single sex schools essay

Single-sex education: the pros and cons

by: Kristin Stanberry | Updated: May 7, 2024

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 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

Why do we have single sex schools? What’s the history behind one of the biggest debates in education?

Lecturer in Gender and Cultural Studies, University of Sydney

Professor, University of Sydney

Senior Lecturer in Health Education, University of Sydney

Disclosure statement

Jessica Kean receives funding from an Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative grant 'Australian Boys: Beyond the Boy Problem'.

Helen Proctor receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Kellie Burns previously received funding from the University of Sydney, Equity Prize.

University of Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

When students walked through the sandstone gates of Sydney’s Newington College for the first day of school last week, they were met by protesters .

A group of parents and former students had gathered outside this prestigious school in the city’s inner west, holding placards decrying the school’s decision to become fully co-educational by 2033.

Protesters have even threatened legal action to defend the 160-year-old tradition of boys’ education at the school. One told Channel 9 they fear the change is driven by “woke […] palaver” that will disadvantage boys at Newington.

Newington is not the only prestigious boys school to open enrolments to girls. Cranbrook in Sydney’s east will also go fully co-ed, with the decision sparking a heated community debate .

This debate is not a new one. What is the history behind the single-sex vs co-ed divide? And why does it spark so much emotion?

Read more: As another elite boys' school goes co-ed, are single-sex schools becoming an endangered species?

What is the history of the debate?

Schools like Newington were set up at a time when the curriculum and social worlds for upper-class boys and girls were often quite different. Boys and girls were thought to require different forms of education for their intellectual and moral development.

The question of whether it’s a good idea to educate boys and girls separately has been debated in Australia for at least 160 years, around the time Newington was set up.

In the 1860s, the colony of Victoria introduced a policy of coeducation for all government-run schools. This was despite community concerns about “ moral well-being ”. There was a concern that boys would be a “corrupting influence” on the girls. So schools were often organised to minimise contact between boys and girls even when they shared a classroom.

Other colonies followed suit. The main reason the various Australian governments decided to educate boys and girls together was financial. It was always cheaper, especially in regional and rural areas, to build one school than two. So most government schools across Australia were established to enrol both girls and boys.

One notable exception was New South Wales, which set up a handful of single-sex public high schools in the 1880s.

These were intended to provide an alternative to single-sex private secondary schools. At that time, education authorities did not believe parents would agree to enrol their children in mixed high schools. Historically, coeducation has been more controversial for older students, but less so for students in their primary years.

A changing debate

By the 1950s, many education experts were arguing coeducation was better for social development than single-sex schooling. This was at a time of national expansion of secondary schooling in Australia and new psychological theories about adolescents.

In following decades, further debates emerged. A feminist reassessment in the 1980s argued girls were sidelined in co-ed classes. This view was in turn challenged during the 1990s , with claims girls were outstripping boys academically and boys were being left behind in co-ed environments.

Which system delivers better academic results?

There is no conclusive evidence that one type of schooling (co-ed or single sex) yields better academic outcomes than the other.

Schools are complex and diverse settings. There are too many variables (such as resourcing, organisational structures and teaching styles) to make definitive claims about any one factor. Many debates about single-sex vs co-ed schooling also neglect social class as a key factor in academic achievement.

What about the social environment?

Research about the social outcomes of co-ed vs single-sex schools is also contested.

Some argue co-ed schooling better prepares young people for the co-ed world they will grow up in.

Others have suggested boys may fare better in co-ed settings, with girls acting as a counterbalance to boys’ unruliness. But it has also been argued boys take up more space and teacher time, detracting from girls’ learning and confidence.

Both of these arguments rely on gender stereotypes about girls being compliant and timid and boys being boisterous and disruptive.

Key to these debates is a persistent belief that girls and boys learn differently. These claims do not have a strong basis in educational research.

Read more: We can see the gender bias of all-boys' schools by the books they study in English

Why such a heated debate?

Tradition plays a big part in this debate. Often, parents want their children to have a similar schooling experience to themselves.

For others it’s about access to specific resources and experiences. Elite boys schools have spent generations accumulating social and physical resources tailored to what they believe boys are interested in and what they believe is in boys’ best interests . This includes sports facilities, curriculum offerings, approaches to behaviour management and “old boys” networks.

Many of these schools have spent decades marketing themselves as uniquely qualified to educate boys (or a certain type of boy). So it’s not surprising if some in these school communities are resisting change.

More concerning are the Newington protesters who suggest this move toward inclusivity and gender diversity will make boys “second-class citizens”. This echoes a refrain common in anti-feminist and anti-trans backlash movements , which position men and boys as vulnerable in a world of changing gender norms. This overlooks the ways they too can benefit from the embrace of greater diversity at school.

As schools do the work to open up to more genders , it is likely they will also become welcoming to a wider range of boys and young men.

• Private schools
• single sex education

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

• 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 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

What is a montessori school.

Rhonda Franz and Andrew Warner June 4, 2024

Choosing a High School: What to Consider

Cole Claybourn April 23, 2024

States With Highest Test Scores

Sarah Wood April 23, 2024

Map: Top 100 Public High Schools

Sarah Wood and Cole Claybourn April 23, 2024

Metro Areas With Top-Ranked High Schools

A.R. Cabral April 23, 2024

U.S. News Releases High School Rankings

See the 2024 Best Public High Schools

Joshua Welling April 22, 2024

Explore the 2024 Best STEM High Schools

Nathan Hellman April 22, 2024

Ways Students Can Spend Spring Break

Anayat Durrani March 6, 2024

Attending an Online High School

Cole Claybourn Feb. 20, 2024

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.

What’s the Value of Single-Sex Schools?

Research on the effectiveness of single-sex schools has been mixed.

After decades out of favor, single-sex schools are growing in popularity , particularly in some urban districts serving students from low-income families. Research on the effectiveness of such schools has been mixed. Advocates say single-sex environments allow teachers to adjust to boys’ or girls’ learning styles, while sheltering students from the distractions of dealing with the other gender. Opponents say teaching the genders differently can promote unhealthy stereotypes, and that separate facilities are inherently unequal.

A 1995 study published in Comparative Education Review raises different questions about why single-sex classrooms may or may not be effective. Placing the issue in an international context, authors David P. Baker, Cornelius Riordan, and Maryellen Schaub argue that results from single-sex schools vary from one place to another in ways that suggest there’s no universal rule about what advantages they provide. In fact, many of the benefits touted by advocates may have more to do with other differences in approach that tend to accompany same-sex classrooms in specific countries.

