advantages and disadvantages of single sex education essay

Single-sex education: the pros and cons

by: Kristin Stanberry | Updated: December 18, 2023

Print article

Single-sex education (teaching boys and girls in separate classrooms or schools) is an old approach regaining momentum. While single-sex education has long existed in many private schools, it’s a relatively new option for public schools. Only 34 single-sex schools were operating in 2004, but by 2017 U.S. Department of Education data estimated more than 1,000 single-gender public schools. Forty-five percent are all boys, 55 percent are all girls, and 83 percent are overwhelmingly Black and Latino.

Since 2006, federal law has supported the option of single-sex education. when Education Secretary Margaret Spellings eased federal regulations , allowing schools to offer single-sex classrooms and schools, as long as such options are completely voluntary. This move has given parents and school districts greater flexibility, but the research on its value remains a matter of debate.

Nature vs. nurture

Before weighing the pros and cons of single-sex education, consider the influences of “nature versus nurture.” Many factors affect each child’s learning profile and preferences:

• Some factors relate to the child’s nature, such as gender, temperament, abilities (and disabilities), and intelligence.
• Other influences stem from the way parents and society nurture the child: Family upbringing, socioeconomic status, culture, and stereotypes all fall under the “nurture” category.

Advocates of single-sex education argue for the value of separating children from a number of different angles. The most prominent advocate is psychologist and physician Leonard Sax, whose books em>Why Gender Matters (2005), Boys Adrift (2007), and Girls on the Edge (2010), argue that boys and girls are inherently different and need different educational experiences. Others have argued that the success of women’s colleges point to a value in female-only education, where the chroniclers of the boys growing academic struggles compared to their female peers suggest that boys need girl-free education to fight the stereotype that boys can’t read.

Critics point to a lack of evidence for such claims, summarized by a 2008 New York Times article, which explained that “many academics and progressives tend to find Sax’s views stereotyped and infuriating.” They point out that studies on the impact of single-sex education on learning often do not account for the fact that most single-sex schools are selective or draw from a different population than coeducational public schools. Former president of the American Psychological Association, Diane F. Halpern co-published “ The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling” with other scholars, lambasting sex-segregated education as “deeply misguided, and often justified by weak, cherrypicked, or misconstrued scientific claims.” The subject even inspired a New York Times debate where researchers and pundits squared off about the benefits and bluster of single-sex learning.

So, who’s right? Below are arguments both for and against single-sex education.

Making the case for single-sex education

Those who advocate for single-sex education in public schools argue that:

• Some parents don’t want their children to be in mixed-gender classrooms because, especially at certain ages, students of the opposite sex can be a distraction.
• A 2019 study from the University of Southern California indicates girls learn better when the classroom temperature is warm, while boys perform better in cooler classrooms. If that’s true, then the temperature in a single-sex classroom could be set to optimize the learning of either male or female students.
• Evidence suggests single-sex education can broaden the educational prospects for both girls and boys. A 2017 study examining students in Seoul, Korea, concluded, “male high school seniors attending all-boys schools show higher levels of science interests…than their counterparts attending coeducational schools.”
• A 2015 study out of Switzerland also reports, “[F]emale students in all-female classes experience less stereotype threat and perform better in their mathematics grades than their female peers in coeducational classes.”
• Advocates claim co-ed schools reinforce gender stereotypes, while single-sex schools can break down gender stereotypes. Girls are free of the pressure to compete with boys in male-dominated subjects such as math and science, while boys can more easily pursue traditionally “feminine” interests such as music and poetry.
• Some research offers evidence in favor of co-ed education for boys but single-sex for girls. A 2011 study by Victor Lavy and Analia Schlosser titled “ Mechanisms and Impacts of Gender Peer Effects at School ” determined “an increase in the proportion of girls impose boys and girls’ cognitive outcomes” in elementary schools, caused by “lower levels of classroom disruption and violence, improved inter-student and student-teacher relations, and lessened teacher fatigue.”

What critics say about single-sex education

Those who claim single-sex education is ineffective and/or undesirable make the following claims:

• The impact on learning isn’t conclusive. For instance, in one of the few studies that controlled for a host of parental, individual and school level factors, researchers analyzing Irish schools (where about one third of the students attend gender segregated schools) found no “significant difference in performance for girls or boys who attend single-sex schools compared to their mixed-school peers in science, mathematics or reading.”
• Few educators are formally trained to use gender-specific teaching techniques. However, it’s no secret that experienced teachers usually understand gender differences and are adept at accommodating a variety of learning styles within their mixed-gender classrooms.
• Gender differences in learning aren’t the same across the board; they vary along a continuum of what is considered normal. For a sensitive boy or an assertive girl, the teaching style promoted by advocates of single-sex education could be ineffective (at best) or detrimental (at worst).
• It doesn’t teach genders to work together. Students in single-sex classrooms will one day live and work side-by-side with members of the opposite sex. Educating students in single-sex schools limits their opportunity to work cooperatively and co-exist successfully with members of the opposite sex.
• It perpetuates gender stereotyping. For instance, the ACLU opposes single-sex schools, claiming they are based on “junk science” to perpetuate “disturbing gender stereotypes” and are a “waste of time” that divert attention from more valuable reforms, such as reducing class size and increasing teacher training. Or as Diane F. Halpern’s put it in “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling” “…sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism.”

Measuring public perception

How does the public view single-sex education? The “average” adult has a different opinion than the graduates of these schools.

In a 2022 poll by YouGov only 25% of adult men surveyed thought all-boys schools were “better” than co-ed schools, with the same percentage viewing them as “worse.” Adult women were less enthusiastic – only 17% thought all-boy schools were superior, with 21% regarding them as worse. Public opinion of all-girls schools was a bit more generous: 25% of men thought they were better for girls than coed schools, and 22% said they were worse, while 20% of women viewed all-girls schools as better than coeds, with 19% claiming they were worse.

People who actually attended single-sex schools were far more supportive. Men who attended all-boys schools were 45 percent positive, claiming it was better than coed, with 29 percent saying they were worse. Women who attended all-girls schools were 41 percent positive, and 26 percent negative.

Many (often most) people answered the survey question with “not sure” or “no difference.” Their uncertainty mirrors the overall ambiguity of the co-ed vs. single-sex school question. As is true of many educational questions, the answer for any given family often depends on context. For instance, is the school operating in a culture where a single-sex education might offer students a respite from gender discrimination? Is the school (coeducational or single-sex) reinforcing gender stereotypes or working against them? Why might the family want single-sex education for their child? Is it intended to empower the child to succeed and learn or keep them narrowly focused on acceptable gender roles?

Homes Nearby

Homes for rent and sale near schools

Why your neighborhood school closes for good – and what to do when it does

5 things for Black families to consider when choosing a school

6 surprising things insiders look for when assessing a high school

Surprising things about high school

Yes! Sign me up for updates relevant to my child's grade.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up!

Server Issue: Please try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience

Look Into Education

Education leadership: the pros and cons of co-ed vs single-sex education.

September 16th, 2021

The interactions between girls and boys at school influence how women and men relate as equals in the workplace. This is part of the reason why advocates for coeducation say it is a way to socialize young people so they are better prepared for their futures in the workforce and society.

