Single-Gender Colleges: History, Benefits, and Ongoing Debates
Single-gender education, the practice of teaching male or female students in separate classes or schools, has a long and complex history. Once a common practice, particularly in private and parochial settings, single-sex education experienced a decline in popularity during the sexual revolution and women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s. However, the concept has seen a resurgence in recent years, sparking renewed debate about its efficacy and benefits. This article delves into the history of single-gender colleges, explores the arguments for and against them, and considers their place in the educational landscape.
A Historical Perspective
Through the 19th century, public single-sex schooling was common throughout the world. Many of the single-gender schools were private schools established many years ago by religious institutions. Founded in 1789 and located in Bethesda, Georgetown Preparatory, which serves grades 9 to 12, is the nation’s oldest Catholic boys school. Located in Bladensburg, Maryland, Elizabeth Seton High School is a private Catholic all-girls high school established in 1959. Sarah Lawrence College officially became coeducational in 1968 after years of debate and limited admission of men in special circumstances.
The sexual revolution and women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s, however, led to a drop in public single-sex schooling in many areas. For example, in England, during the last 30 years of the 20th century there was an 80% drop in the number of state sector single-sex schools.
Arguments in Favor of Single-Gender Education
Advocates of single-sex education argue that it can provide numerous benefits for students, including:
Reduced Distractions: One of the most commonly cited benefits is the reduction of distractions associated with the presence of the opposite sex. Students can focus on their assignments instead of worrying about if the opposite sex will notice them. According to single-sex school advocates, single-sex schools may reduce influences of adolescent culture that tend to distract student’s attention from academic learning and instead physical attractiveness and interpersonal relationships. This can lead to increased productivity in the classroom and a better overall education.
Read also: Grants for Single Parents
Challenging Gender Stereotypes: In single-sex environments, there is less stereotyping such as the assumption that there are male and female dominant subjects. Cornelius Riordan states in his journal article, “In the normal activities of a high school, the relations between boys and girls tend to increase the importance of physical attractiveness, cars and clothes, and to decrease the importance of achievement in school activities.” In single-sex schools, students are empowered to try new things and may feel motivated to take a course that was deemed for the opposite sex. Single-sex schools continue to prove that gender intensification is not tolerated.
Increased Confidence and Leadership Opportunities for Girls: 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. 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. In these environments, girls are more likely to take on leadership roles and participate actively in class discussions.
Tailored Learning Environments 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. 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. Lessons incorporating movement energize boys and help them stay focused, such as digging for earthworms during science classes.
Empowerment and Freedom of Expression: Students have freedom to speak their minds on the situations and problems that they may come across in the school day without feeling peer pressure to act or say something to appeal to the opposite sex. In the journal, “ Single-Sex Schools: The Answer? ”, girls had said that they “enjoy the greater freedom they feel to express their opinions in the classroom and to discuss topics that would be difficult to address in a co-ed classroom.”
Higher College Attendance: Analysis shows that single-sex schools produce higher 4-year college attendance and better national university entrance exam scores than coeducational schools for both boys and girls. Colleges may find students who are focused and have a better educational environment more successful in entrance exams and academic achievement.
Read also: College Funding for Single Mothers
Creating Affinity Spaces: The idea that dominant identities prevent marginalized identities from succeeding applies in both cases. The feminist lens adopted by many in the 1990s takes up this argument, and there is a benefit to all-girls schools. Environments with decreased sexual harassment or assault, no competition between genders and no men taking up too much space in classrooms and discussions would presumably lead to a better academic environment for girls.
Arguments Against Single-Gender Education
Despite the potential benefits, single-gender education also faces criticism:
Reinforcement of Gender Stereotypes: The strongest argument against single-sex education is that it reduces boys’ and girls’ opportunities to work together, and reinforces sex stereotypes. Opponents of single-sex schooling worry that gender-targeted classrooms do not address the needs of the majority of students, who are in the area of gender-overlap on the relevant traits.
Lack of Scientific Evidence: The New York Times argues that “no scientific evidence supports the idea that single-sex schooling results in better academic outcomes”. Most scientists and researchers will agree that there is a lack of evidence for a better environmental effect on students when enrolled in single-sex schools.
Limited Social Interaction: One downside of single-gender education can be the lack of interaction. Being only used to people of the same gender might pose a problem once the need to interact with the opposite sex sets in.
Read also: Record-Breaking Receiving Seasons
Exclusion of Nonbinary and Trans Youth: Sex-segregated schooling excludes nonbinary and trans youth by completely invalidating their gender identity. There is no version of sex-segregated schooling that allows for the gender spectrum; it feels inappropriate and equally invalidating of gender identity to place all trans youth in a separate school. This would imply that a trans girl’s female identity is less valid than a cisgender girl’s female identity.
Ignoring Gender Overlap: Opponents of single-sex schooling who take a social justice perspective believe that separate is rarely equal and, furthermore, that children learn more when they are exposed to diverse environments that promote cooperation. Reducing cross-group contact in the classroom, they argue, results in boys and girls who are more gender stereotyped and who miss out on opportunities to learn from and cooperate with the other gender.
The Role of Folk Theories
To guide understanding as to why principals may decide to implement single-sex instruction when faced with pressures to improve educational outcomes, we drew on work related to individuals’ folk theories of gender differences. A key area of individuals’ folk theories of gender center on the question of whether and, if so, to what degree the genders differ. Folk theories refer to individuals’ beliefs about the causes of differences. Understanding the extent to which principals believe in and rely on this literature - and have adopted the folk theories of gender based on gender-essentialist perspectives put forth in the books - is important for two reasons. First, use of these gender-differentiated teaching practices may make gender more salient in the classroom and, as a result, lead to an increase in students’ gender stereotypes, which, in turn, may lead students to limit their educational and occupational aspirations.
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. 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. In high school, experts say children are old enough to participate in the school decision-making process - and they should. In the end, it comes down to finding the right fit.
tags: #single #gender #colleges #history #and #benefits