The authors looked at two countries where single-sex schools are relatively rare—Thailand and Japan—and two others where they’re common—Belgium and New Zealand. For the second two countries, they found that students’ achievement in mathematics had almost nothing to do with whether they were in a co-ed or single-sex environment.

In the two nations where co-ed classes are the rule, single-sex schools had significant effects for the achievement of both boys and girls, but not all in the same direction. In Thailand, girls did better in single-sex than co-ed environments, but boys did not. In Japan, both boys and girls achieved lower results in single-sex environments. The differences are related to the particular functions of the schools. In Thailand, a small number of schools for girls in Bangkok offer elite education for girls, while mixed-gender schools provide more opportunities for boys. In Japan, gender-segregated schools tend to be private, and offer a route to private universities without the strenuous entrance exams of public universities.

“Wealthier families place their less motivated or less able children in universities through private single-sex secondary schools,” the authors write. “The negative effects of single-sex schooling in Japan in part are produced by the type of student who is attracted to this sector (and the accompanying opportunity to buy future education), perhaps more so than any large differences in learning environments.”

Although this study does not look at the United States, the authors note that single-sex schools in this country, as in Japan and Thailand, are “perceived as very distinct from the average school.” In the U.S., they write, many such schools are known for “unique approaches.” And, whatever the positive or negative effects the schools have on student achievement, they may be due more to those approaches than to sex segregation.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

More Stories

Wild Saints and Holy Fools

Building Classroom Discussions around JSTOR Daily Syllabi

Scaffolding a Research Project with JSTOR

Making Implicit Racism

Recent posts.

• Lessons for American Zionism from the “Free Ireland” Cause
• Rickshaw Men, Optical Computing, and Telegraph Flirting
• Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?
• The Great Dissenter’s Complications
• The Joy of Burglary

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Single-sex Education

Introduction, general overviews.

• Reference Works
• Anthologies
• At-risk Students
• Brain and Biology
• Gender Stereotyping and Identity
• Mathematics, Science, and Verbal Skills
• Legal Issues
• Developmental, Familial, and Cultural Issues

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Academic Achievement
• Adolescence
• Gender and Achievement
• Private and Independent Schools
• School Culture
• Social Context of Education

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Black Women in Academia
• Girls' Education in the Developing World
• History of Education in Europe
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Single-sex Education by Margaret L. Signorella LAST REVIEWED: 28 September 2016 LAST MODIFIED: 28 September 2016 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0166

Single-sex education refers to both classes and schools that have only one sex, defined by a biological classification. The alternative, in which both sexes are present in class or in the school as a whole, is referred to as “coeducation” or a “mixed-sex environment.” In the latter half of the 20th century, many countries moved away from single-sex education as a predominant mode of education, particularly in the public sectors. At the same time, issues of educational equity, whether based in gender, ethnicity, or social class, have been associated with a pushback against coeducation. Many comparisons have been made in many countries to test whether there is an advantage to one gender context or another, yet the conclusions remain under dispute. Outcomes most frequently assessed are mathematics, science, and verbal performance and attitudes; educational aspirations; gender stereotyping; and self-concept. In the United States, single-sex public options, whether in one classroom or in an entire school, have increased as a result in changes in federal education regulations. Those same regulations, which preclude random assignment, make it difficult to make an appropriate comparison of the outcomes in relation to different gender contexts. Major areas of contention are that in many cases, the single-sex class or school may be different in ways that go beyond gender, and that the students and their families who choose a single-sex option may vary in crucial ways, such as having a higher- than-average commitment to education. Most of the reviews of the literature to date that encompass research from across the globe are considered to show little to no difference or are deemed inconclusive or contradictory. Research from schools in which random assignment was conducted, if possible, or that employ statistical or methodological controls to account for preexisting differences or confounding factors may help resolve the controversy. Popular views of gender and single-sex education as important determinants of student success are, however, in conflict with the results of research showing little difference and much inconsistency.

There are few general resources to help understand the theory and research surrounding the disputes over single-sex education. Some of the papers in the Reference Works and Anthologies sections can also serve as an overview, but those tend to be more technical and specialized. The works in this section were chosen for their broader assessment of the issue from multiple sides and with historical context. Liben 2015 , Riordan 1990 , and Salomone 2003 spanned the largest historical periods, whereas Gill 2004 (Australia) and Bigler and Signorella 2011 (United States) focused mostly on the 20th century. The historical perspectives help in understanding the roots of single-sex education across cultures and why single-sex education began to decline in popularity before experiencing a resurgence. Bigler and Signorella 2011 attempts to quantify the increases in single-sex classes and schools in the United States and cites several reasons for the increases, including concerns about gender equity and poor educational outcomes in schools serving low-income youth of color. Although sympathetic to educational equity issues, they were not convinced that there is empirical support for gender-separated schools or classrooms. Riordan 1990 , Riordan 2015 , and Salomone 2003 are proponents of single-sex education, although not necessarily for all students. They emphasize structural and cultural aspects of education that they feel are improved in single-sex classes or schools, with Salomone drawing heavily on several of Riordan’s studies as well as other research. Riordan 1990 and Salomone 2003 have the most extensive discussion of the arguments that members of disadvantaged groups may benefit from single-sex schooling. Riordan 2015 provides an overview of all justifications in support of single-sex schools but questions the value of single-sex classes within mixed-sex schools. Liben 2015 scrutinizes the disagreements from the perspectives of science and of values. She noted that some proponents of single-sex schooling take a “gender essentialist” approach, which leads those advocates to conclude that if there are deep and biologically based gender differences, then those differences must be reflected in educational practices. She reviewed some of the most frequently cited works that take a gender-essentialist approach. Liben also identified choice as another key value mentioned by promoters of single-sex education and discussed the clashes that occur when these different types of evidence (e.g., scientific research, values) are used in the public arena. The radio debate between Hyde and Sax in 2011 is illustrative of the challenge in reconciling the views.

Bigler, R. S., and M. L. Signorella. 2011. Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles 65:659–669.

DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-0046-x

Also serving as an introduction to Part 1 of a special issue on single-sex schooling, the paper provides a recent historical overview in the United States, and also reviews the methodological and political concerns that have accompanied legal changes in education policy in the United States.