Coeducation and Curricula

Coeducation is the integrated education of males and females at schools and learning facilities. Coeducational schools reflect the diversity of society. Co-ed schools typically offer a curriculum that is accessible to all students and encourages a wide range of learning opportunities. By minimizing gender-linked stereotypes in coursework, educational opportunities can appeal to individuals’ interests, aptitudes, and motivations as opposed to categories like gender.

On the other hand, proponents of single-sex education say students can also flourish academically in single-gender classrooms. The National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE) asserts that schools that use best practices for gender-specific teaching may be more successful at teaching to boys’ and girls’ strengths.

Research shows the benefits and drawbacks of both models of education. In the past few decades, studies, including a comparison of same-sex and coeducational schools by the U.S. Department of Education, produced mixed results that are not conclusive enough to fully endorse either. Researchers on both sides of the debate continue to work and adapt to current education trends.

Benefits of Co-ed and Single-Gender Formats

Education leaders must evaluate both the merits and obstacles of the different learning environments. Here are common arguments for both coeducation and single-sex education. 

The Case for Co-ed

• Offers school diversity—students will find it easier to adapt in many different environments.
• Teaches equality and tolerance—co-ed schools treat students to be tolerant of each other.
• Promotes socialization—students enrolled in mixed classrooms experience being with members of the opposite sex and are comfortable interacting with each other.
• Prepares students for the real world—students are exposed to an environment that reflects the larger society.
• Improves communication skills—studying in co-ed schools can help an individual communicate in different ways.
• Challenges sexism—a co-ed environment gives students the chance to express themselves and share their views.

The Case for Single-Gender Education

• Lessons tailored to unique interests and skills—curricula in single-sex classrooms are developed without the influence of social expectations based on gender roles.
• Ease of forming relationships—camaraderie forms naturally without concerns about cliques and social status. 
• Minimizes distractions—students focus more on academics and extracurriculars.
• Removes double standard—girls and boys might be held to obviously different standards in co-ed environments but might not in single-sex schools.
• Breaking down gender stereotyping—students confidently pursue interests without the assumption of female- and male-dominated subjects.
• More relaxed environment—there is less of a desire to impress the other gender.

How Aspiring School Leaders Can Maximize Student Success The debate over coeducation vs single-gender education is just one of several educators are facing today. School leaders must incorporate changing attitudes to build effective educational models. William Woods University’s Online Education Specialist in Educational Leadership degree prepares individuals who are often already teachers to be leaders at the school-district level. This Education Specialist degree program features courses like Issues in School Superintendency, which examines the historical perspectives and issues that superintendents face—knowledge that can help educators maximize student success.

Related posts:

• The Importance of Building Media Literacy Skills
• Education Leaders on Teaching Climate Change

Posted in Curriculum Advances , School Leaders

No Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• High School
• College Search
• College Admissions
• Financial Aid
• College Life

Pros and Cons of Single-Sex Education

Imagine a typical school classroom and you may conjure up images of boys and girls coexisting, learning alongside each other, raising their hands in equal numbers. However, that’s not usually the case.

According to 2010 data from NCES and the U.S. Census Bureau , from prekindergarten to senior year of high school, male students outnumber female students significantly in public school classrooms: 54 percent to 46 percent in pre-K and 51 percent to 49 percent from first grade to 12th grade.

So with the disproportionate stats in the American classroom, is it beneficial to separate the sexes from each other? Much debate has centered around this topic for years.

The Case for Single-Gender Classrooms

Jefferson Leadership Academies was in the spotlight in 1999 when it became the first public middle school in the United States to have entirely single-gender classes. Its reason? Research showed that girls did better in math and science in all-girl settings. This decision came just a few years after Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls  — a book that argues that gender bias prevents girls from receiving education equal to that of their male counterparts — was published by two American University professors.

Of course, single-gender education in grade schools didn’t start in 1999, as it existed in the 18th century before coeducation started to trend in the 19th century. However, it picked up steam in the late ’90s, especially when the Supreme Court made a ruling in the United States v. Virginia case involving male-only military college Virginia Military Institute . The conclusion: Single-sex classrooms were only constitutional if comparable resources were available to both genders. In 2006, the No Child Left Behind Act added a provision giving single-sex classrooms and schools the ability to exist as long as they are voluntary. From 1995 to 2006, the number of single-sex schools in the United States rose from 3 to 241.

There are many reasons why people advocate for single-gender classrooms, including less distraction (especially during teenage years when hormones rage), less “ gender intensification ” where coed settings reinforce stereotypes, and more instruction tailored to the unique ways boys and girls learn.

Approximately 30% of Catholic high schools in America are single-sex. See why you might consider a Catholic school, even if you’re not Catholic .

The Case Against Single-Gender Classrooms

In 2007, Jefferson Leadership Academies reversed its same-sex curriculum after issues with disappointing test scores and scheduling conflicts arose. Detractors of same-sex classrooms weren’t surprised since one of the biggest challenges to single-sex classrooms is the lack of concrete evidence that they boost achievement. As Margaret Talbot wrote in her 2012 New Yorker piece , “The evidence wasn’t very good then [the ’90s] for a gap between the genders’ learning styles so significant that it would mandate separate instruction, and it hasn’t gotten any better.”

Plus, another argument against single-gender schools is that the real world doesn’t afford a society where students can work with or interact with one gender over another. Thus, when it comes time for these students to head into the workforce, or even to college, they will face an adjustment period.

Related to college, one of the biggest reasons why single-gender classes popped up in the ’90s was to help women do better in the classroom, but recent statistics show that women attend college in larger numbers, outnumbering men by 14 percent.

In fact, girls are less likely than boys to be held back in American schools, too, so some argue that the effort put into helping girls in the classroom may be counterintuitive when the boys are the ones who aren’t doing as well.

The Bottom Line

It may seem like a new development in education, but single-sex education is actually a throwback to curriculum systems of yesteryear, from way back before the 19th century. The factor that’s changed is simply the reason behind the implementation, which may continue to evolve as new trends and legislation emerge. It remains to be proven whether single-sex classrooms are beneficial to students.

Author: Niche

Niche helps you discover the schools and neighborhoods that are right for you.

More Articles By Niche

As a parent, the thought of college expenses can be overwhelming, but with the right understanding and approach, paying for college can be manageable and less stressful for the whole family.

Every parent wants the best for their child, especially when it comes to their education. With so many different types of K-12 schools available, the task of selecting the right one can feel daunting — but we have a few pointers to make it easier for you. In this post, we’ll dive into the essential aspects you should consider to ensure your child has a school experience tailored to their unique needs and potential. 

Students and staff members at Interlochen Arts Academy weigh in on academics, dorm life, and more.

Q&A: The Pros and Cons of Single Sex Education

This story is part of an occasional series from KUT called Gender Divide, which will tell stories about the communities in Austin ISD's new single-sex middle schools, while also exploring the debate over single-sex education.

Are there benefits to single sex education? 

It's one of the major questions educators and parents are asking as more public schools nationwide create single sex campuses or single sex classrooms on campus. According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are 850 public single sex schools across the country. 

