Should public school dollars support single-sex education?

Yes
Judith Kleinfeld:
If it works for some, it should be supported

In June 2002, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the Cleveland school choice case that puts profound pressure on the public schools to provide educational choice. According to Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, states may give tuition aid to low-income parents to enroll their children in a private school of their choice, including religiously affiliated schools. This Supreme Court decision puts pressure on public schools to offer educational choices, such as single-sex schooling.

But does single sex schooling benefit children? The research is inconclusive. But let me play devil's advocate. Let us suppose that the research showed overwhelming benefits for co-education. Let us suppose that 95 percent of boys and girls do better in co-educational schools and just 5 percent do better in single-sex schools. This would be overwhelming research support in favor of co-educational schooling.

The research does not show this at all, but, even if it did, this would not justify a policy against single-sex schooling. Why? Even if just 5 percent of girls and 5 percent of boys did better in single-sex schools, then single-sex schooling would be of benefit to a large number of children. The public schools would increase achievement by providing both options.

Single-sex schooling is usually justified by the benefits it provides for girls--in developing leadership skills, for example. That is why colleges like Wellesley, my own alma mater, still continue to attract students while their male counterparts have gone co-educational. I myself would not choose a single-sex college like Wellesley, if I had to choose again. I think young women do better learning to stand up for themselves and compete in the mixed environment where they will work as adults.

But the most serious education problem America now faces is the underachievement of boys, especially some minority boys who have become alienated from American life, end up in prison rather than in college and become ripe for recruitment by prison-based terrorist organizations. We have reason to believe that many boys thrive in education environments that emphasize competition, structure and authoritative discipline. Such education has become unfashionable and may not be appropriate for most students. Single-sex schooling allows the public schools to provide this option for parents and students who desire it, without imposing it on those who do not.

We all know from our own experience that different children thrive in different kinds of education environments. The Supreme Court decision gives the public schools the incentive to do what we all know to be right. To flourish, perhaps even to survive, public schools need to provide education choices. Single-sex schooling is one important choice.

No
Jacqueline Woods:
The jury is still out; go with what we know

There is no conclusive evidence that single-sex education works better than co-education in helping students of both sexes succeed in school. In 1998, the American Association of University Women's (AAUW) Educational Foundation released Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls, which included a comprehensive review of research on the subject. The report found that existing research is inconclusive; there is no evidence that single-sex education is better than co-education.

Several of the studies found that, while single-sex schools seem to have positive effects on girls' achievement compared to co-ed schools, closer examination reveals a more complex picture: Which students and which schools? Once the findings were adjusted for student socioeconomic status, pre-enrollment ability, selectivity of the school and other variables, the differences diminished or disappeared.

Our research and that of others show that what makes a difference is not the gender composition of the classroom or the school, but smaller class size, a rigorous curriculum, high standards, parental involvement, discipline, good teachers and attention to eliminating gender bias. Comparing a small single-sex school with 20 children per class to a large co-ed school with 35 or 40 students in each class, it is clear that the former has an advantage in helping girls and boys both learn better.

In an education landscape marked by problems of low achievement, violence, poverty, sexism, and racial and ethnic tensions, single-sex education won't cure our nation's education ills. The debate over single-sex education is a diversion from the real issue of improving public schools for all students--especially since 90 percent of all elementary and secondary students attend our nation's co-ed public schools.

The authors of Separated by Sex point out that the long-term impact of single-sex education on girls or boys is unknown and that more research is needed. Because single-sex education takes place in limited arenas and under widely varying conditions, comparisons are difficult to draw from site to site, and findings about the strategy's effectiveness are often subject to interpretation. Single-sex education experiments do produce some positive results for some students in some cases.

AAUW is committed to attaining an equitable learning environment for all students in our nation's co-educational public schools We believe that stronger public schools can improve student achievement. There is no evidence that focusing on single-sex education and other quick fixes will improve the quality of public education. Policymakers must look for solutions that benefit co-educational public schools. And schools striving to achieve an equitable learning environment must adopt strategies that will help all students learn better.