Debate over Single-Sex Schooling . 13 October 2011. RadioTimes with Marty Moss-Coane.

The audio recording of a debate between Dr. Janet Hyde and Dr. Leonard Sax over the appropriateness of offering single-sex public schools is a good example of the disparate positions and approaches seen in this area of controversy.

Gill, J. 2004. Beyond the great divide: Single-sex or coeducation? Sydney: Univ. of New South Wales Press.

A well-written overview that may be useful for parents or non-educators in understanding the controversy. The focus is on Australia but includes comparisons to many other countries.

Liben, L. S. 2015. Probability values and human values in evaluating single-sex education. Sex Roles 72:401–426.

DOI: 10.1007/s11199-014-0438-9

Liben examines single-sex schooling history in the United States and then surveys the state of current controversy from scientific and values-oriented perspectives. This article is a good overview from the perspective of someone who has serious concerns about single-sex public schools or classes.

Riordan, C. 1990. Girls and boys in school: Together or separate? New York: Teachers College.

Begins with historical and sociological overviews of the education of boys and girls in ancient Greece and Rome, medieval and later Europe, and the United States from the colonial era to the present. The later chapters present outcomes from shorter- and longer-term comparisons of different school gender environments and their correlates.

Riordan, C. 2015. Single-sex schools: A place to learn . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

For someone unfamiliar with the topic, this book would be a good general introduction. Riordan also provides a brief but useful recent historical and cross-cultural overview of single-sex versus coeducational trends in education, and an up-to-date and international overview of the research.

Salomone, R. C. 2003. Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling . New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

Although the focus is on single-sex education in the United States, Salomone draws upon numerous comparisons across the globe in recounting the debates over the value of single-sex education. She sides with the need for single-sex options in some circumstances.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Education »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Academic Audit for Universities
• Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
• Action Research in Education
• Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
• Administrator Preparation
• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
• Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
• African American Racial Identity and Learning
• Alaska Native Education
• Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
• Alternative Schools
• American Indian Education
• Animals in Environmental Education
• Art Education
• Artificial Intelligence and Learning
• Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
• Assessment, Behavioral
• Assessment, Educational
• Assessment in Early Childhood Education
• Assistive Technology
• Augmented Reality in Education
• Beginning-Teacher Induction
• Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
• Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
• Blended Learning
• Case Study in Education Research
• Changing Professional and Academic Identities
• Character Education
• Children’s and Young Adult Literature
• Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
• Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
• Citizenship Education
• Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
• Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
• Classroom Management
• Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
• College Admissions in the United States
• College Athletics in the United States
• Community Relations
• Comparative Education
• Computer-Assisted Language Learning
• Computer-Based Testing
• Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
• Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
• Counseling in Schools
• Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
• Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
• Critical Race Theory
• Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
• Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
• Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
• Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
• Culturally Responsive Leadership
• Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
• Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
• Curriculum Design
• Data Collection in Educational Research
• Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
• Deaf Education
• Desegregation and Integration
• Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
• Development, Moral
• Dialogic Pedagogy
• Digital Age Teacher, The
• Digital Citizenship
• Digital Divides
• Disabilities
• Distance Learning
• Distributed Leadership
• Doctoral Education and Training
• Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
• Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
• Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Childhood Education in Australia
• Early Childhood Education in China
• Early Childhood Education in Europe
• Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Early Childhood Education in Sweden
• Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
• Early Childhood Education Policy
• Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
• Early Childhood Mathematics
• Early Childhood Science
• Early Childhood Teacher Education
• Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
• Economics of Education
• Education For Children with Autism
• Education for Sustainable Development
• Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
• Education of Native Hawaiian Students
• Education Reform and School Change
• Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
• Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
• Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
• Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
• English as an International Language for Academic Publishi...
• Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
• Environmental Education
• Environmental Education in Brazil
• Epistemic Beliefs
• Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
• Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
• Ethical Research with Young Children
• Ethics and Education
• Ethics of Teaching
• Ethnic Studies
• Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
• Family and Community Partnerships in Education
• Family Day Care
• Federal Government Programs and Issues
• Feminization of Labor in Academia
• Finance, Education
• Financial Aid
• Formative Assessment
• Future-Focused Education
• Gender and Alternative Education
• Gender, Power and Politics in the Academy
• Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
• Gifted Education
• Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
• Global University Rankings
• Governance, Education
• Grounded Theory
• Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
• Higher Education and Globalization
• Higher Education and the Developing World
• Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
• Higher Education Finance
• Higher Education Governance
• Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
• Higher Education in Africa
• Higher Education in China
• Higher Education in Latin America
• Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
• Higher Education, International Issues in
• Higher Education Management
• Higher Education Policy
• Higher Education Research
• Higher Education Student Assessment
• High-stakes Testing
• History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
• History of Education in the United States
• History of Technology Integration in Education
• Homeschooling
• Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
• Inclusive Education
• Indigenous Education in a Global Context
• Indigenous Learning Environments
• Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
• Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
• Inservice Teacher Education
• Integrating Art across the Curriculum
• Intelligence
• Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
• International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
• Intersectionality and Education
• Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
• Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
• Leadership in Early Childhood Education
• Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
• Learning Analytics in Higher Education
• Learning Difficulties
• Learning, Lifelong
• Learning, Multimedia
• Learning Strategies
• Legal Matters and Education Law
• LGBT Youth in Schools
• Linguistic Diversity
• Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
• Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
• Literature Reviews
• Mathematics Identity
• Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
• Mathematics Teacher Education
• Measurement for Improvement in Education
• Measurement in Education in the United States
• Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
• Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
• Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
• Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
• Mixed Methods Research
• Motherscholars
• Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
• Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
• Multivariate Research Methodology
• Museums, Education, and Curriculum
• Music Education
• Narrative Research in Education
• Native American Studies
• Nonformal and Informal Environmental Education
• Note-Taking
• Numeracy Education
• One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
• Online Education
• Open Education
• Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
• Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
• Outdoor Play and Learning
• Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
• Pedagogical Leadership
• Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
• Performance Objectives and Measurement
• Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
• Performance-based Research Funding
• Phenomenology in Educational Research
• Philosophy of Education
• Physical Education
• Podcasts in Education
• Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
• Politics of Education
• Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
• Post-humanism and Environmental Education
• Pre-Service Teacher Education
• Problem Solving
• Productivity and Higher Education
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Communities
• Program Evaluation
• Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
• Psychology Learning and Teaching
• Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
• Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques
• Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
• Qualitative Research Design
• Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
• Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
• Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
• Reading Education
• Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
• Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
• Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
• Reliability in Educational Assessments
• Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
• Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
• Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
• Response to Intervention
• Restorative Practices
• Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
• Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
• Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
• School Accreditation
• School Choice
• School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
• School Improvement through Inclusive Education
• School Reform
• Schools, Private and Independent
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Science Education
• Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
• Self-Regulated Learning
• Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
• Service-Learning
• Severe Disabilities
• Single Salary Schedule
• Single-sex Education
• Single-Subject Research Design
• Social Justice
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Pedagogy
• Social Science and Education Research
• Social Studies Education
• Sociology of Education
• Standards-Based Education
• Statistical Assumptions
• Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
• Student Assignment Policy
• Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
• Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
• Student Participation
• Student Voice in Teacher Development
• Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Higher Education
• Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
• Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
• Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
• Teacher Preparation
• Teacher Training and Development
• Teacher Unions and Associations
• Teacher-Student Relationships
• Teaching Critical Thinking
• Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
• Technology Education in Early Childhood
• Technology, Educational
• Technology-based Assessment
• The Bologna Process
• The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
• Theories of Educational Leadership
• Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
• Tracking and Detracking
• Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
• Transformative Learning
• Transitions in Early Childhood Education
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
• Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
• University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
• Using Ethnography in Educational Research
• Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
• Virtual Learning Environments
• Vocational and Technical Education
• Wellness and Well-Being in Education
• Women's and Gender Studies
• Young Children and Spirituality
• Young Children's Learning Dispositions
• Young Children's Working Theories
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