UT Professor Rebecca Bigler is one person who says single sex education doesn't benefit students academically, or in any way. 

Bigler studies gender stereotyping and social cognition in children. She also wrote a paper in 2011 about single sex education at the Ann Richard's School for Young Women Leaders, the first single sex school in the Austin Independent School District. The study argues single sex education doesn't affect academic performance, and increases gender stereotyping.

As part of KUT's series on single sex education called Gender Divide, KUT's Kate McGee spoke with Bigler about the national debate over single sex education:

Interview Highlights:

On single sex school research:  The big meta-analysis came out that looked at performance of 1.6 million children around the country that were assigned to single sex or co-educational schools, that looked at what happens when children are largely equal to start, or when you control for the difference. That found that single sex schools has trivial or non-existent effects on academic achievement. What controls and largely affects academic achievement is the quality of instruction in the school. 

On single sex schools in low income neighborhoods:  “Single sex schools are being pushed on communities of color and communities of lower economic students. That’s not just Austin, that’s all over the country. There is some sense of these schools are low performing, we are out of solutions and in our desperation we will try anything, even things that have no support for them scientifically. And if you’re cynical, you might look and say it’s a way to look like you’re doing something, even though you know it’s not based on science and it’s not going to work, but politically looking like, “oh, see I’m helping in some way.”

On the argument that single sex schools give parents a choice: "We have asked questions about what kid? What test can you give to see if my daughter is going to thrive in a single schools or nothing good with come of it? There are no answers. There are no profiles of certain kinds of kids. So, in other words, you’re saying to a parent, ‘We have no idea what kind of kid would do well in a single sex school, but if you want to for some reason just do this, go ahead and do it and you should have the right.’"

On whether single sex education can affect other outcomes besides academics:  "The meta analysis of 1.6 million children looked at other outcomes besides academic and a big category was self-esteem. So they looked at all the studies that measured girls self-esteem. No effect, none. There was no effect affect on girl’s self-esteem of going to a single sex or co-ed school. Our argument is there are wonderful single sex schools. There are schools that have all these wonderful things: good teachers, well trained, committed teachers. Right? Great school days, enrichment programs in place. We know some of those schools that are great in those ways are single sex . Our argument is if you let in a few boys, would it have all failed?"

Advertisement

Single-Sex Education: New Perspectives and Evidence on a Continuing Controversy

• Original Article
• Published: 31 July 2011
• Volume 65 , pages 659–669, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• Rebecca S. Bigler 1 &
• Margaret L. Signorella 2  

13k Accesses

57 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The number of single-sex schools in the United States has climbed steadily in recent years, despite a lack of consensus that such schools lead to academic or psychological outcomes superior to those of coeducational schools. In this introduction to the first part of a special issue on the topic, we review the history of single-sex education in the U.S. and factors that have led to its recent rise. We then review ideological and methodological controversies in the field. Finally, we summarize the eight empirical studies that appear in the issue, highlighting the contributions of each paper to a body of work that we hope will inform educational practice and policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Education and Parenting in the Philippines

Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges

Mel Ainscow

Intersectionality: A pathway towards inclusive education?

Edvina Bešić

AAUW Educational Foundation. (1995). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW report . New York: Marlow & Company.

Google Scholar  

AAUW Educational Foundation. (1998). Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for girls . Washington, DC: American Association for University Women Educational Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/SeparatedBySex.pdf .

ACCES. (2011). American Council for CoEducational Schooling. Retrieved from http://lives.clas.asu.edu/acces/ .

Barnett, R., & Rivers, C. (2004). Same difference: How gender myths are hurting our relationships, our children, and our jobs (Kindle edition). Retrieved from www.amazon.com .

Bigler, R. S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influences on children’s gender stereotyping: A study of the functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Development, 66 , 1072–1087. doi: 10.2307/1131799 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bowler, M. (1998, March 18). AAUW changes tune on gender bias impact report: Six years ago, the association said girls were ‘shortchanged’ in coeducational settings, but today it is challenging the idea that single-sex education is better for female students. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-03-18/news/1998077043_1_single-sex-classes-single-sex-education-gender-bias .

Cherney, I. D., & Campbell, K. L. (2011). A league of their own: Do single-sex schools increase girls’ participation in the physical sciences? Sex Roles , this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0013-6 .

Crosby, F., Allen, B., Culbertson, T., Wally, C., Morith, J., Hall, R., et al. (1994). Taking selectivity into account, how much does gender composition matter? A reanalysis of M.E. Tidball’s research. NWSA Journal, 6 , 107–118.

Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay of families and schools. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66 , 267–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00019.x .

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Conchas, G. Q. (2001). How context mediates policy: The implementation of single gender public schooling in california. Teachers College Record, 103 , 184–206. doi: 10.1111/0161-4681.00113 .

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Woody, E. (2001, May 20). Is single gender schooling viable in the public sector: Lessons from California’s pilot program . Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20031116220853/http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/tps/adatnow/final.pdf .

Davey, Z., Jones, M. K., & Harris, L. M. (2011). A comparison of eating disorder symptomatology, role concerns, figure preference and social comparison between women who have attended single sex and coeducational schools. Sex Roles , this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9942-3 .

Diaz, R. (2007). Latinas in single-sex schools: An historical overview. In J. L. Kincheloe & K. Hayes (Eds.), Teaching city kids: Understanding and appreciating them (pp. 41–55). New York: Peter Lang.

Dillon, S. (2009, April 28). “No child” law is not closing racial gap . New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/education/29scores.html .

Dillon, S. (2010, December 7). Top test scores from Shanghai stun educators . New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html

Dyer, G., & Tiggemann, M. (1996). The effect of school environment on body concerns in adolescent women. Sex Roles, 34 , 127–138. doi: 10.1007/BF01544800 .

Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode20/usc_sec_20_00001681----000-.html ).

Eliot, L. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain: How small differences grow into troublesome gaps - and what we can do about it . New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Feniger, Y. (2010). The gender gap in advanced math and science course taking: Does same-sex education make a difference? Sex Roles , this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9851-x .

Fine, C. (2010). From scanner to sound bite: Issues in interpreting and reporting sex differences in the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 , 280–283. doi: 10.1177/0963721410383248 .

Hayes, A. R., Pahlke, E. R., & Bigler, R. S. (2011). The efficacy of single-sex education: Testing for selection and peer quality effects. Sex Roles , this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9903-2 .

Hoffnung, M. (2011). Career and family outcomes for women graduates of single-sex versus coed colleges. Sex Roles , this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9914-z .

Hollinger, D. (1993). Introduction. In D. K. Hollinger (Ed.), Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research , (Report No. OR 94-3152, pp. 1–5). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Hollinger, D. K., & Adamson, R. (Eds.). (1993). Single-sex schooling: Proponents speak (Report No. OR 94-3154). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Hubbard, L., & Datnow, A. (2002). Are single-sex schools sustainable in the public sector? In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 109–132). New York: Routledge.

Hubbard, L., & Datnow, A. (2005). Do single-sex schools improve the education of low-income and minority students? an investigation of California’s public single-gender academies. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36 , 115–131. doi: 10.1525/aeq.2005.36.2.115 .

