Case Against Single Sex Schools

Hello Everyone!

In recent years there has been a real movement to promote single sex schools. Unlike other single sex items (i.e. single sex marriages) this debate has not become as heated, but does seem to tap into some deeply felt beliefs. When you look at most of the arguments for single sex schools, most of them come down to the following reasons:

1. Separating the boys and girls at least during the teen years is a way to minimize classroom distractions such as flirting, or trying to impress the other sex, and may even prevent teenage pregnancy.
2. Boys and girls have inherently different learning styles and should be taught in separate schools.
3. Many highly successful men and women, are products of single sex private schools so there must be something in it.
4. One sex (which one depends on who you talk to) is in a state of crisis, and needs separate schools to properly address their needs.

And of course, many people combine more than one of the following arguments.

To give the devil his due, I will acknowledge some truth in the idea that single sex schools often are much less distracting to many students because there will be much less flirting and much less pressure to impress the other sex. One could argue that this would be poor preparation for the real world, but then again since when has junior high school ever been GOOD preparation for adult life? (And of course, with more and more acknowledgment of gay and bisexual students, there will be many youth to which this argument does not apply.) Whether or not these schools would prevent teen pregnancy is another question entirely. Since most of the sex had been teenagers does not occur on campus, I'm skeptical.
The argument that boys and girls have such radically (and inherently) different learning styles that they need to be taught in entirely different classrooms, is a much more troubling agenda in my mind. After all, if the girls and boys are separating simply to prevent puppy crushes, and schoolyard gossip about who is "going out" with whom, that in and of itself does not necessarily compromise anyone's chance of getting a decent education. However, the idea of sex specific pedagogy could have profound effects on what students learn. It might even be worse than old fashioned gender discrimination. Why is that?
First of all, this concept of gender specific education ignores any concept of individuality. Proponents of gender specific education will often make statements to the effect of: "Well there are exceptions of course, but most boys are x,y, and z, and most girls are a,b, and c. We need a school system that is tailored to the majority."
What percent of students fit into this "majority"? Actually the evidence that over 55% of either boys or girls fit into a particular profile and have a common learning style is pretty thin. Studies on gender differences if they show anything, will sometimes show small differences of average that show up among large samples of boys and girls. As some feminists have commented on studies of gender and math: "Anyone who thinks this study shows you can predict the math ability of individual boys and girls based on sex, either has a massive axe to grind or is pretty bad a math himself." From my own conversations on the matter with a very experienced teacher, not only do learning styles come in a much greater variety than "pink and blue", but dealing with multiple learning styles in the same classroom in not exactly the exotic and impossible concept that Michael Gurian seems to think it is.
Furthermore, advocates like Michael Gurian and Leonard Sax are noticeably vague about what they think should be done about the "exceptions", which is to say girls with more "male" learning styles (according to his theories, I have probably have a more "male" learning style than at least 90% of all persons with a Y chromosomes) and boys with more "female" learning styles in their ideal world of single sex schools. While they constantly, respond that the system should be designed for the majority. But if for argument sake 75% of all boys and and girls fit into his schema of "male" vs. "female" learning styles (a very high figure when compared to most actual research), what would they propose be done with the other 25%?
Are there going to be a series of "Group W Schools for the Gender Atypical"? Or more likely is this vanishingly rare minority of one in four, is going to be forced into an educational programs that don't work out for them?
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that according to the new science neuroplasticity, gender roles actual do have the capacity to rewire the brain as neuroscientists like Lise Eliot have described in depth. And psychoanalyst and researcher Norman Doidge has repeatedly pointed out that while neuroplasticity on the whole is more optimistic than the idea that everything is either innately hardwired or ossified by age 5, there is a dark side as well. Namely, that neuroplasticity can under certain conditions lead people to become rigid, inflexible, and trapped in certain patterns. In that sense the "old fashioned" idea that all students should work on their weaknesses as well as their strengths is vindicated over the idea that education must always tailor itself so that the students learn most efficiently with their immutable brain structures. Because in fact, always playing to certain strengths (or at least assumed strengths on the basis of gender) can encourage students to rigidly trap themselves in certain patterns of thinking, behaving, learning, and doing.
In that sense, Gurian's vision may be much more troubling than the old fashioned ways of putting boys into shop and calculus and girls into home-ec and English literature. Because if the system operates at the level of arbitrary exclusion from certain classes, many women and men can learn to do calculus, work with tools, or cook later on when they are in college or out in the world. But if students are tracked into schools that are said to play to-and thus reinforce-a certain "learning style", the effects of that may be much harder to undo. Indeed, would the world have heard of Amelia Earhart or Rachael Carson if they had be placed into Gurian's vision of "neurologically correct girl-style" schools rather than simply being forced to wear Mary Janes and dresses, while sitting on the other side of the classroom from the boys during their early school years?
But to move away from this most troubling of all rationales for single sex schools, I will move on the one that is perhaps the most unspoken as lasting. The idea that it must be a good thing because the rich often do it, and because many successful men and women are products of single sex schools. One recent example of this was the 90's fad in favor of promoting women's colleges, which made much of a study by The Economist regarding the percentage of women's college graduate in Congress or on the boards of Fortune 500 companies. What this push on the part of some parents to put their daughters in all girl's private schools and some communities to have all girls private schools blatantly ignored is that correlation is not causation. In other words the number of powerful women in society that went to all girls colleges may reflect the fact, that many powerful women came from rich families who were more likely to send their daughters to all girls private schools.
Contrary to popular belief the practices of the rich and upper class are not automatically "cutting edge" or progressive let alone feminist. (Debutante parties, primogeniture, foot binding etc). Indeed it could be argued that the rich due to their social advantages can get away with ignoring effectiveness or pragmatism in favor of "tradition", and may be less progressive than the middle or in some social contexts even the working classes. Examples of this could include the way that the 41st President of the United States and his wife Barbara were unconcerned when their first son Dubya used to blow up frogs for fun, and refused to even say much to the boy when at age seven his three year old sister died.
Finally, comes the idea that one sex is having a massive crisis, which needs to be addressed by single sex schools. Without getting too much into the statistics, I'd have to ask anyone why they think single sex schools will address problems such as eating disorders which are associated with girls (although it's been suggested that male eating disorders are undiagnosed), behavior problems which are more common in boys (although many think girls' behavior problems more often go unrecognized), or low self-esteem which if not an equal opportunity problem has at least attracted considerable debate about which sex suffers more from it. How exactly is putting a youth in a single sex school going to be a panacea, especially if there is no help for the specific problem nor any willingness to regard them as individuals rather than specimens of a particular gender?

So on balance, I have talked aboul the arguments for single sex schools and have dismissed three while acknowledging some truth in one.

The question now would be whether the benefits of less flirting in the schools would outweigh the potential downsides. And to me the answer is no. The most obvious downside is that historically separate is very often not equal. And in a cultural context where you see considerable backlash against feminism, as well as a growing popularity of ideas about gender specific education, that the potential for discrimination against girls, and the reinforcement very narrow roles and expectations for boys. Historically support for single sex schools has come mostly from conservative factions of society, and I have to question whether more ostensibly liberal proponents have really discovered anything new. Interestingly, Gurian has written off "the feminist model" as only appropriate for girls who "have been traumatized in some way". Telling mentality? I think so.

Although some have argued that single sex schools could improve education and even be a pro-feminist move both NOW and the ACLU disagree. I think they are right.

Say Goodnight Readers!