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.

A RESOURCE CREATED BY:

Academic performance and single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland

Female students in all-female classes experience less stereotype threat and perform better in their mathematics grades than their female peers in coeducational classes, with no difference in their language grades..

Cite this Article

Eisenkopf, Gerald, et al. "Academic performance and single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland."  Journal of economic behavior & organization  115 (2015): 123-143.

Eisenkopf, G., Hessami, Z., Fischbacher, U., & Ursprung, H. W. (2015). Academic performance and single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland.  Journal of economic behavior & organization ,  115 , 123-143.

Eisenkopf, Gerald, Zohal Hessami, Urs Fischbacher, and Heinrich W. Ursprung. "Academic performance and single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland."  Journal of economic behavior & organization  115 (2015): 123-143.

Gerald Eisenkopf

Zohal hessami, urs fischbacher, heinrich w. ursprung.

• Introduction
• Methodology

The gender gap in academic performance might be explained in part by stereotype threat, or the anxiety or concern that individuals of a certain identity (e.g., woman) feel when they risk confirming negative stereotypes about that identity (e.g., women’s inferior mathematics ability). Here, it is suggested that having any male students in the classroom might prime gender-based stereotypes for female students, leading to worse performance on stereotypically “male” subjects such as mathematics. However, it is hypothesized that there would be no difference in performance in non-stereotypically “male” subjects such as language.

It has been suggested that single-sex classrooms in these stereotypically “male” subjects may be advantageous for female students. If single-sex schooling reduces gender-specific stereotype threat, it is hypothesized that girls in single-sex classes would do better in their mathematics grades than girls in coeducational classes. The researchers take advantage of a natural experiment due to a Swiss high school administration’s random assignment of female students to either all-female or coeducational classes to study the peer effects of classroom gender composition on academic performance of female high school students. The students’ academic performance is observed over a time period of up to four years.

Single-sex schooling improved the performance of female students in mathematics. This positive effect was particularly large for female students with high academic achievement prior to entering high school. Single-sex schooling also strengthened female students’ self-confidence in their mathematical abilities and increased their chances of attributing these abilities to their own efforts rather than outside factors such as talent or luck.

• Female students in single-sex classes obtained better math grades than female students in coeducational classes, with an average performance increase of approximately 7–10% within the range where most students score.
• Single-sex schooling benefitted female students regardless of prior abilities. However, female students with higher estimated academic abilities benefitted more than less talented female peers with a one point higher score on the math qualifying exam associated with 45% of a grade point more in the single-sex classroom and only 31% of a grade point more in the coeducational classroom.
• Single-sex schooling benefitted female students regardless of teacher gender. However, the effect was smaller for girls in classes with female teachers compared to male teachers.
• In addition, female students in single-sex classes evaluated their mathematics skills more positively (average 2.382 vs. 2.032 on a scale of 1-4) and were more likely to attribute their performance in mathematics to their own efforts rather than to talent or luck (average 3.402 vs. 3.051 on a scale of 1-4).  
• Female students in single-sex classes performed equally to female students in coeducational classes.
• Teacher gender had no impact on female students’ performance in either single-sex or in coeducational classes.
• There was no difference in how female students viewed their language skills in single-sex or coeducational classes.

In sum, single-sex schooling improves the performance of female students in mathematics classes but not in language classes, suggesting that reducing gender-based stereotype threat has real effects on academic performance. Moreover, female students who demonstrated high pre-existing ability on the entrance exam benefitted the most from single-sex classrooms, which underlines the relationship between the beneficial effects of all-girls schooling to the absence of gender-specific stereotype threats.

The researchers exploited a natural experiment at a high school in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Like most Swiss high schools, this school is run and financed by the local canton (state) and applies standard curricula and teacher recruitment policies. Since the school has a focus on teaching pedagogical subjects, which allows many of the school’s graduates to skip the first-year courses at the University of Teacher Education (located in the same town), it attracts many female students, and 80% of students are female. In order to provide male students with more peers of their gender in classes, the school board arbitrarily assigns incoming female students to coeducational or single-sex classes for the entire four years of education. Students and their parents cannot influence the assignment, so the assignment is de facto random. The coeducational classes have about 22% male students. All students experience the same curriculum and examinations in the core subjects, taught by the same teachers, which means the students’ grades in math and German are comparable across parallel classes.

The researchers observed the performance of 808 high school students (668 female) who entered the school (9th to 12th grade) between 2001 and 2008 in both math and German, which are compulsory courses. The researchers also conducted a survey to gauge female students’ experiences in their math classes and beliefs about their mathematic abilities.

• Top of Page
• Authors & Citations
• Related Studies

Related GAP Studies

A cash transfer program in Kenya significantly boosted school enrollment among adolescent girls and elevated expectations for completing secondary education. 

Effects of a single cash transfer on school re-enrollment during covid-19 among vulnerable adolescent girls in kenya: randomized controlled trial.

Peer-led sex education significantly boosts contraceptive use and demand while reducing unmet contraceptive needs among Ethiopian adolescent girls.