Investing in Innovation, 74 Fed. Reg. 84.396A-C (proposed October 9, 2009). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2009-4/100909a.html .

Jackson, D. (2009). Obama urges educational reform. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-10-obamaeducation_N.htm .

Katz, M. S. (1976). A history of compulsory education laws . (ERIC No. ED119389).ERIC. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED119389&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED119389 .

Klein, S., & Sesma, E. (2010). What are we learning from the 2006–7 Office for Civil Rights survey question about public schools with single-sex academic classes? Preliminary report . Arlington: Feminist Majority Foundation.

Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125 , 470–500. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.470 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 , 381–395. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.78.5.381 .

Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). Effects of single-sex schools: Response to Marsh. Journal of Educational Psychology , 81 , 647-647-650. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.4.647 .

Lee, V. E., & Marks, H. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 , 578–592. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.578 .

Leonard, D. (2006). Single sex school. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), The Sage handbook of gender and education (pp. 190–204). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Levin, M. (2007, June 18). U.S. House of Representatives Passes Resolution Celebrating 35th Anniversary of Title IX, the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. Retrieved from http://www.house.gov/list/press/hi02_hirono/titleix35.html .

Levinson, B. A. (1996, Winter). [Review of The end of education: Redefining the value of school by Neil Postman]. Harvard Educational Review . Retrieved from http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/287 .

Lewin, T. (1997, October 9, 1997). In California, wider test of same-sex schools . New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/09/us/in-california-wider-test-of-same-sex-schools.html .

Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review (Report No. 2005-01). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/single-sex.pdf .

Major, B., Barr, L., Zubek, J., & Babey, S. H. (1999). Gender and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. In W. B. Swann Jr., J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 223–253). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10277-009 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Marschall, M. J., & McKee, R. J. (2002). From campaign promises to presidential policy: Education reform in the 2000 election. Educational Policy, 16 , 96–117. doi: 10.1177/0895904802016001006 .

Marsh, H. W. (1989a). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational high schools on achievement, attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 , 70–85. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.70 .

Marsh, H. W. (1989b). Effects of single-sex and coeducational schools: A response to Lee and Bryk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 , 651–653. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.4.651 .

Mensinger, J. (2001). Conflicting gender role prescriptions and disordered eating in single-sex and coeducational school environments. Gender and Education, 13 , 417–430. doi: 10.1080/09540250120081760 .

Monroe, S. J. (2007, January 31). Dear colleague letter—Title IX regulations: Single-sex education. United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/single-sex-20070131.pdf .

Moore, M. (1993). Conference summary. In D. K. Hollinger (Ed.), Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research , (Report No. OR 94-3152, pp. 69–76). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Moore, M., Piper, V., & Schaefer, E. (1993). Single-sex schooling and educational effectiveness: A research overview. In D. K. Hollinger (Ed.), Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research , (Report No. OR 94-3152, pp. 7–68). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

NASSPE. (2009). Single-Sex Schools/Schools with single-sex classrooms/what’s the difference? Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20090401113407/http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm .

NASSPE. (2011). Single-Sex Schools/Schools with single-sex classrooms/what’s the difference? Retrieved from http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm .

NASSPE. (2003). National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE) . National Association for Single Sex Education. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20031018024515/http://www.singlesexschools.org/ .

NASSPE. (2005). Single-sex schools . National Association for Single Sex Education. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20050825005047/http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm .

NASSPE. (2006). Single-sex schools . National Association for Single Sex Education. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20060523155915/http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm .

NASSPE. (2006–2011a). The California experiment. National Association for Single Sex Education. Retrieved from http://www.singlesexschools.org/policy-california.htm .

NASSPE. (2006–2011b). Professional development—and other services. National Association for Single Sex Education. Retrieved from http://www.singlesexschools.org/home-profdev.htm .

NASSPE. (2007a). Single-sex schools . National Association for Single Sex Education. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20070629015929/http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm .

NASSPE. (2007b). Single-Sex Schools/Schools with single-sex classrooms/what’s the difference? Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20071104170201/http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm .

National Association for the Advancement of Single Sex Schools. (2002). How many single-sex public schools are there in the United States? What has their experience been? Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20020607204056/http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools.html .

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 34 C.F.R. Part 106 (2006, October 25).

Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science . Santa Monica: RAND.

Oates, M. J., & Williamson, S. (1978). Women’s colleges and women achievers. Signs, 3 , 795–806.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do—Student performance in reading, mathematics and science . Paris: OECD.

Book   Google Scholar  

Patterson, M., & Pahlke, E. (2010). Student characteristics associated with girls’ success in a single-sex school. Sex Roles , this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9904-1 .

Pipher, M. (2002). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls . New York: Ballantine.

Pollard, D. S. (1998). The contexts of single-sex classes. In AAUW Educational Foundation (Ed.), Separated by sex (pp. 74–84). Washington, DC: American Association for University Women Educational Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/SeparatedBySex.pdf .

Ravitch, D. (1993). Foreward. In D. K. Hollinger (Ed.), Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research , (Report No. OR 94-3152, pp. i–iii). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Rigdon, A. R. (2008). Dangerous data: How disputed research legalized public single-sex education. Stetson Law Review, 37 , 527–578.

Riordan, C. (1998). The future of single-sex schools. In AAUW Educational Foundation (Ed.), Separated by sex (pp. 53–62). Washington, DC: American Association for University Women Educational Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/SeparatedBySex.pdf

Riordan, C. (2002). What do we know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private sector? Implications for public schools. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 10–30). New York: Routledge.

Riordan, C., Faddis, B., Beam, M., Seager, A., Tanney, A., DiBiase, R., et al. (2008). Early implementation of public single-sex schools: Perceptions and characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/characteristics/characteristics.pdf .

Rosenthal, L., London, B., Levy, S. R., & Lobel, M. (2011). The roles of perceived identity compatibility and social support for women in a single-sex STEM program at a co-educational university. Sex Roles , this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9945-0 .

Rothstein, R. (1996, January 21). Single-sex schools: Why ruin good experiments with politics . Los Angeles Times, Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-21/opinion/op-27213_1_high-school .

Rubenstein, G. (2008). Reform starts now: Obama picks Arne Duncan . Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/arne-duncan-education-secretary .

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1995). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls . New York: Touchstone.

Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. (2004, April 8). Single-sex schools: A good idea gone wrong? The Christian Science Monitor , p. 9. Retrieved from http://www.sadker.org/PDF/SingleSexSchools.pdf .

Salomone, R. C. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling (Kindle edition). Retrieved from www.amazon.com .

San Francisco 49ers Academy. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.49ers-academy.org/index.html .

Sax, L. (2005). Department of education study is “seriously flawed” . Retrieved from http://www.singlesexschools.org/EdDeptStudy.htm .

Schemo, D. J. (2002, May 9). White house proposes new view of education law to encourage single-sex schools. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/us/white-house-proposes-new-view-of-education-law-to-encourage-single-sex-schools.html .

Schemo, D. J. (2006). Federal rules back single-sex public education . New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/education/25gender.html .

