The Link Between Gender and Academic Success
“I can always tell which of your brothers friends are over when I come home from work before I even enter the house,” my mother once claimed.
“Oh, really? How?” I responded, genuinely curious as to how, without even seeing the boys, my mother knew whether they were friends from the private high school my younger brother, Joey, attends, or the friends he has maintained from his former public school.
“The way they park their cars. The boys that go to Detroit Catholic Central with him park their cars in the street along the curb. His friends that attend Brighton High School practically park in my foyer… so rudely close to the house and in my spot none-the-less!”
Her reply was surprising, yet true the more I contemplated it. The friends my brother, Joey, made at his high school were quite different than the friends he had developed and kept in touch with from kindergarten through eighth grade. The Catholic Central boys, or CC boys for short, seemed to be more respectful, involved in sports, confident, and motivated, in general than the Brighton boys. What could account for such a difference? One large factor could be that fact that the private high school Joey attends is an all-boys school while the public schools in Brighton are all completely co-ed. While, of course, being private versus public provides ample differences, the idea of co-ed versus single sex is where my family has personally noted many differences.
During Joey’s academic career in the Brighton Area Public schools (kindergarten-eighth grade), teachers consistently told my parents that they were concerned that Joey was suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. Being a teacher herself, my mother had seen many students over the years who were treated for ADHD. Although Joey did display some of the classic traits of an ADHD student, my parents were not ready to simply put him on medication before exploring other options. Joey was an incredibly intelligent child but appeared to have difficulties applying his intellect at school. He was disorganized and distracted, suffering from many missing assignments. It seemed like he just wasn’t concentrating on his school tasks. According to the Center for Disease Control, “approximately 9.5% or 5.4 million children 4-17 years of age have ever been diagnosed with ADHD, as of 2007 and boys (13.2%) were more likely than girls (5.6%) to have ever been diagnosed with ADHD”. With that in mind, my parents knew it was entirely possible that Joey was showing symptoms of ADHD, but that alternative options were out there. Every year at conferences, my parents heard the same story again and again; teachers felt Joey was intelligent but lazy. As a parent, this was hard to hear. Was he really just lazy or were there more factors involved in his school challenge? It seemed like the teachers and the curriculum just weren’t able to keep his interest. As a result, when it came time for Joey to begin preparations for his transition to high school, my parents decided to look into other educational options. They believed that Joey’s lack of focus at school could be due in part the drama and distraction created by a co-ed classroom environment.
Being from Brighton, Michigan, my family had many choices as to where they could send Joey to high school. The public school systems nearby all had above average reputations and the private school options seemed endless. There were public, charter, and parochial schools to consider. After researching, attending meetings, and completing the application process, it was decided that Joey would attend Detroit Catholic Central due to their fantastic academic reputation. It was also a brand new campus, just a short twenty-minute drive away, and the proud home of multiple state champion sports teams. These reasons were all contributing factors in the decision making process. The fact that it was an all-boys school was also a strong selling point to my parents. After attending a Catholic Central open house, my brother and parents were both confident that selecting a school that emphasized strong academics and brotherhood with less distractions would help him succeed in high school and in life.
They were right. Joey is now finishing his senior year at Catholic Central with an impressive GPA, a place on the state champion varsity wrestling team, a large group of good friends, and a bright future ahead of him. He attributes these successes to his all-boys’ private high school, Detroit Catholic Central.
Joey is just one of many success stories out there, where attending a single sex school was highly beneficial. Separating the education process by gender is a relatively new phenomenon in the public schools of the US, much of it springing from the passing of the “No Child Left Behind” Act signed by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. According to Education Week, the goal of this act is to put more responsibility onto the states for the education its students are receiving by enforcing annual testing and progress (“No Child Left Behind”). The New York Times reported that following the passing of the new laws, the Department of Education worked to make it easier for school districts to look into new programs such as single-sex learning (Weil). As schools across the nation struggle to keep up with the progress they are expected to make, they are looking for new ways to increase learning and success in their students. While private schools have been promoting single-sex education for quite some time, the public schools are beginning to try it out as well. Single-sex education allows for a tailored curriculum specific to gender needs, a more comfortable atmosphere, less distractions, and a higher chance of academic success—which is exactly what struggling public schools are looking for.
There are many reasons as to why boys and girls should be schooled separately, beginning with the basics of biology. A leader in the field of single sex schooling is Leonard Sax, who has published books and spoken across the country to advocate his beliefs. Reported in Time, Sax is, “convinced that boys and girls are innately different and that we must change the environment so differences don’t become limitations” (Ripley). With brains that mature at different times, differences in hearing and vision, and differences in what each gender is interested in at school, it only makes sense to Sax that the genders should be split up and taught through different methods (Ripley). In an article reported in The New York Times, Sax specified that boys and girls require different learning styles. He claims that boys need more active learning that require them to get up and be involved while girls need time where they talk in groups and each get to share opinions. On top of these minor differences in teaching methods that could increase the success of taking in and learning information, Sax points out that boys and girls differ in developmental growth during puberty with girls peaking earlier than males (Weil). With biology putting distance between the effective teaching strategies of each gender, it is only logical that they each would benefit from different classroom environments.