Effectiveness of peer-led education interventions on contraceptive use, unmet need, and demand among adolescent girls in gedeo zone, south ethiopia. a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Single-Sex Schooling: Friendships, Dating, and Sexual Orientation

• Original Paper
• Published: 13 March 2018
• Volume 47 , pages 1025–1039, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Gu Li 1 &
• Wang Ivy Wong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9428-2832 2  

3981 Accesses

21 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Single-sex schooling has been controversial for decades. The current study investigated the differences in friendships, dating, and past, present, and ideal sexual orientation, between 207 college students who attended single-sex secondary schools and 249 college students who attended coeducational secondary schools in Hong Kong, controlling for personal characteristics such as socioeconomic status. We found that, compared to graduates of coeducational schools, graduates of single-sex schools reported a different gender composition in intimate friendships favoring the same sex, less romantic involvement with other-sex close friends, older age at first date, fewer boyfriends or girlfriends, and more past same-sex sexuality. In contrast, we found no significant differences in the interactions with same-sex versus other-sex friends, most aspects of past or present dating engagement, or self-reported present or ideal sexual orientation. These findings give insight into the interpersonal outcomes of single-sex schooling and fill a gap in previous research which has focused on academic achievement and gender role stereotypes.

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

The “dating game”: age differences at first sex of college students in Italy

Peers, Sexual Relationships, and Agency in Tanzania

Romantic Relationship Patterns, Detailed Covariates, and Impacts on Education: a Study on Young Adults in the U.S. Using ICPSR Dataset

Bancroft, J. (2009). Human sexuality and its problems (3rd ed.). Edinburgh, UK: Elsevier.

Google Scholar  

Barton, B. K., & Cohen, R. (2004). Classroom gender composition and children’s peer relations. Child Study Journal, 34, 29–46.

Bigler, R. S., Hayes, A. R., & Liben, L. (2014). Analysis and evaluation of the rationales for single-sex schooling. In L. S. Liben & R. S. Bigler (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: The role of gender in educational contexts and outcomes (pp. 225–260). London: Academic Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Blanchard, R. (1997). Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females. Annual Review of Sex Research, 8, 27–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10532528.1997.10559918 .

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Blanchard, R., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2015). Commentary on Kishida and Rahman (2015), including a meta-analysis of relevant studies on fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1503–1509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0474-0 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bogaert, A. F., & Skorska, M. (2011). Sexual orientation, fraternal birth order, and the maternal immune hypothesis: A review. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.02.004 .

Bowker, A. (2004). Predicting friendship stability during early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431603262666 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bruce, N. W., & Sanders, K. A. (2001). Incidence and duration of romantic attraction in students progressing from secondary to tertiary education. Journal of Biosocial Science, 33, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932001001730 .

Calzo, J. P., Antonucci, T. C., & Cochran, D. S. (2011). Retrospective recall of sexual orientation identity development among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1658–1673. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025508 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relationships and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 291–329). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Census and Statistics Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2012). In Population census: Summary results . Hong Kong: Author. Retrieved from http://www.censtatd.gov.hk .

Census and Statistics Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2016). In Quarterly report on general household survey . Hong Kong: Author. Retrieved from http://www.censtatd.gov.hk .

Cheung, S. K., & McBride-Chang, C. (2007). Correlates of cross-sex friendship satisfaction in Hong Kong adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407073532 .

Chiu, P. P.-K. (2008). A position of usefulness: Gendering history of girls’ education in colonial Hong Kong (1850s–1890s). History of Education, 37, 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/00467600802368715 .

Chorney, D. B., & Morris, T. L. (2008). The changing face of dating anxiety: Issues in assessment with special populations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 15, 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2008.00132.x .

Clark, M. L., & Ayers, M. (1992). Friendship similarity during early adolescence: Gender and racial patterns. Journal of Psychology, 126, 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1992.10543372 .

Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Adolescents’ explanations for romantic dissolutions: A developmental perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 1209–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.01.006 .

Dale, R. (1974). Mixed or single-sex school? (Vol. III). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Degirmencioglu, S. M., Urberg, K. A., Tolson, K. M., & Richard, P. (1998). Adolescent friendship networks: Continuity and change over the school year. Merrill - Palmer Quarterly, 44, 313–337.

Diamond, L. M. (2000). Passionate friendships among adolescent sexual-minority women. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/SJRA1002_4 .

Diamond, L. M., Bonner, S. B., & Dickenson, J. (2015). The development of sexuality. In R. M. Lerner & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (Vol. 3, pp. 888–931). New York, NY: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy321 .

Doughty, S. E., Lam, C. B., Stanik, C. E., & McHale, S. M. (2015). Links between sibling experiences and romantic competence from adolescence through young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2054–2066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0177-9 .

Dyhouse, C. (1985). Feminism and the debate over coeducational/single-sex schooling: Some historical perspectives. In J. Purvis (Ed.), The education of girls and women (pp. 47–60). London: History of Education Society.

Fabes, R. A., Pahlke, E., Borders, A. Z., & Galligan, K. (2015). US principals’ attitudes about and experiences with single-sex schooling. Educational Studies, 41, 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2015.1005576 .

Faraday, A. (1989). Lessoning lesbians: Girls’ schools, co-education and anti-lesbianism between the wars. In C. Jones & P. Mahony (Eds.), Learning our lines (pp. 23–45). London: The Women’s Press.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 .

Fortenberry, J. D. (2013). Puberty and adolescent sexuality. Hormones and Behavior, 64, 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.03.007 .

Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent development. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gates, G. J. (2005). Lesbians and gay men in the U.S. military: Estimates from census 2000 . Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/lesbians-and-gay-men-in-the-u-s-military-estimates-from-census-2000-2/ .

Gates, G. J. (2010). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual men and women in the US military: Updated estimates . Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-GLBmilitaryUpdate-May-20101.pdf .

Gibbons, J. L. (2000). Gender development in cross-cultural perspective. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 389–416). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9 .

Grover, R. L., Nangle, D. W., Serwik, A., & Zeff, K. R. (2007). Girl friend, boy friend, girlfriend, boyfriend: Broadening our understanding of heterosocial competence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701651637 .

Gurian, M., Henley, P., & Trueman, T. (2001). Boys and girls learn differently! San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Halleck, S. L., & Hersko, M. (1962). Homosexual behavior in a correctional institution for adolescent girls. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 32, 911–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1962.tb00346.x .

Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J. S., … Martin, C. L. (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333, 1706–1707. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205031 .

Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091510 .

Herr, K., & Arms, E. (2004). Accountability and single-sex schooling: A collision of reform agendas. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 527–555. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041003527 .

Ho, W. Y. (2004). Schooling boys and girls: The development of single - sex and coeducational schools in Hong Kong (Unpublished master’s thesis). The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Polytechnic University. (2016). A profile of new student: 2015 . Hong Kong: Centre STARS (Student Advancement and Resources).

Institute of Medicine. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Katz-Wise, S. L., Calzo, J. P., Li, G., & Pollitt, A. (2015). Same data, different perspectives: What is at stake? Response to Savin-Williams and Joyner (2014a) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0434-8 .

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male . Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female . Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.

Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kuttler, A. F., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Linkages among adolescent girls’ romantic relationships, best friendships, and peer networks. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.05.002 .

Lambert, R., & Millham, S. (1968). The hothouse society . London, UK: Weidenfield and Nicholson.

Laursen, B., & Williams, V. A. (1997). Perceptions of interdependence and closeness in family and peer relationships among adolescents with and without romantic partners. New Directions for Child Development, 78, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219977803 .

Leaper, C. (1994). Exploring the consequences of gender segregation on social relationships. In C. Leaper (Ed.), Childhood gender segregation: Causes and consequences (pp. 67–86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leaper, C., & Anderson, K. J. (1997). Gender development and heterosexual romantic relationships during adolescence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 78, 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219977808 .

LePore, P. C., & Warren, J. R. (1997). A comparison of single-sex and coeducational Catholic secondary schooling: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 485–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034003485 .

Li, G., Katz-Wise, S. L., & Calzo, J. P. (2014). The unjustified doubt of Add Health studies on the health disparities of non-heterosexual adolescents: Comment on Savin-Williams and Joyner (2014) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1023–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0313-3 .

Li, R. Y. H., & Wong, W. I. (2016). Gender-typed toy play and social abilities in boys and girls: Are they related? Sex Roles, 74, 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0580-7 .

Liben, L. S. (2015). Probability values and human values in evaluating single-sex education. Sex Roles, 72, 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0438-9 .

Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.755 .

Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single - sex versus secondary schooling: A systematic review . Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

McClelland, S. I., Rubin, J. D., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2016). I liked girls and I thought they were pretty: Initial memories of same-sex attraction in young lesbian and bisexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1375–1389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0507-3 .

Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the life span. Developmental Review, 29, 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001 .

Mercer, C. H., Tanton, C., Prah, P., Erens, B., Sonnenberg, P., Clifton, S., & Johnson, A. M. (2013). Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and over time: Findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). Lancet, 382, 1781–1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62035-8 .

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 .

Meyer, I. H., Flores, A. R., Stemple, L., Romero, A. P., Wilson, B. D. M., & Herman, J. L. (2017). Incarceration rates and traits of sexual minorities in the United States: National Inmate Survey, 2011–2012. American Journal of Public Health, 107, 267–273. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303576 .

Pahlke, E., Hyde, J. S., & Allison, C. M. (2014). The effects of single-sex compared with coeducational schooling on students’ performance and attitudes: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1042–1072. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035740 .

Pahlke, E., Hyde, J. S., & Mertz, J. E. (2013). The effects of single-sex compared with coeducational schooling on mathematics and science achievement: Data from Korea. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031857 .

Park, H., Behrman, J. R., & Choi, J. (2013). Causal effects of single-sex schools on college entrance exams and college attendance: Random assignment in Seoul high schools. Demography, 50, 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0157-1 .

Pelligrini, A., & Long, J. (2003). A sexual selection theory longitudinal analysis of sexual segregation and integration in early adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00060-2 .

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 .

Poteat, V. P., Sinclair, K. O., DiGiovanni, C. D., Koenig, B. W., & Russell, S. T. (2013). Gay-straight alliances are associated with student health: A multischool comparison of LGBTQ and heterosexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00832.x .

Poteat, V. P., Yoshikawa, H., Calzo, J. P., Gray, M. L., DiGiovanni, C. D., Lipkin, A., & Shaw, M. P. (2015). Contextualizing gay-straight alliances: Student, advisor, and structural factors related to positive youth development among members. Child Development, 86, 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12289 .

Poulin, F., & Pedersen, S. (2007). Developmental changes in gender composition of friendship networks in adolescent girls and boys. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1484–1496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1484 .

Procsal, A. D., Demir, M., Dogan, A., Ozen, A., & Sumer, N. (2015). Cross-sex friendship and happiness. In M. Demir (Ed.), Friendship and happiness (pp. 171–185). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9603-3 .

Rivers, I. (2001). Retrospective reports of school bullying: Stability of recall and its implications for research. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151001166001 .

Robitzsch, A., Grund, S., & Henke, T. (2017). Package ‘miceadds’ . Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/miceadds/miceadds.pdf .

Russell, S. T., & Fish, J. N. (2016). Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 465–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153 .

Russell, S. T., Kosciw, J., Horn, S., & Saewyc, E. (2010). Safe schools policy for LGBTQ students. Social Policy Report , 24 , 1–25. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED519243 .

Sagarin, E. (1976). Prison homosexuality and its effect on post-prison sexual behavior. Psychiatry, 39, 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1976.11023894 .

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2006). Who’s gay? Does it matter? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00403.x .

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Joyner, K. (2014a). The politicization of gay youth health: Response to Li, Katz-Wise, and Calzo (2014) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1027–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0359-2 .

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Joyner, K. (2014b). The dubious assessment of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents of add health. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0219-5 .

Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters . New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sax, L. J., Riggers, T. A., & Eagan, M. K. (2013). The role of single-sex education in the academic engagement of college-bound women: A multi-level analysis. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–27.

Schrimshaw, E. W., Rosario, M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., & Scharf-Matlick, A. A. (2006). Test-retest reliability of self-reported sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and psychosexual milestones among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-9006-2 .

Signorella, M. L., Hayes, A. R., & Li, Y. (2013). A meta-analytic critique of Mael et al’.s (2005) review of single-sex schooling. Sex Roles, 69, 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0288-x .

Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190124 .

Smith, T. W., Son, J., & Kim, J. (2014). Public attitudes toward homosexuality and gay rights across time and countries . UCLA: The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4p93w90c .