Shear, M. D., & Anderson, N. (2009, July 23). President Obama discusses new “Race to the Top” program . The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302938.html .

Shmurak, C. B. (1998). Voices of hope: Adolescent girls at single sex and coeducational schools . New York: Peter Lang.

Signorella, M. L., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (1993). Developmental differences in children’s gender schemata about others: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 13 , 147–183. doi: 10.1006/drev.1993.1007 .

Signorella, M. L., Frieze, I. H., & Hershey, S. W. (1996). Single-sex versus mixed-sex classes and gender schemata in children and adolescents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20 , 599–607. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00325.x .

Spence, J. T., & Hahn, E. D. (1997). The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21 , 17–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00098.x .

Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2004). Single sex schooling: Final Report. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/61/singlegender.en.pdf .

Tidball, M. E. (1973). Perspectives on academic women and affirmative action. Educational Record, 54 , 130–135.

Tidball, M. E. (1985). Baccalaureate origins of entrants into American Medical Schools. Journal of Higher Education, 56 , 385–402.

Tidball, M. E., & Kistiakowsky, V. (1976). Baccalaureate origins of American scientists and scholars. Science, 193 , 646–652.

Tiggemann, M. (2001). Effects of gender composition of school on body concerns in adolescent women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29 , 239–243. doi:10.1002/1098-108X(200103)29:2<239::AID-EAT1015>3.0.CO;2-A.

Titze, C., Jansen, P., & Heil, M. (2011). Single-sex school girls outperform girls attending a co-educative school in mental rotation accuracy. Sex Roles , this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9947-y .

Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1990). Learning together: A history of coeducation in American schools . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331 , 1447–1451. doi: 10.1126/science.1198364 .

Weil, E. (2008). Teaching boys and girls separately . New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html .

Williams, J. A. (2010). Learning differences: Sex-role stereotyping in single-sex public education. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 33 , 555–579.

Zimmerman, C. (2006). Single-sex schools: Public schools branch into Catholic school domain. Catholic News Service. Retrieved from http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606692.htm .

Zwerling, E. (2001). California study: Single-sex schools no cure-all. Retrieved from http://www.womensenews.org/story/education/010603/california-study-single-sex-schools-no-cure-all .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Psychology Department, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

Rebecca S. Bigler

Psychology Department, Penn State Greater Allegheny, 4000 University Drive, McKeesport, PA, 15132-7698, USA

Margaret L. Signorella

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret L. Signorella .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bigler, R.S., Signorella, M.L. Single-Sex Education: New Perspectives and Evidence on a Continuing Controversy. Sex Roles 65 , 659–669 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0046-x

Download citation

Published : 31 July 2011

Issue Date : November 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0046-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Single-sex education
• Adolescents
• Achievement
• Social development
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Latest news
• UCL in the media
• Services for media
• Student news
• Tell us your story

Pros and cons of single sex education

30 September 2021

Listen: BBC Radio 4’s ‘Bringing up Britain’ (from 31 mins 10 secs)

The Pros and Cons of Single-Gender Schools

Single-gender education is still an option for many private school families.

Single-Gender Schools: Pros and Cons

Getty Images

Experts recommend that parents consider whether the arguments a school makes for single-gender education match their values.

While public schools have long been coeducational, families that consider private schools are almost certain to encounter single-gender options, and it is important to weigh the pros and cons.

Single-gender schools have a long history in the U.S. In fact, until the 1960s and 70s, it was common for boys and girls to be separated for at least some of their classes. Today, most K-12 classrooms are coeducational and, though there are some single-gender public schools , most are private.

Public or private, there are arguments both for and against single-gender education, and the research on the subject is mixed. Opponents say it limits vital social interaction while proponents say it is an opportunity to customize the educational experience, increase confidence and strengthen community involvement.

“I personally can’t think of any bad things that come from empowering girls and allowing them to really be confident in their leadership skills,” says Carrie Wagner, CEO of GALS Inc. and the founder and executive director of Girls Athletic Leadership School Los Angeles, known as GALS LA.

Single-Gender Education for Girls

According to research collected by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools , graduates of all-girls schools are more likely than those attending coeducational schools to impact their communities; perform better academically; consider majoring in math, science or technology; and have higher aspirations and greater motivation.

However other research , including a 2014 meta-analysis by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Whitman College, has found little evidence of benefits. Pscyhology professor Janet Hyde, one of the authors of the analysis, explained in an interview that many studies on the benefits of single-gender education fail to account for other factors that might influence success.

“Especially in the United States, parents who choose single-sex schooling, on average, have more money and more education, which all predict performance,” she said. “So if you find that the students are performing better, you don’t know if it’s due to the single sex education or the fact that they started out with these advantages.”

Vanessa Garza, founding principal at GALS LA, argues that a single-gender learning environment benefits girls by increasing confidence which, in turn, builds leadership capabilities.

“If you look around the room, who’s going to be the student body president?” she says. “It’s going to be a female. Who’s going to lead an after-school club? It’s going to be a female.”

While there can be competition, girls can also be very supportive in a single-gender setting, Wagner says.

“What you find at our school, and what I found when I was going to my own all-girls high school in Ohio, is that the girls are just super supportive of one another,” she says.

Single-Gender Education for Boys

Some education experts say that single-gender schools can help reduce behavioral issues for boys because the educational environment provides a more comfortable classroom experience.

“In single-gender schools, boys are often more willing to take risks because they don’t feel the fear of failing in front of the other sex,” says Matt Albert, executive director of the Center for Reflective Communities in Los Angeles, which works to enhance the relationship between children and parents or caregivers. “Single-gender schools can establish more relaxed environments [and] less gender stereotyping, and courses can be tailored to student needs and interests.”

Single-gender schools can also allow boys to learn and grow at their own pace, gaining confidence in their abilities without being compared to girls, who often develop some skills more quickly, Albert says.

Education experts say that one downside of single-gender education can be the lack of interaction. At some point in their lives, both boys and girls will have to learn to coexist with each other.

“Being only used to people of the same gender might pose a problem once the need to interact with the opposite sex sets in,” Albert says.

But Rachel Connell, the rector of Chatham Hall, an all-girls day and boarding school serving grades 9-12 in Virginia, says much can be done to help students gain social skills.

“With a vast array of co-curricular and extracurricular activities, any school can offer its students a broad spectrum of opportunities and interactions,” she says.

Choosing a Single-Gender School

Education experts say the best thing that parents can do when considering a single-gender school is to evaluate whether or not the environment serves their child’s particular needs.

“Parents should shut out all the other noise around parenting and schools and simply focus on what feels right for their own child,” Albert says.

That can depend on age. “Exposure to all types of diversity, including gender diversity, is critical for the development of young children,” Albert says. For older kids, he recommends that parents look first at the arguments the school makes for single-gender education. If those arguments match parental values, they can evaluate whether the school lives out its mission.

“Take a look at who the graduates are,” Albert says. “What kind of people are they? What distinguishes the school from other single-gender schools and other coed schools?”

In high school, experts say children are old enough to participate in the school decision-making process — and they should. “Parents and adolescents can have real conversations about the decision,” Albert says.

