thorp has written, '... girls in co-educational schools are less likely to choose traditionally male-dominated subjects such as maths and science; tend to let male students dominate playground space, computers and teachers' attention; and suffer sexual harassment. In a single-sex environment, it is argued, girls gain self esteem, feel empowered and receive better marks.
It has been claimed by some that the advantage of single-sex education is greater for girls than it is for boys, but that in terms of marks received both do better in a single-sex environment.
This claim has been made by Professor Peter Cuttance, the head of the school of educational psychology, literacies and learning at the University of Sydney.
Professor Cuttance studied the 1996 New South Wales Higher School Certificate results, contrasting the achievements of students in co-educational schools with those in single-sex schools.
Professor Cuttance concluded, `They definitely had a significantly higher level of achievement in the single-sex schools, both boys and girls.
The advantages for boys were not as great. They were about three to five [tertiary entrance rank] points better ... For the girls, the differences were bigger, they were more [on] the order of 10 to 15 points better on the TER outcome ... if they went to a single-sex school.'
It has been claimed that young people's emotional and psychological development is better fostered in a single-sex school because they can be catered for more specifically and because they are not forced into premature gender-based stereotypes.
This point has also been made by Ms Judith Wheeldon. Ms Wheeldon has argued, `I really am thoroughly convinced that young people need a chance to develop their own role in life as a man or a woman very thoroughly ... before they are spending practically all of their time together.'

Arguments opposing single-sex schools
Those who oppose single-sex schools do so for a number of reasons.
Firstly they tend to argue that single-sex schools are artificial as they segregate students in a way that they will not be when they join the workforce and the adult social world.
The former principal of Methodist Ladies College and current principal of Wesley College, Mr David Loader, has argued that segregation may not adequately prepare students for the real world where they will have to deal with members of both sexes.
Mr Loader has suggested that denying students `realistic settings' to meet both genders is 'to sell them a bit short in 1997.' (Mr Loader made this comment as part of an interview given in 1997.)
Mr Loader has claimed, referring to single-sex girls' schools, `Boys will be there later. They are part of a natural social complexity to be dealt with, not dodged.'
According to this line of argument single-sex schools deny students a chance to develop they range of social skills they will need to deal appropriately with both genders.
It has also been argued that single-sex schools foster an unrealistic attitude toward and possibly an exaggerated interest in the other gender.
It has also been suggested that single-sex education encourages some of the more unfavourable attributes of both sets of students, with boys possibly becoming more aggressive than they would be in a mixed setting and girls more socially hurtful toward some peers.
This point has been made by a former student at an all-girls school, Cassandra Haydock. Ms Haydock claimed, 'I found that in girls' schools it gets very, very catty.'
Secondly it has been argued that the supposed academic advantage that single-sex schools are claimed to give female students, in particular, has not been demonstrated to be the case.
According to this line of argument the apparent better results achieved by students in single-sex-schools have more to do with the social background and aspirations of the students and the quality of the schools' programs than it has with single-sex education.
A 1997 study conducted for the Australian Council for Educational Research by Dr John Ainley, has apparently demonstrated that single-sex schools did not encourage a higher proportion of female students to take up advanced mathematics.
A smaller study conducted in 1997 by Dr Judith Gill of the University of South Australia also claims to demonstrate that there is no apparent difference in girls' attitude to school, their satisfaction with their studies and their attitude to and confidence regarding maths and science between those in all-girl schools and those in co-educational settings.
It has also been claimed that studies conducted in New Zealand, Northern Ireland and the United States have similarly claimed to find that when allowance is made for other variables single-sex education appears to confer no particular advantage on students.
Thirdly it has been argued that it is possible for schools to cater for the needs of both male and female students in a co-educational setting.
According to this line of argument, though each of the genders may have some specific requirements appropriate educational programs can ensure that each are meet.
The apparent success of initiatives such as the National Action Plan for the Education of Girls in helping to address the educational disadvantage previously suffered by female students has been seen by some to indicate the extent to which schools can adapt to meet the particular requirements of a given set of students.
Finally, it has also been argued that both boys and girls can benefit from some of the more gender-specific attributes of the other.
This point has been made by Mr David Loader, the principal of Wesley College. Mr Loader has pointed to the benefits that male and female students can from learning in a shared environment.
This attitude appears to be shared by some students. A year 12 student at Pulteney Grammar in Adelaide, whose school has recently become fully co-educational, has suggested that sharing classes with female students 'would have made things more interesting and given a different perspective in class discussions'.
These arguments have been summed up by the chairman of the Consortium of Co-educational Schools, Mr Tony Hewison.
Mr Hewison has claimed, `In academic success, co-education is as good if not better. There's an argument that it's better because students are happier in a more natural environment.'