Sullivan, A., Joshi, H., & Leonard, D. (2012). Single-sex and co-educational secondary schooling: What are the social and family outcomes, in the short and longer term? Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.14301/llcs.v3i1.148 .

Udry, J. R. (1988). Biological predispositions and social control in adolescent sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 53, 709–722. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095817 .

Udry, J. R., & Billy, J. O. G. (1987). Initiation of coitus in early adolescence. American Sociological Review, 52, 841–855. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095838 .

van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45 , 1–67.

Way, N. (2011). Deep secrets: Boys’ friendships and the crisis of connection . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wellings, K., Wadsworth, J., & Johnson, A. M. (1994). Sexual diversity and homosexual behaviour. In A. M. Johnson, J. Wadsworth, K. Wellings, & J. Field (Eds.), Sexual attitudes and lifestyles (pp. 183–224). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.

Wong, S. (2017). A profile of new full - time undergraduate students 2015/16. Hong Kong: Centre of Development and Resources for Students, The University of Hong Kong.

Wong, K.-C., Lam, Y. R., & Ho, L.-M. (2002). The effects of schooling on gender differences. British Educational Research Journal, 28, 827–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192022000019080 .

Younger, M. R., & Warrington, M. (2006). Would Harry and Hermione have done better in single-sex classes? A review of single-sex teaching in coeducational secondary schools in the United Kingdom. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 579–620. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043004579 .

Yuen, P. (n.d.). A profile of undergraduate students 2015 . Hong Kong: Student Affairs Office, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors contributed equally to this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Department of Psychology, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

Wang Ivy Wong

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wang Ivy Wong .

Validity of Self-Reported Sexual Orientation

The validity of self-reported sexual orientation is examined using correlations with the number of older brothers in male participants. Consistent with predictions in the fraternal birth order effect (Blanchard, 1997 ; Blanchard & VanderLaan, 2015 ), male participants with same-sex sexuality reported significantly or marginally significantly more older brothers (and not older sisters or younger brothers or younger sisters) than male participants without same-sex sexuality (Table  5 ). In contrast, also consistent with predictions in the fraternal birth order effect, number of older brothers did not significantly relate to past or ideal sexual orientation in females (Table  5 ). These findings suggest good validity of self-reported sexual orientation in this sample.

Unless otherwise stated, all results reported here are pooled estimates aggregating analyses from 20 imputed datasets, using “mice” and “miceadds” packages in R (Robitzsch, Grund, & Henke, 2017 ; van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011 ).

Replication of Findings with Interactions

Table  6 presents replication analyses including the interaction between school type and gender. There were no significant interactions between school type and participant gender for all but one dependent variable, p s > .05 (Table  6 ). The only significant interaction predicting the dating experience of hanging around with both men and women became nonsignificant after controlling for demographic characteristics, B  = − 0.75, SE = 0.46, p  = .101.

Unless otherwise stated, all results reported here are pooled estimates aggregating analyses from 20 imputed datasets, using “mice” and “miceadds” packages in R (Robitzsch et al., 2017 ; van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011 ).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Li, G., Wong, W.I. Single-Sex Schooling: Friendships, Dating, and Sexual Orientation. Arch Sex Behav 47 , 1025–1039 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1187-6

Download citation

Received : 13 April 2017

Revised : 27 February 2018

Accepted : 01 March 2018

Published : 13 March 2018

Issue Date : May 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1187-6

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 school
• Sexual orientation
• Romantic love
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Niche $10,000 "No Essay" Summer Scholarship

Help cover the cost of college without writing a single essay!

Niche is giving one student $10,000 to help pay for tuition, housing, books and other college expenses — no essay required!

Apply below for your chance to win so you can focus on your education, not your finances. The winner will be selected by random drawing by August 15, 2024. Good luck!

Min 7 characters

By proceeding you acknowledge and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use .

By proceeding you acknowledge and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and  Scholarship Rules .

Who Can Apply

All high school and college students, as well as anyone looking to attend college or graduate school in the next year. Please note: Not everyone is eligible for this scholarship. Niche sponsored scholarships and sweepstakes are for people with US citizenship or a valid Visa/US passport only. Read the scholarship rules. Questions? Visit our Scholarship FAQs .

How It Works

The $10,000 “No Essay” Scholarship is an easy scholarship with no essay required! Only one entry allowed per person. The winner will be determined by random drawing and then contacted directly and announced in Niche's e-newsletter and on the Scholarship Winners page.

About Niche Scholarships

We believe cost shouldn’t keep anyone from pursuing a higher education, so we connect students with thousands of scholarships — many of which don’t require an essay — to help them afford college. In 2023 alone, we offered over $285,000 in Niche scholarships. Read more about Niche scholarships here or visit our FAQs .

New sex crime charges filed against Ocean Springs Middle School substitute teacher

F ormer South Mississippi substitute teacher Keshawn Tre’Vyune Belcher is facing new felony sex crimes charges in a nine-count indictment handed down in Jackson County, according to court records.

Belcher was a substitute teacher at Ocean Springs Middle School when he was initially arrested in April 2023 on one count of touching a child for lustful purposes or molestation and one count of child exploitation.

The grand jury found enough evidence to indict Belcher on one count of touching a child lustful purposes, five counts of child exploitation and three counts of dissemination of sexually-oriented material to minors.

He has remained jailed without bond since his arrest last year.

According to court papers, Belcher committed the crimes over five days in April 2023.

During that time, the records say, Belcher touched one minor student sexually, sent pictures and videos of himself naked and masturbating to several minor students, solicited one student to perform oral sex, and tried unsuccessfully to get a minor student to video themselves masturbating and send the video back to Belcher.

Ocean Springs police said Belcher used Snapchat to communicate with students and send them inappropriate sexual content and videos of himself.

More details about Belcher’s alleged crimes came out in three individual lawsuits filed by the parents of three minor students against Belcher, the Ocean Springs School District, and the temporary employment agency Kelly Services, Inc., and other unnamed defendants have since been transferred to federal court in Gulfport.

The school district contracts with Kelly Services, Inc., to hire substitute teachers at Mississippi Coast schools. Kelly Services sent Belcher to work as a substitute teacher at Ocean Springs Middle School.

The Ocean Springs Middle School lawsuits involved three students: two girls and one boy.

In one case, a then 13-year-old Ocean Springs Middle School student said she was held against her will and molested by Belcher after he summoned her to his classroom on the premise that he was going to help her with an assignment.