In the end, it comes down to finding the right fit. When families visit a prospective school, Connell says, it’s important that “they leave with not just a good impression but that intangible ‘good feeling’ as well.”

Searching for a school? Explore our K-12 directory .

7 Key Back-to-School Supplies

Tags: K-12 education , parenting , students , elementary school , middle school , education

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

Popular Stories

Best Colleges

College Admissions Playbook

You May Also Like

Ways students can spend spring break.

Anayat Durrani March 6, 2024

Attending an Online High School

Cole Claybourn Feb. 20, 2024

How to Perform Well on SAT, ACT Test Day

Cole Claybourn Feb. 13, 2024

High School Graduation Rates By State

Sarah Wood Dec. 1, 2023

Charter Schools vs. Public Schools

Jacob Fischler and Cole Claybourn Nov. 14, 2023

Understanding Media Literacy

Cole Claybourn Nov. 14, 2023

504 Plan Versus IEP: A Guide for Parents

Sally Kassab and Cole Claybourn Nov. 14, 2023

Nontraditional Student Admissions

Linda Lee Baird Oct. 31, 2023

Pros, Cons of Working in High School

Lilly Roser Sept. 29, 2023

What to Know About STEM High Schools

Sarah Wood Aug. 29, 2023

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Student Opinion

Is Single-Sex Education Still Useful?

By Patrick Phelan

• Jan. 5, 2017

Note: This Student Opinion question was written by a member of an experimental Student Council we ran during the 2015-16 school year. He is a junior at an all-boys’ high school in Boston.

Are all-boys or all-girls schools still useful? What are their benefits? With the emergence of new ideas about the fluidity of gender identity , do they even still make sense?

For example, what happens if a transgender student applies to a single-sex school, or if an enrolled student transitions?

In “ Old Tactic Gets New Use: Public Schools Separate Girls and Boys ,” Motoko Rich provides some context about the educational role of these schools:

Single-sex education, common in the United States until the 19th century, when it fell into deep disfavor except in private or parochial schools, is on the rise again in public schools as educators seek ways to improve academic performance, especially among the poor. Here at Charles Drew Elementary School outside Fort Lauderdale, about a quarter of the classes are segregated by sex on the theory that differences between boys and girls can affect how they learn and behave. ... The theory is generally held in low regard by social scientists. But Ms. Flowers notes that after the school, where nearly all students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, started offering the classes two years ago, its state rating went from a D to a C. Similar improvements have been repeated in a number of other places, causing single-sex classes to spread to other public school districts, including in Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.

But questions about the mission of single-sex education have become especially relevant at women’s colleges in recent years thanks to an evolving understanding of gender identity. In a 2014 Op-Ed, “ Who Are Women’s Colleges For? ”, Kiera Feldman writes:

But today, women’s colleges are at a crossroads their founders could never have foreseen, struggling to reconcile their mission with a growing societal shift on how gender itself is defined. A handful of applications from transgender women have rattled school administrators over the past year, giving rise to anxious meetings and campus demonstrations. On April 29, the Department of Education issued new guidance: Transgender students are protected from discrimination under Title IX.

And in another 2014 piece, “ When Women Become Men at Wellesley ,” Ruth Padawer introduces us to Timothy Boatwright, who was raised a girl and checked “female” when he applied, but introduced himself at college as “masculine-of-center genderqueer.” He asked everyone at Wellesley to use male pronouns and the name Timothy, which he’d chosen for himself. Ms. Padawer writes:

Some two dozen other matriculating students at Wellesley don’t identify as women. Of those, a half-dozen or so were trans men, people born female who identified as men, some of whom had begun taking testosterone to change their bodies. The rest said they were transgender or genderqueer, rejecting the idea of gender entirely or identifying somewhere between female and male; many, like Timothy, called themselves transmasculine. Though his gender identity differed from that of most of his classmates, he generally felt comfortable at his new school.

Students: Read these articles, then tell us:

— What do you think are the benefits of single-sex education? What do you think are the drawbacks? Do you think students learn better in single-sex environments?

— Do you think single-sex institutions should still exist now that new ideas and research about gender identity are flourishing? Why or why not?

— If so, how do you think they should review applications from transgender people? What do you think should happen if someone in a single-sex school transitions while enrolled?

— Have you ever attended an all-girls or all-boys school, camp or club of some kind? What did you think of the experience?

— If you’ve never attended a single-sex school or camp, would you like to? Why or why not?

— What else, if anything, would you like to say about this topic?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

The Resurgence of Single-Sex Education

The benefits and limitations of schools that segregate based on gender

Defenders of same-sex schools hold fast to the belief that girls and boys benefit from separate academic instruction. Proponents often point to school experiences documented in landmark reports like The American Association of University Women’s “ How Schools Shortchange Girls ” as evidence of widespread inequities faced by girls in mixed classrooms. Same-sex educational settings are also offered as a way to improve lagging achievement for low-income students of color— mainly boys —in urban public schools. Conversely, opponents claim single-sex education perpetuates traditional gender roles and “ legitimizes institutional sexism ,” while neuroscientists refute the merits of gender differences between girl and boy brains. And rather than creating more equitable schools for nonwhite students, some critics compare separating boys and girls to racially segregated schooling. The disputes pitting ardent supporters against fervent detractors have done little to dampen popularity, however. The prevalence of single-sex public schools has risen and fallen over the years, yet the last decade has seen a major revival. According to the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, only 34 single-sex public schools were in operation in 2004 . That number jumped 25-fold in 10 years: The New York Times reported in 2014 that 850 schools nationwide had single-sex programs. With participation apparently on the upswing, the Department of Education’s civil-rights division offered guidelines on single-sex classes to K-12 public schools last year. Against this backdrop of renewed interest in single-sex schools and classes, the author Juliet A. Williams, a professor of gender studies and associate dean of the Division of Social Sciences at UCLA, takes a deep dive into the social aspects and framing of this hotly debated issue in a new book, The Separation Solution? Single-Sex Education and the New Politics of Gender Equality . She recently shared some thoughts with me on the subject. The interview that follows has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Melinda D. Anderson: A major thread running through the book is that so many people—educators, parents, activists, and politicians—strongly believe in the potential of single-sex education to unleash academic excellence, while the evidence supporting this claim is sparse and insufficient. What would you say is the primary driving force behind its well-entrenched support?

Juliet A. Williams: Some people believe in single-sex education because they had a great personal experience. To other people, single-sex education seems like plain old common sense: They see differences between boys and girls, and they like the idea of creating schools that reflect these differences. Still others look at the failure of U.S. public-school systems and think, “we’ve got to do something; let’s give it a try.” Since the 1990s, there has been a resurgence of interest in single-sex education in public schools serving students in grades K-12. My book takes a look at the arguments driving interest in single-sex public education, as well as the results. What I have found is that single-sex public-school initiatives have been created with the best of intentions, but that they are not delivering the results. At the same time, they are producing some unintended consequences in terms of reinforcing damaging gender stereotypes.

