"Boys will be boys" and Other Stereotypes in Single-Sex Classrooms

by Tamara Schulman, Legal Intern
National Women’s Law Center

According to last weekend’s Washington Post about 500 public schools nationwide will institute single-sex classrooms by next fall. The intense flurry of single sex schools and programs opening this fall raises the critical question of whether these programs provide an important educational option for students or are based on and replicate outmoded stereotypes. In fact, there still is no sound data that single-sex classrooms are effective. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence that they not only fail to meet schools’ academic goals but disserve their students as well. 

The reports from schools profiled in the Post demonstrate that, as the Department of Education itself has conceded, the academic track record of single sex programs is equivocal. Some schools claim that as a result of single-sex classrooms, students were more willing to participate in class, had higher grades, and had better attitudes towards school. But it is impossible to determine whether any improved educational outcomes are a result of classrooms separated by sex or instead of other factors known to achieve success in schools, such as highly motivated teachers or engaged students and parents. And other schools noticed no improvement resulting from single-sex classrooms.

But one certainty from many of the schools described in the Post article is that gender stereotypes are on the rise in these programs. For example, in one all girls’ classroom, girls sit in a “tidy circle” while boys down the hall have “desks facing in every direction.” Girls read poems they wrote about birds and boys read poems they wrote about leopards. What’s next? Girls learn to sew and boys learn how to fix a car?

Leonard Sax, founder of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, claims that girls’ and boys’ brains are hard wired differently such that each gender needs its own classroom with distinct teaching methods. I have a hard time believing that the girls in Ms. Demshur’s class described in the article were all “hard wired” to wear pink backpacks. One girl cut out a heart shaped piece of paper, wrote “I like your hair” on it, and taped it to a desk. Was she hard wired to do that? If so, I want to know who wired her that way.

Well, whoever “wired” her, one thing is clear: her single-sex classroom better be careful not to violate Title IX or the U.S. Constitution. Even the Department of Education’s 2006 Regulations require that single sex programs be voluntary – a basic concept unfortunately left out of many new programs. Moreover, Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause require, among other things, that programs be equal and not based on generalizations about the interests and abilities of boys and girls. In other words, basing a single sex program on stereotypes will not meet these criteria.

This whole debate leads me to two final thoughts. First, kids need attentive teachers who care about their individual needs, not teachers who lock them into general categories. Second, and finally, whoever thinks that all girls are “tidy” has not seen my room.

Comments

[Viagra Canada]

And other schools noticed no improvement resulting from single-sex classrooms.

[Affiliate Promotion]

I really didnt know that.. well i think i got something new to try...

[Children Anxiety Disorder]

I heard about that before, but never find information... your site help me so much thanks....

[William Behun]

It seems strange to claim that "there still is [sic] no sound data that single-sex classrooms are effective." A brief google search would show that there is considerable evidence for the effectiveness of single-gender classrooms. Now, it must be admitted that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, but I find it interesting that Ms Schulman doesn't cite any data while those supporting single-gender classrooms are quick to wave data around.

Ms Schulman seems to be operating on the premise that single-gender classrooms are simply a mechanism for reinforcing gender stereotypes, and I think it is reasonable to suggest that in some cases this might well be the case. However, one of the primary thrusts of research into the topic revolves around ways to use single-gender classrooms to *break down* gender stereotypes by encouraging students to pursue subjects in which either girls or boys have traditionally been deficient in an atmosphere devoid of inter-gender conflicts and problems.

At the end of the day, I would submit that the jury's still out: but simply dismissing possible options out of hand helps no one.

I invite comments or criticisms either on this blog or privately.

Dr William Behun
Penn State University
wab10@psu.edu

[Jamie]

How about the junior high level with all the social emotional issues. Don't you think during these years it would make a difference? State test scores show an inverted pyramid when showing the progress of students over time. In elementary there is gradual progress, a nosedive in junior high, and then a huge rebound at the high school level. Imagine what those high school scores would be without the missed learning in junior high...

[Tamara]

Thanks for your question. The performance results for single sex programs are truly mixed – in fact, a meta-analysis of studies of single sex programs revealed that there is little evidence of consistent advantages in single-sex schools for boys or girls. That does not make all single sex schools and programs unconstitutional or in violation of Title IX. To the contrary, before the Department of Education issued its 2006 regulations, there was clear guidance for schools on when programs, including math and science programs for girls, are permissible. But the programs profiled in the Post article, which clearly relied on stereotypes and assumptions about girls and boys, far from meet the rigorous standards of Title IX and the Constitution.

[Trisha]

I thought there was some evidence that girls did better in math classes with only girls. Have you heard that at all? I don't have the reference for it anymore I don't think.