When the girl got there, Belcher was the only person in the room and blocked the girl from leaving when he grabbed her face and started kissing her and touching her body inappropriately, the records say

The girl said she couldn’t get away because Belcher “held her in his grip,” the lawsuit says.

When the school bell rang and momentarily distracted Belcher, the records say the girl escaped his grasp and ran out of the classroom. The girl then reported what had happened to her parents and the school.

In a separate incident, Belcher is accused of sending inappropriate text messages to a then-12-year-old student at Ocean Springs Middle School. He later messaged her on Snapchat and social media, asking if he could stop by her home to watch TV with her, but the girl’s parents wouldn’t allow it.

Subsequently, the records say Belcher made sexual remarks to the girl at school and asked her to perform oral sex on him.

In a third incident, this time involving a then 14-year-old Ocean Springs Middle School student, Belcher is accused of sending inappropriate messages over Snapchat to the young boy.

In one exchange, for example, Belcher sent the boy a text saying that he was horny before following that up with an image of himself naked and then a video of himself masturbating, the records say.

The students reported what had happened to their parents, who reported the allegations to Ocean Springs police.

In the lawsuits, the parents accuse the school district and Kelly Services of negligence in hiring, failure to investigate and prosecute misconduct, and failure to properly train and hire qualified people to monitor teacher activities.

They accuse Belcher of false imprisonment, harassment, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress and allege that Belcher’s actions “exceeded all bounds of decency and is far beyond what is tolerated in a civilized society.”

The Sun Herald is not identifying the parents who filed the lawsuits to protect the identity of the minor students. The Sun Herald does not identify victims of sex crimes.

According to records obtained by the Sun Herald, Belcher had problems as a substitute teacher at Gulfport High School prior to the incident in Ocean Springs ran into problems when he served as a substitute teacher at Gulfport High School, according to records obtained by the Sun Herald.

Local News | Baltimore woman charged with running…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

Baltimore Sun eNewspaper

• Anne Arundel County
• Baltimore City
• Baltimore County
• Carroll County
• Harford County
• Howard County
• Sun Investigates
• Environment

Local News | Baltimore woman charged with running sex-trafficking ring that spanned Maryland

Kenika D. Leach, 33, faces 135 criminal charges in Washington County, including sex trafficking by force or fraud, receiving a benefit from coerced labor and conspiracy. The Maryland Attorney General’s Office is prosecuting the case.

Investigators charge that Leach was the leader of an organization known as the “Pussy Kat Klub” that trafficked a dozen women between 2019 and 2021. Leach and other conspirators found victims in Hagerstown, where the group also sold drugs, according to charging documents.

Leach would “starve” the women by withholding drugs and then coerce them to perform commercial sex acts to pay off their drug “debt,” investigators wrote. Victims told police that Leach would confiscate their phones and car keys and threaten to hurt them if they did not pay back their “debt,” the charging documents allege.

“Many of the women were particularly vulnerable to exploitation due to drug addiction and/or homelessness,” the indictment states.

The victims are identified only by their initials in an application for a statement of charges filed in March. One woman “detailed the organization’s use of her active drug addiction to control her and force her to engage in commercial sex acts by confronting her with the choice of following Leach’s directions or being denied drugs, leading to painful withdrawal symptoms,” police wrote.

In a statement, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said that sex traffickers often exploit people struggling with drug addiction because their disease makes them easier to coerce.

“The lasting harm to survivors is profound — it’s physically and psychologically traumatic and shatters their sense of security and self-worth,” Brown said. “My office is working tirelessly to bring perpetrators to justice, for the safety of the community and so survivors can begin healing and reclaiming their lives.”

Leach is being held without bond, court records show. Her lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.

The investigation into Leach began in December 2021, when one of the women who had been coerced into sex work went to Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore for pregnancy complications, police wrote. The woman was accompanied by a man she identified as “Uncle Joseph” who would not leave the hospital.

When police interviewed the woman, she reported that she met Leach in Hagerstown during a period of homelessness, investigators wrote. Leach allegedly transported the woman from Hagerstown to the Baltimore area, where the woman said Leach physically and psychologically abused her and paid her in drugs for performing commercial sex acts.

The indictment against Leach charges that she used physical violence to control the women, telling them to “get on the wall” and cover their faces so their appearances would not be affected by the beating. Two male co-conspirators, who have not been charged, allegedly helped recruit women by getting into romantic relationships and then passing the women off to Leach.

Leach had the women provide sexual photos that she uploaded to various sex work websites, then organized “dates” with the men who responded to the advertisements, according to the indictment. Investigators found online communications between Leach and the men where they negotiated sex acts and prices, along with Cash App and other online financial transactions that appeared related to the “dates.”

Men often paid Leach directly for the sex acts and then Leach provided the women “one and ones,” or daily rations of drugs, according to the indictment. Leach cashed out tens of thousands of dollars from her Cash App account between July 2020 and December 2021, police wrote.

The organization set up appointments at inexpensive hotels in Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Washington counties, including in Hagerstown, Linthicum Heights, Pikesville and Windsor Mill, investigators wrote. The investigation included the Baltimore Police Department, the Attorney General’s Organized Crime Unit, Maryland State Police, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, Hagerstown Police Department and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s investigative arm.

Police used facial recognition software on several occasions during the investigation to identify potential victims, according to the charging documents.

Leach was arrested on unrelated warrants in January and interviewed about the sex-trafficking organization, police wrote. She told investigators she found women on Jonathan Street in Hagerstown, which is known for prostitution and drugs, according to police.

Leach largely admitted to the scheme, police wrote, though she told investigators that her goal was to take the women “off the street.” She acknowledged that she supplied the women with drugs, police wrote, and said she “helped” the women arrange meetings with male customers for sex work. The indictment also charges that Leach and a co-conspirator abducted and assaulted a woman who owed a drug debt.

Leach told police that she and her co-conspirators identify as members of the Bloods, a street gang, and said she was “O.G.,” or “original gangster,” indicating a high rank in the gang, investigators wrote.

More in Local News

For veteran defender Élton Lexandro de Oliveira Santos, Annapolis Blues is a return to joy

Before D-Day troops crossed English Channel, some trained on Chesapeake Bay

Baltimore Orioles | Jett spray: Rock star will be first woman to serve as Orioles’ Bird Bath ‘guest splasher’

‘A hub for learning’: Renovated Riviera Beach Library opens in Pasadena