Anderson: Your freshman year at the Philadelphia High School for Girls, an all-girls public magnet for academically gifted students, is compared to “serving time in prison,” a characterization I found peculiar as a graduate of Girls’ High. With the exception of your brief stint in an all-girls school, The Separation Solution? lacks input from current students or alumni of K-12 single-sex schools. Could their perspectives have expanded your analysis of single-sex education? Williams: I’m pretty sure I would have experienced some measure of adolescent angst no matter where I went to school, and looking back, I think it would be a real mistake to conclude that it was because I happened to attend an all-girls [high school] as opposed to a coed one. By the same token, I suspect that many people who flourished in single-sex environments would have had an equally rewarding experience at a coed school. That’s the problem with relying on personal experience to assess what works in education, and what doesn’t. Think of it this way: If I were to write a book about new treatments for cancer, [I wouldn’t] go out and ask people whether they enjoyed their treatment. I would want to know about results. Our kids deserve to grow up in a society that takes their education every bit as seriously as we take our commitment to good medicine.   Anderson: The creation of single-sex academies in the 1950s throughout the South by anti-integrationists aiming to thwart Brown v. Board of Education and keep black boys from being in classrooms with white girls is an interesting tidbit. Today, K-12 single-sex programs are still mostly concentrated in southern states. Can you talk more about this historical footnote?

Williams: Mention single-sex education to most people today, and you are likely to conjure images of elite institutions in bucolic settings, where emphasis is placed not only on rigorously training young minds, but also on building character and developing self-confidence. As I discovered, however, behind the image of single-sex education’s rosy past lies the story of its disturbingly checkered history. After the Civil War, several of the nation’s increasingly diverse, urban school districts moved to create single-sex public high schools to appease xenophobic parents worried about the prospect of students from different ethnic, religious, and class backgrounds rubbing shoulders throughout the school day. In the years following the landmark Supreme Court ruling, the prejudice driving the retreat from coeducational public schools was even more flagrant … amidst racist panic about the inevitability of young white women and young black men forming social bonds across racial lines.

This history is important [yet] I don’t think there are any easy analogies to be drawn between racially segregated schools in the past, and single-sex schools in the present. Many single-sex programs have been initiated specifically to address the unmet needs of underserved students, particularly black and Latino young men, and there is no question that some of the very best single-sex public schools today are ones created to serve low-income students of color. What is a question [though] is whether these schools are great because they are single-sex. So far, there isn’t evidence to show that they are. Instead, the research shows that successful schools, whether single-sex or coed, tend to have certain things in common, like creating strong mentoring relationships and keeping class sizes to a manageable level. When this happens, students benefit—whether or not boys and girls [are separated].

Anderson: The claim that boys and girls are “hard wired” differently, namely the neuroscience of sex-based learning differences, has been refuted by scientific researchers. Still, a belief in its efficacy persists as an education-policy approach and in teacher professional development. How can this be more effectively countered? Williams: While researching this book I learned about a fascinating phenomenon called “the selective allure of neuroscientific information.” In a series of ingenious experiments, a team of Yale researchers found that even the citation of irrelevant neuroscience information can make certain claims seem more credible than they otherwise would be. What this means in practice is that we can be all too easily drawn into accepting even the most poorly substantiated claims about the differences between men and women, provided those claims come dressed up in the commanding rhetoric of “hard-wiring.” What I found is that many of today’s “gender-sensitive” pedagogies are sold to teachers and parents in a deceptively appealing pseudo-scientific jargon of sex difference. That’s not to say that there aren’t real differences between girls and boys. But it is to say that we should be very skeptical of anyone who claims that we can extrapolate from what currently is known. Despite the fact that much of the popular science of sex difference has been debunked, the past decade has seen a proliferation of public-school programs modeled on bogus teachings.

Anderson: The prospect of transgender students recalibrating the single-sex education debate is presented in the book, with the mission and practice of single-sex schooling upended “in new and important directions.” What do you see as the future of single-sex education as growing numbers of students no longer identify with a gender binary?

Williams: It will be interesting to see how single-sex schools address the issue of gender diversity moving forward. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has been clear that transgender and gender nonconforming students are entitled to protection from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. [All public and private elementary and secondary schools, school districts, colleges, and universities receiving any federal financial assistance must comply with Title IX] Further, all students are entitled to participate in school programs based on their gender identity. One place single-sex public schools may wish to look for guidance moving forward is to the nation’s private women’s colleges. In recent years, several of the most prestigious historically all-women’s colleges have revised their admissions statements to explicitly welcome applications from transgender and gender nonconforming students. In doing so, these colleges are taking important steps to ensure that their commitment to single-sex education doesn’t inadvertently perpetuate bias and intolerance. Anderson: A provision in No Child Left Behind in 2001 helped accelerate the growth of single-sex education—you describe a “surge of single-sex experiments” in public-school classrooms across the country. A co-sponsor of the provision allowing school districts to use grants for same-sex schools and classrooms was former New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who cast single-sex education as furthering public-school choice. Now a candidate for U.S. president, how do you think same-sex education might fare in a Hillary Clinton administration?

Williams: Many officials, including then Senator Hillary Clinton, saw single-sex public education as a promising reform strategy. At the time, federal money was set aside to encourage “experimentation” with single-sex approaches. Since then, hundreds of single-sex public-schooling initiatives have been launched. What have we learned? Predictably, fans of single-sex education loudly proclaim these experiments to be a success —and they have a few carefully chosen examples to prove it. But the real story lies in the overwhelming number of single-sex initiatives that have failed to produce positive results. In 2014, an exhaustive review found no significant proven advantages of single-sex schooling over coeducation, either for boys or for girls. With so many proven approaches to education reform out there, let’s invest in those. Our kids’ lives are too precious to experiment with.

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Single Gender Education. Here Are Few Points To Consider

Single-gender v/s co-ed schools - the debate has been going on for a long time. We help you decide which is the better choice for your child.

The scenes that you see in a single-gender school are different from those in co-ed schools, but the fun children have remains the same. Of course, there are pros and cons to every decision we make in life and that is why, as parents, we need to know the merits and drawbacks of the school we choose for our kids.

So, what exactly is a single-gender classroom? Imagine walking into a school and finding only girls or boys there. This is what a single-gender school looks like.

But, what was the reason behind setting up single-gender schools? Well, in the 19th century, in Western Europe, only boys were sent to school and girls were educated at home. However, in the USA, at the same time, the idea of sending girls to school was gaining ground. This resulted in the establishment of women's educational institutions. It took a few years longer for the first co-ed school to be inaugurated in Oberlin, Ohio. By the late 20th century, however, many schools that previously catered to a single-gender became co-educational.

Surprisingly, in contrast, women in ancient India enjoyed a high status and there were many women scholars of note. While the Rig Veda mentions the name of female poets, by 800 BCE there were a few women scholars mentioned in the Upanishads as well.

However, the education system in India, and elsewhere, went through several changes over the years and was witness to the popularity of co-ed schools, which mushroomed all over the country. Here, we give you a low-down on the advantages and disadvantages of single-gender schools.

ADVANTAGES OF SINGLE-GENDER SCHOOLS

Reduced distractions:.

With both genders under one roof, there are going to be distractions. The younger boys and girls often end up competing with each other, and older boys and girls getting involved with one another. A single-gender classroom eliminates these distractions in the classroom and children focus more on their studies.