Further implications
Single-sex schools in Australia do appear to be experiencing a relative decline, both in terms of the number of such schools and their individual enrolments. This decline appears to be occurring particularly with regard to single-sex boys schools. The significance of this will be in part determined by the reasons for it.
The suggestion has been made that most of the apparent decline has been because of increased competition for students from a growing number of private co-educational schools charging lower fees. If this is an accurate explanation for the apparent decline in single-sex schools for a turn-around to occur it would require a significantly increased number of students and parents to decide that single-sex education was a better option for them. If this change in parent and student preference came about it is even possible that there could be a growth in single-sex public schools as well as in the number of single-sex private schools charging relatively lower fees.
Such a change in student and parent preference will largely depend on how well each type of school, co-educational and single-sex, is seen to be meeting the particular needs of its student body.
There is a growing awareness of the special educational and socialisation needs of young males. Currently it does not seem that these needs are being adequately addressed within the Australian education system. If single-sex boys schools take a lead and are seen to be responding most effectively to the particular requirements of male students then their numbers could begin to grow.
Similarly, though there has been an apparent improvement over the last twenty years in the manner in which most schools address the particular needs of female students, many critics maintain that significant problems remain. Single-sex girls schools appear to have done a relatively better job, to date, than single-sex boys schools in convincing parents and potential students that they can meet the special needs of their students.
Over-riding whatever efforts are made within single-sex schools, especially within the private education sector, if co-educational schools start to take an active and effective lead in addressing the problems of male students and continue to be seen to be attempting to address those of female students then the relative decline in single-sex schools is likely to continue.
As a final note, there are two recent developments which may work in the favour of single-sex schools. One is a growth in ethnic or culturally-based private schools which are also single-sex schools. The other is a growing fear of violence within schools. This fear may lead to a renewed interest in at least all-girl schools, even within the state education system.

Sources
The Age
8/7/97 page 2 news item by Alex Messina, 'School expert urges boys' program'
25/9/97 page 3 news item by Alex Messina, 'Study challenges single-sex school "advantage"'
25/9/97 page 3 news item by Alex Messina, 'Different schools of thought'
26/9/97 page 3 news item by Victoria Button, 'Co-ed school to favour girls'
30/9/97 page 3 news item by Alex Messina, 'Single-sex schools losing numbers'
11/10/97 page 8 analysis by Alex Messina, 'Schools matter, not gender'
11/10/97 page 8 news item, 'Crossing paths to happier futures'
31/3/98 page 15 analysis by Christopher Richards, 'Co-ed or single-sex?'
16/6/98 page 6 news item by Sue Cant & Shane Green, 'Tribunal allows school to seek girls'
15/9/98 page 19 analysis by Carey Goldberg, 'What about the boys?'
6/10/98 page 3 news item by Carolyn Jones, 'New-age bullies use cyberspace to harass peers'
23/3/99 page 4 news item by Carolyn Jones, 'Haileybury principal says boys-only schools outdated'

The Australian
5/9/98 page 3 news item by Amanda Hodge, 'Schools get six of the best for merger'
5/9/98 page 3 analysis by Amanda Hodge, 'School gender debate still on syllabus'
28/9/98 page 18 analysis by Diana Thorp, 'Sex and the single school'
12/10/98 page 18 comment by Victoria Foster, 'Sexes should no longer be classes apart'
9/1/99 page 5 news item by Madeleine Coorey, 'Girls win honours, boys wear dunce cap'

The Herald Sun
16/6/98 page 12 news item by Natalie Sikora, 'School gets OK to pull a few gender strings'