Introduction
Single-sex education became an issue as soon as it started formally in western universities in the 1960s. There were conservative groups in the European cultures who looked at the idea with dislike. Ever since then the comparative benefits of single-sex and coeducational schools and other effects on academic performances of boys and girls have been grounds for a heated debate.
The important participants in this debate have been educationists, statisticians, econometricians, parents, and most importantly students themselves. In the circles of educationists and statisticians, the debate about the comparative benefits of single-sex and co-educational schools started with Dale’s longitudinal study of grammar schools (Malacova, p. 234). Since then several studies, surveys, and research have taken place in different parts of the world.
The US government passed Title IX in 1972 that barred any public school from operating as single-sex (Bracey, p. 22). Very few of those not public schools remained single-sex after that in the USA. Europe also started having coeducational classes in the late nineteenth century. But is important to note that coeducational setup is symbolized as the product of western liberal countries. One can find many countries in the East where single-sex educational schools are more common. There are even countries like Saudi Arabia where co-education does not exist at the high school level.
The most asked questions in the debate have been related to the benefits of single-sex education over co-education, the progress of boys and girls in a mixed rather than separate setup, and other ethical dilemmas originated in a mixed system. In 1992, the NCLB law seemed to highlight the advantage of single-sex education in failing schools.
In 2007, the US government enacted relaxations in Title IX to facilitate public schools to offer single-sex classes to improve scores (Scarpa, p. 16). Over the years of experiencing coeducation at all levels, groups and organizations have developed like the National Association of Single-Sex Public Education that stands for the need for single-sex education (Scarpa 16) some groups believe that although coeducation is the best often enough the ideals of such setup cannot be achieved and single-sex education is a better alternative (Bracey, p. 23).
Also, not to forget the insolvent groups like AAUW and Feminist Majority Foundation who rigidly stand the ground that coeducation is the best. They argue that girls face discriminatory behavior and adjustment problems once they are out of school in the workplace. But the groups supporting single-sex education have more to do with empirical research rather than religious and cultural issues like in the East. The leading character in such support is Leonard Sax, executive director [and founder] of the National Association of Single-Sex Public Education (Bracey, p. 24).
Sax and his likes argue that boys and girls have different aptitudes and responses to different things like light, voices, and learning. However, his studies and others like those of Michael Gurian are based on empirical models and sampling biases in such studies play a vital role the defining the result of the studies. Bracey (2006) comments that researchers like Sax manipulate data to gain favorable results (Bracey, p. 24). However, this might be generalizing since a lot of research has been done on the issue, and support is found for single-sex education. Malacova (2007) discusses in detail the results of many studies.
In the Middle East and Asia, coeducation is even more controversial and a sensitive debate. The opponents of coeducation have grounds based on religious beliefs, cultural and social values, and ethical ideals. The supporters of coeducation are few who present an argument like that in the West based on human rights, equal opportunities, and workplace problems. They are often labeled as liberals.
The issue of single-sex or coeducation is strictly ethical and religious in conservative societies. But this issue is more a social and human rights issue in the West. Those who oppose or support either side in the West do so rarely on grounds of religion. Some arguments relating to ethical values are found, however. For example, one such study in 2005 by Fred Mael examined qualitative outcomes such as distraction in classrooms, juvenile delinquency, sex-based stereotypes, eating disorders, and duration of first marriage (Bracey, p. 25). But most of the studies have questioned quantitative factors such as GCSE scores and achievement of failing and at-risk students in single-sex setup (Malacova, p. 234).
Although the current US Department of education seems in favor of single-sex education (Bracey, p. 26), the NCLB Act and any other rationale call for the adoption of a setup supported by empirical and scientific research. Eva Malacova (2007) discusses in detail the vital effect of other variables or factors on student achievement apart from single-sex setup. The difference between grammar schools and comprehensive schools, student’s prior attainment, sex, and ethnicity also have varying effects on different students (Malacova, pp. 234-236). Michael Gurian et.al. (2006) discuss the different learning behaviors of boys and girls and both positives and negatives of single-sex education. Their findings and those of Sax are what are considered as the primary support for the single-sex education in the circles of econometricians, and also, support for the relaxations in Title IX.
However, this remains firm that under practical experience and research results, the reviewed literature reveals inconclusive findings on the comparative study of single-sex and coeducation for its influence on student achievement. However, Malacova’s (2007) multilevel modeling takes into account all the concerns of manipulation of data and after controlling for many variables, confirms the findings of Leonard Sax and Michael Gurian. What conclusion to draw out of these studies rests solely on educationists and policymakers.
Almost all the empirical findings including the one by Eva Malacova confirm that students with less prior attainment tend to benefit more from single-sex education. But is vital to consider some factors while sampling collection like grammar schools, public-private, and prior underachievement. Bracey also agrees that boys and girls have a different aptitudes for learning naturally, but they need a special environment in which separate schools for them will help them benefit from it (Bracey, pp. 22-25). However, such gold standards cannot be achieved.
Research Process
The question of the research was whether single-sex education is better than coeducation in achieving better test scores and do pupils perform better in single-sex than in co-education. The issue of single-sex education versus coeducation has been debated in media and politics alike. Major stakeholders who include educationists, policymakers, parents, and students have argued using social values, statistical findings, empirical evidence, and comparative benefits for the students in either of the setup. Out of the 5 sources I have used, 3 sources take a stance in form of some conclusion. This is important to note that those who support the idea of separation fall into two categories.
First, those who present differences in brain development, and second, those who want to ensure equal opportunities for girls and women. The article by Gerald W. Bracey is insolvent in its view that almost all the research in this respect is weak and contradictory. Bracey presents four groups in the debate on coeducation versus single-sex education. But he is not ready to accept the research results that are contradictory and weak. Simply, he is unable to take a single position. However, Bracey’s article takes into account every viewpoint thoroughly and just analyzes their weak points.
Michael Gurian et.al in the book “Boys and Girls Learn Differently” discuss in detail the developmental and structural differences, chemical differences, hormonal differences, functional differences, and differences in processing emotions. This seems logical that with different developmental and learning style processes, either of the boys and girls would lose out on different areas of education in mixed setup. For example, research shows that girls lose on mathematics and sciences, while boys lose on arts and language (Scarpa, p. 16). This book presents results based on extensive brain-based research and study. Gurian and Sax fall in the first group that validates the idea of single-sex education due to brain differences.
The most well studied and profound findings are those of Eva Malacova in her paper “Effect of single-sex education on progress in GCSE”. Malacova gives a background in all the empirical and scientific research findings in this respect. After recognizing the shortcomings of sampling bases, data collection, and modeling, she comes up with three research inquiries. First is whether pupils in single-sex setup make better progress in GCSE than those in co-education. Second, whether girls and boys perform differently in secondary schools. The research methodology is extensive and comprehensive concerning data sources, data collection, and data analysis. The conclusions to both these questions stand positive for the idea of single-sex education.
Bibliography
- Malacova, Eva. Effects of single-sex education on progress in GCSE. Oxford Review of Education. Vol. 33, No. 2, 2007, pp. 233-259.
- Pascopella, Angela. Scarpa, Steven. Single-Sex Ed Gets Easier. District Administration; 2007, Vol. 43 Issue 1, pp. 16-16, 2/3p.
- Gurian, Michael. Henley, Patricia. Trueman, Terry. Boys and Girls Learn Differently Published by Wiley Default, 2002
- Bracey, Gerald. W. The Success of Single-sex Education is Still Unproven. 2007. Principal Leadership. pp. 22-26.
- Girls and Boys. Connect 2008. Synergy Learning. p 20.