by Saeculum Research
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released new guidelines for K-12 schools that offer or want to offer single-sex classes. This move is in response to the explosion of public and charter schools with single-sex options over the past decade. Although this method is far from fresh, the latest rendition has some new twists—namely, a move from private to public schools and an increased emphasis on boys. While supporters tout the numerous benefits of single-sex education, detractors insist that the research is flawed at best. This controversial practice has largely been shaped by generational attitudes, which will in turn influence the style of tomorrow’s classrooms.
Over the past decade, the number of school systems offering single-sex education has skyrocketed. Until recently, single-sex education was mostly barred from public schools and restricted to physical and sexual education classes. But in 2006, reforms to Title IX have extended the practice to public schools, provided that the classes are voluntary and “substantially equal.” From 2004 to 2014, the number of single-sex schools increased from 34 to 850. In the same time period, the number of schools offering at least one single-sex class rose from 112 to approximately 750. To be sure, this is a tiny percentage of public schools overall, but this tenfold increase in options is remarkable. Many of those jumping onboard are in need of a change. Most are struggling with student academic performance and are located in high-poverty neighborhoods in cities like Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia.
In a way, the return to single-sex education is a throwback to centuries past. For most of American history, formal education was limited to males. Only wealthy women received formal educations at home. And when education was extended to women, they were usually taught separately since segregation by gender was the norm. It wasn’t until the end of the 19th century that coeducational public schools became commonplace.
Today’s single-sex classrooms, however, look considerably different from those of years past. Traditionally, the practice was limited to private schools and the wealthy, but now, single-sex education is being implemented in low-income public schools.The most notable twist to this tradition, however, is the gender reversal taking place. According to conventional wisdom, single-sex education focused on helping girls achieve in the classroom. All-female classes were framed as spaces where girls could learn male-dominated subjects in environments free from gendered stereotypes. But now, the spotlight is on boys as their test scores and graduation rates have fallen behind their female peers'. This has prompted single-sex schools to present themselves as an effort “to save our sons.”
One thing that hasn’t changed about single-sex education is the controversy it incites. Supporters argue that not only does single-sex education reduce behavioral issues, but it also strengthens academic performance. Schools that have adopted this model attribute a decline in disciplinary infractions to the idea that boys and girls distract each other. Others point to improved test scores: One Maryland school has seen a 65 percent increase in math proficiency since going single-sex, and a preliminary report of Florida schools shows that 70 percent of elementary students in single-sex classes improved their math scores. Advocates also maintain that these schools give kids positive role models of the same sex—particularly for boys without father figures. For one mother, this is notable: “They’re teaching [my son] basically how to grow into a man.”
Opponents charge that dividing students by gender simply has no scientific backing. In 2005, the Department of Education examined 2,200 studies on single-sex education and found that only 40 of these studies met the minimum methodological requirements to be scientifically valid. And later in 2011, the researchers behind “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling” found no evidence supporting the academic advantages of single-sex education or the idea that boys and girls learn differently. In fact, they found that any academic improvement was likely to be the result of novelty or confounding factors like family affluence, educational background, and parental involvement.
Furthermore, opponents contend that single-sex education perpetuates gender stereotypes and often does more harm than good. Gendered stereotypes abound in single-sex classrooms: While boys are permitted to fidget, talk loudly, and play competitive games, girls are required to sit still, be quiet, and are even given a dab of perfume to reward good behavior. These discrepancies have attracted the attention of the ACLU, which has filed a lawsuit against Florida’s Hernando County school district for a litany of violations. Additionally, some worry that these distinctions could ultimately put kids at a disadvantage. Single-sex schooling by nature reduces the opportunities for boys and girls to learn from each other. One professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison echoes this sentiment: “One of the major purposes of school is to prepare students for the adult world, and that world is coed.”
The evolution of this debate has been driven by generational forces. Boomers, who have overseen educational policy for the last twenty years, grew up in a polarized world of gendered stereotypes. As they came of age, most of them pushed for the adoption of co-ed spaces, the blending of gender roles, and the elimination of single-sex colleges. Later, when raising Millennials, Boomers began to see the value of single-sex environments for special purposes. In the ‘90s, they focused on enlarging opportunities for girls—a theme popularized in Reviving Ophelia. Still later, many Boomers turned their attention to the unique challenges of boys—heralded by Raising Cain.
In many ways, Boomers have turned single-sex education into a polarized “culture wars” issue. While blue zoners stress the value of this approach for girls, red zoners focus on boys. In Hard America, Soft America, Michael Barone separates America into two realms: small business and the military (dominated by “gritty” male values) and the government and education (dominated by “gentler” female values).
Most Xers have a less idealistic, more behavioral approach to gender. Unlike Boomers, they grew up at a time when gender roles were far messier—and formed against a largely chaotic social backdrop. Xers’ top priority is an ordered environment that will put an end to behavioral issues—particularly those of boys. This generation is willing to socialize their children by any means. If single-sex classrooms can do it, they’re all-in. And if they raise test scores, all the better.
As the debate rages on, these attitudes and experiences will shape the classrooms of the future. For frustrated parents and failing schools, this once-traditional approach may be just what the doctor ordered. Xer parents will be leading the charge to ensure their kids’ good behavior and academic achievement—whether the solution is single-sex classrooms, tracking, or any other viable educational strategy. And although legal restrictions will prevent the practice from supplanting today’s coeducational system, single-sex education will become a less controversial, go-to tool in a growing educational toolbox.
Takeaways
Over the past decade, public schools have increasingly turned to single-sex education. While the practice remains highly controversial, it is likely to continue to shape tomorrow’s classrooms.
- Single-sex education is perceived as a solution to the “boy crisis.” In recent years, boys have been falling behind in the classroom. In part, this is the result of today’s rule-driven educational culture that disproportionately disciplines and punishes boys, who account for two-thirds of suspensions and nearly three-fourths of expulsions. In addition, boys are also more prone to behavioral disorders. For example, one in five high school boys has been diagnosed with ADHD—compared to only one in eleven of their female peers. Instead of punishing and labeling these students as ill, single-sex education accommodates boys’ needs by creating a welcoming learning environment.
- Sex-specific teaching methods can foster an effective learning environment. Although some single-sex classrooms rely explicitly on gender stereotypes, that in itself doesn’t mean this strategy doesn’t work. Boys generally prefer physical movement while learning, thrive under competition, and do better with structure. Knowing this, teachers can spend less time reprimanding (typically male) behavior and more time providing detailed instructions for class activities. Girls, in contrast, show strong verbal skills and benefit from cooperative activities that allow them to make personal connections with class content. With this in mind, teachers can create discussion groups that let girls engage with course material.
- The legality of “equal education” is expected to be brought into question. Advocacy groups are already preparing their courtroom arguments for and against single-sex education. The ACLU has filed lawsuits against school districts in multiple states on the grounds that single-sex education harkens back to racial segregation—drawing upon the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that “‘separate but equal’ is inherently unequal.” In addition, the AAUW contends that single-sex classrooms violate Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools. In response, the National Association for Single Sex Public Education says the term “segregation” implies force and since parents are given a choice, single-sex education is not segregation.