Hawley is a student. Â
By Catherine Hawley
On May 8, 2002 the U.S. Department of Education proposed a
policy to allow primary and secondary public schools to have more
single-sex classes. This proposal is now undergoing a 60-day review
as the nation debates whether or not single-sex education is more
effective than coeducation.
The proposal raises all sorts of questions including possible
conflicts with Title IX, a law that mandates equal opportunity and
funding in women’s athletics. Other questions arise, such as
whether the gender of students is the best determinant of success
in the classroom or if smaller class size might be more beneficial.
But, the single most important question in this debate is: If all
other factors are equal and the presence of the opposite sex is the
only variable, do students receive a better education in single-sex
classes than in coed classrooms? I believe that they do.
More importantly, so does the British Office for Standards in
Education. This institution “compared results from 800
schools, single-sex and coed, and found that the superior
performance of students in single-sex schools cannot be accounted
for by socioeconomic factors, but appears instead to be a direct
result of single-sex education.” This study mirrors my
experience exactly.
I was taught in both single-sex as well as coed classrooms, and
agree that single-sex education creates an environment where
students can excel. I went to a coed middle school and an all-girl
high school. Both were private schools and were comparable in
almost every respect. The only major difference was the gender
makeup of the student bodies. According to Cornelius Riordan,
professor of education at Providence University in Rhode Island,
“girls in single-sex schools outperform not only girls at
coed schools, but also outperform boys at both single-sex and coed
schools.”
“This study has been replicated in countries as diverse as
Thailand, Hong Kong, Jamaica and Nigeria,” he added.
Some might say a single-sex environment is too sheltered, but I
don’t view this as a negative assertion. It was important for
me to be in an environment where I was able to take necessary risks
to grow as a person. I very likely would not have been willing to
take these risks if boys had been present in the classroom. Their
potential judgments surely would have deterred me from asking
questions about material I did not understand or from stating a
strong opinion. Boys would have detracted from important academic
endeavors.
In one instance, I was at a particular disadvantage as a girl in
a coed classroom. During elections for class president, the boys
devised a plan to ensure no girl would be elected. They nominated
as many girls as possible in an attempt to divide the vote among
the girls and then chose one male candidate on whom they previously
agreed to vote.
Other females experience much worse discrimination than this on
a daily basis. In crowded public schools female students face
groping in the halls. This type of treatment is detrimental to
their self-esteem and not conducive to learning. It is nonexistent
in a single-sex environment.
I didn’t realize my education was compromised until I
experienced the benefits of an all-girl environment. The all-girl
high school I attended created an environment supportive of
learning and excellence. Oftentimes a group of friends would go to
algebra tutoring together and, surprisingly enough, this group was
not considered an outcast bunch of nerds. In a coed school,
status is important. For girls, their status is largely determined
by their relationship with boys. In other words, their worth in
that environment is determined by the opinion of boys. I doubt I
would have taken the time to understand math if I had attended a
coed school. I naturally would have been more concerned with
impressing the guy I had a crush on instead of pursuing my
education.
Critics say that a single-sex environment isn’t anything
like the real world and therefore won’t prepare students for
life after high school. But let’s face it, no high school is
like the real world. In all seriousness, high school is an
important time. If students have the opportunity to gain
perspective and make decisions for themselves based on their unique
interests, instead of succumbing to the expectations of peer
pressure, they will be better off.
As students hone their talents and find themselves, they enter
the real world with transferable skills, which make them more
confident and better prepared to deal with life. A team of
researchers at the University of Michigan reported that “the
beneficial effects of single-sex education don’t end after
students leave the school.” They found that graduates of
single-sex schools were more likely to go to a prestigious college
and more likely to aspire for graduate school or professional
school than were graduates of coed schools. I, too, built
confidence and learned to be my own advocate and promote my own
education. This started in high school and continues today.
I also felt the positive effects of attending an all-girl school
as an athlete. In a mixed gender high school with a football
program, there is very little chance for women’s sports to
get any attention. At my high school every win was announced
at morning assembly, and the entire school cheered and supported
all the teams. This was an environment where we received
praise for excellence in all endeavors. There is a “subtle
and invidious pressure toward gender stereotyping in coed schools.
Girls tend to be cautious about going into subjects or activities
which are thought of as essentially boys’ things”
according to Andrew Hunter, presently the principal of Merchistion
Castle School in Edinburgh, Scotland, who has taught in both coed
and single-sex schools. Because of the positive environment created
at my all-girl high school, no one hesitated to participate in
athletics.
The public needs to understand these potential benefits of
single-sex education in order to make an informed decision about
the U.S. Department of Education’s proposal.