Builds confidence:

While girls are good in some subjects, boys excel in others. When children study in a single-gender classroom, they interact much more confidently and freely and can discuss topics, which they would be otherwise hesitant about. Since all leadership positions are also held by peers of the same gender, children feel empowered and confident about tackling any job.

Eliminates competition between boys and girls:

The reason behind single-gender classrooms is the belief that girls and boys are different neurologically and learn very differently. According to a study 'How The Brain Learns: New And Exciting Findings' presented by Dr Sousa in 2014 ASAIHL Conference in Singapore, boys develop visual, spatial and temporal skills faster than girls and girls acquire spoken language skills faster than boys. In a single-gender school, girls get to explore their skills at their own pace without having to compete with boys and vice versa.

Adapts teaching methods:

While in a co-ed school, it is difficult to cater to everyone's needs, it is easier for teachers to prepare lessons suited to the learning needs of a single-gender class. Usually, boys understand more through physical activities while girls prefer interactions and discussions. According to a study 'With Boys And Girls In Mind' by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens published in Educational Leadership in 2004, classrooms based on gender promote different skills and make learning more relatable. The study states 'New PET scan and MRI technologies reveal structural and functional differences in the brains of boys and girls. With more cortical areas devoted to verbal functioning, sensual memory, sitting still, listening, tonality, and mental cross-talk, the complexities of reading and writing come easier to the female brain. Boys lateralize their thinking, need rest states to recharge, and use more cortical areas of their brains for spatial-mechanical functioning. Classrooms that help girls learn will promote gross motor skills, encourage perceptual learning, and use manipulatives to teach math. Boy-friendly classrooms will promote fine motor skills, provide ample space to move around, and make lessons experiential and kinesthetic'.

DISADVANTAGES OF SINGLE-GENDER SCHOOLS

Single-gender interactions:.

While single-gender classrooms provide a relaxed ambiance for children's interaction with their own gender, it is different in the real world, where boys and girls must interact and work with each other. When they are used to interacting only with one gender in school, the awkwardness and newness of the experience make it difficult for boys and girls to interact and converse with each other comfortably.

Creates gender stereotypes:

Studies have shown that single-gender classrooms foster gender stereotypes. Both genders start thinking they are better than the other. "There is strong evidence for negative consequences of segregating by sex -- the collateral damage of segregating by sex," said Lynn S Liben, Professor of Psychology, Human Development and Family Studies, and Education, Penn State in a report 'Sex segregation in schools detrimental to equality', published in Science Daily in 2011.

Lacks diversity:

In single-gender classrooms, the boys or girls do not have the opportunity to listen to perspectives and gain a broader understanding of each other.

Promotes gender disparity:

Single-gender classrooms or schools could make children feel they are superior to the other sex, and that promotes gender disparity. This attitude, in the long run, causes problems when they are working side by side.

"Children usually tend to be shy around each other or are just too curious about each other. In a co-ed, they might fight with each other, but they grow up knowing each other well. This is a healthy way of growing up," says Seetha Kiran, Regional Director, DAV Public School, Safilguda.

CHILD SPEAK

"When you are in an all-boys school, and especially for a long time like I have been, you tend to get shy around girls. It even gets awkward when you get into college, which is mostly co-ed. You don't know what to say or how to behave around the opposite gender. But yes, single-gender schools have their benefits too. There are no distractions and we don't get embarrassed when we are pulled up in class, because we don't feel so conscious."

Aditya Himatsingka,  studies in an all-boys boarding school in Bangalore

PARENT SPEAK:

"Both my boys go to an all-boys school. And I feel there are fewer distractions there. But, I have noticed they are shy around girls. They have certain notions about how girls behave, even though I have explained that that's not necessarily true."

"My daughter studies in an all-girls school and my son goes to a co-ed school. The advantage of a single-gender classroom as far as my daughter is concerned is that she does not need to mind herself all the time or be conscious about her actions as she is in an all-girls school."

Tasneem Aakbari-Kutubuddin 

Ultimately though, as parents, you will choose what you believe is best for your children. So, it is up to you to decide whether you want your children to study in a co-ed or a single-gender school. Your decision is going to shape their future, not just academically but also personally. So, choose wisely and keep an open mind.

EMC Feb 28, 2024

Ignorant garbage. South Asia has a long way to go. I feel sorry for the girls who have to be raised to believe that while they are, eh, good at some things, boys EXCEL.

Adara _ May 22, 2023

Same sex schools are far better then co educational schools specifically for girl students if safety is concern

Maisie Humphreys Mar 7, 2023

ban same-sex schools !!!!!!!

hiya loves 

See All Comments

Comment Flag

Abusive content

Inappropriate content

Cancel Update

Related Topics See All

More for you.

Explore more articles and videos on parenting

Pre-schooler to Pre-teen • 1.4K Views

ParentCircle's Planner For Kids: Help Kids Plan The Year Ahead With This Monthly Planner

The ability to plan ahead is one of the most important skills that children can learn. Our monthly planner will not only help kids schedule their study time but also help them schedule their day better

Primary to Teen • 6 Mins Read • 6.7K Views

Benefits Of Comics For Kids

Comic books benefit not only your child's learning skills but also spark their imagination and language development.

Pre-schooler to 18+ • 8 Mins Read • 51.5K Views

Be Inspired By The Teachings Of Swami Vivekananda With Some Of His Quotes For Students

Share the teachings and extraordinary qualities of the great spiritual leader with your child.

• Communities

Join a community to interact with like-minded parents and share your thoughts on parenting

2.5K members • 51 Discussions

Curiosity, tantrums and what not!

1.9K members • 36 Discussions

The Active and Enthusiastic Middle Years

11-18 Years

1.8K members • 61 Discussions

From Self-consciousness to Self-confidence

Just for Parents

4K members • 148 Discussions

A 'ME' space to just BE!

Discussions Topics

Share your thoughts, parenting tips, activity ideas and more

Hobbies and Entertainment

New member introduction.

Family Fun Challenges and Activities

• Gadget Free Hour
• Discussions

Share your thoughts, tips, activity ideas and more on parenting

Free summer camps in hyderabad

Parent sessions, self introduction, the 4th edition of #raisingboys campaign 2024 is on, regarding art contest 2023.

A compilation of the most-read, liked and commented stories on parenting

How To Prepare For CAT 2020 Exam

8 Mins Read • 1.7K Views

Different Types Of Calendars Used Around The World

4 Mins Read • 31.9K Views

I Have Nerves Of Steel: Anushka Panda CBSE Class 10 Topper

8 Mins Read • 5.2K Views

The Biggest Perk Is Wearing The Uniform Every Day: Major Divya Ajith Kumar

6 Mins Read • 12.3K Views

How To Measure Your Preteen's Academic Performance

7 Mins Read • 5K Views

Mistakes Parents Make That Can Affect Their Child's Learning

10 Mins Read • 7.4K Views

Top Searches

• Notifications
• Saved Stories
• Parents of India
• Ask The Expert
• Community New
• Community Guideline
• Community Help
• The Dot Learning Circle
• Press Releases
• Terms of use
• Sign In Sign UP

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more