Editor's Note: Another former student of mine, who also wishes to remain anonymous, wrote the argument below in 2013.
In the Harvard Journal of Law and
Gender, Juliet Williams (2010) notes that in the past ten years the number of
schools in the United States using a single-sex educational model has grown "from
a reported eleven single-sex public schools in 2002 to more than ninety today,
with hundreds more schools providing single-sex classrooms within
co-educational institutions" (p. 555). Research has proven the benefits of
same-sex schooling, especially for girls. The Department of Education should
strongly consider increasing the availability of same-sex education, either in
a segregated classroom or segregated school setting.
One of the main reasons that
same-sex education should be considered is because even though same-sex
education is beneficial for any child, it is especially beneficial for girls. In
an article published in Sex Roles, Rebecca
Bigler from the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin
and Margaret Signorella (2011) from the Department of Psychology at Penn State
Greater Allegheny, believe "...the exclusion of boys from classrooms was
viewed as an effective and acceptable means of promoting gender equality by
improving girls' academic achievement and mental health" (p. 661). In
another article from Sex Roles, Isabelle
Cherney and Kaitlin Campbell (2011), both from the Department of Psychology at
Creighton University, point out that studies have demonstrated that girls in
single-sex schools tend to have higher levels of self-esteem than girls in
coeducational schools (p. 714). Girls that have higher confidence tend to
choose careers in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, also known as the STEM fields. Concentration
on the STEM curriculum, especially where girls are concerned, is an educational
goal that has drawn a lot of attention recently. Consequently, Cherney and
Campbell (2011) suggest that "single-sex environments might mitigate or
foster some experiences that may lead girls to be motivated to pursue careers
in STEM fields" (2011, p. 714).
Same-sex education should be
considered because historically United States students do not rank nearly as
high as those educated in other nations. Interestingly, those other nations
that are highly ranked have long used same-sex classrooms and/or schools. Bigler
and Signorella (2011) observe, "[g]ender-segregated education is
prevalent...in Australia, Belgium, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and South
Africa" (p. 659). In order then to compete with students on a world level,
it is important that we employ methods that appear to work. Bigler and
Signorella (2011) report that "[t]he creation of single-sex schools is the
latest in a series of reforms (e.g., charter schools, vouchers) aimed at
providing all American children with a quality education" (p. 661). Historically
single-sex education has been confined to private and parochial schools.
However, Williams (2010) states that "[s]ome advocates have pointed to
studies which suggest that single-sex education may produce its most
significant results with children from low-income and minority
backgrounds" (p. 574). If this is indeed the case, and we are able to
educate even our low-income and minority background children at a higher level,
this will contribute to the overall goal of raising educational scores on a
national scale.
Another reason that same-sex
education should be a consideration is because recent studies have shown that
boys' and girls' brains work differently from each other. This "...'brain-based
research' is cited to justify sex-differentiated [teaching methods] [based] on
generalizations about the different learning styles of boys and girls"
(Williams, 2010, p. 562). Schools used this "brain-based" teaching
approach by giving both groups each a different atmosphere and teaching
methods; for example, some schools are using dimly lit rooms to minimize boys'
distractions, employ hands-on active lessons while teaching boys the alphabet,
and work with girls using flashcards and games (Williams, 2010, p. 563). Some
schools have noticed that boys like competition, for example, and can
accordingly employ teaching methods, while girls prefer a calmer setting. All
of the examples work to teach boys and girls in a "brain-based" way. Bigler
and Signorella (2011) criticize "[i]ndividuals who claim that sex
differences in children's brains make it difficult (if not impossible) to
educate male and female students within the same classroom..." (p. 662).
Some opponents may find legal
problems with segregating our children. They argue that it possibly violates
Title IX, which forbids anyone to be excluded on the basis of sex. However, in
at least one instance the courts "determined that attendance at both the
all-male and all-female single-sex schools in Philadelphia was 'voluntary' and
that the educational opportunities at both schools were both 'essentially
equal'" (Williams, 2010, p. 565). Additionally, opponents may insist that
we are stereotyping our children according to cultural beliefs. However, if we
are to recognize that sex differences, at least where learning is concerned, are
biological, and not cultural, then this argument fails.
Given all of the information, the
Department of Education should strongly consider increasing the number of
same-sex segregated classrooms and/or segregated school settings. Current data
indicates a trend towards more public school systems acknowledging the benefits
of sex-segregated learning environments. For example, the National Association
for Single-Sex Public Education (NASSPE) reports that in 2002 there were only
12 single-sex schools in their listing and, by 2011 that number had grown to
110 (Bigler & Signorella, 2011, p. 660). The number of single-sex
classrooms increased by even more. Given this trend, plus the fact private and
parochial schools have already recognized the benefits of single-sex education,
research indicates that single-sex education, either in a classroom setting or
in separate schools, may be the best option for not only our children's benefit
but for our country as well.
References
Bigler,
R., & Signorella, M. (2011). Single-sex education: New perspectives and
evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles, 65(9/10),
659-669. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0046-x
Cherney,
I., & Campbell, K. (2011). A league of their own: Do single-sex schools
increase girls' participation in the physical sciences? Sex Roles, 65(9/10),
712-724. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0013-6
Williams, J. A. (2010). Learning differences: Sex-role
stereotyping in single-sex public education. Harvard Journal of Law &
Gender, 33(2), 555-579. Retrieved from http://harvardjlg.com/