Before he began his career as an author and advocate of this single sex education theory, Leonard Sax was a family physician. He reported to Time that during his practice, he saw family after family come in, with parents claiming that their son had ADHD (Ripley). The fact that it seemed to be a repeating issue that boys had problems concentrating, and knowing that they didn’t all suffer from ADHD, Sax was inspired to look at how boys learn in the classroom in relation to girls (Ripley). Joey fits in perfectly to this exact scenario, as he was told his entire life that he had ADHD, while really he needed a different classroom setting and teaching style to help him focus and learn. Leonard Sax’s theory spread like wildfire throughout the United States after the publication of his books. With a country that was struggling to keep up with the “No Child Left Behind” Act, a new theory as to why kids weren’t learning well was bound to be considered.
Leonard Sax hasn’t gone into convincing this country of his single sex school vision without evidence. His website, the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, provides many cases of where single-sex education has shown increases in test scores. According to his site, singlesexschools.org, a study performed by Stetson University in Florida showed terrific results. Two elementary schools were used in the study. The fourth grade at one school was split into separate gender classrooms for the year while the fourth grade at the other school was left coed. The study made sure to leave out any confounding variables by ensuring that the class size, student demographics and teaching training were identical. At the end of the year, the test scores on the FCAT (the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) were compared between the two schools. The results were:
- Boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient
- Girls in coed classes: 59% scored proficient
- Boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient
- Girls in single-sex classes: 75% scored proficient.
These results show that the splitting up of classrooms by gender is beneficial to each sex. There are probably many contributing factors as to why students appear to be more successful in school when separated by gender. Boys, in particular, benefit from all-male classroom where the teacher cannot only design lessons that reach out to the students, but can teach them life lessons as a role model, as well. It is a combination of many factors that come with a single-sex classroom that lead to results like these produced at Stetson University.
It is easy to see the significance that splitting up by gender has on academic performance, but more than biology can explain these results. According to the Journal of Educational Psychology, a study at the University of Michigan was conducted comparing the graduates of Catholic single-sex high schools with graduates of Catholic coeducational private schools. They found the same thing that the Stetson University results showed but with an older age group in this case. The boy’s and girl’s scores on standardized testing were much higher in the single-sex high schools than the co-ed high schools as expected, but the study took a step further to show that the students that went to single-sex high schools actually had “higher educational aspirations, more confidence in their abilities, and a more positive attitude towards academics” (Lee and Bryk). Other than biological reasons that lead to the necessity of different teaching styles, the success of single-sex schools apparently has many other contributing factors because by high school, the biological differences between each gender has become more equal. Therefore, biology alone cannot explain why these students from single-sex schools are so well rounded.
When a student reaches the age of high school, the opposite gender can have large effects on a student. Feeling comfortable in a classroom may be violated by the presence of the other gender because students may feel less confident. If a boy is surrounded by fellow guys, he may feel more comfortable to speak his mind and not feel the need to monitor his actions based on what the girls might think. This sense of comfort achieved in a single-sex school extends from schoolwork to male bonding in and out of the classroom. At the co-ed high school I attended, a guy wouldn’t be caught dead bringing a lunchbox with him to the cafeteria–they would either buy hot lunch or pack it in a brown bag. Joey came home from his first week at Catholic Central laughing because his peers not only packed lunch but used lunch boxes that he ditched long ago.No one cared whether a lunchbox was “cool”. They cared that it kept their lunch cold! At CC, the boys stop caring what girls might think and are free to be completely open to each other. Joey said that without the pressure of girls at school, he is more able to focus on learning and be confident in his actions. This concept can be applied to both genders. Perhaps it is the sense of comfort when surrounded by peers of the same sex at school that helps these students not only achieve in academics, but grow as individuals, as well.
Although the support for this theory that Leonard Sax has proposed is quite exceptional and persuasive, critics may still not be convinced. Results across the board in a wide variety of studies show that test scores are improved by single-sex education, however, those that criticize the theory say that splitting up classes by gender is, in a sense, archaic and creates stereotypes. According to the Washington Post, “Evidence is more clear that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutionalized sexism” (Chandler). The basis of this argument is that when teachers are working with single-sex classrooms, they may base what they teach the students and emphasize to them on gender stereotypes. In a country where equality means so much, many critics see it as unfair or unlawful to segregate based on gender; they compare it to classrooms segregated based on socio-economic status or race. Educators and lawmakers against single-sex classrooms use the stereotypes brought up by that style of learning to make their point.
Supporters of single-sex education such as Leonard Sax stay strong and fight back against such arguments. Research done in the field show that despite what one might believe, having students separated into classrooms based on gender actually breaks down stereotypes. According to Sax’s website, singlesexschools.org, a study performed by The National Foundation for Educational Research in England revealed that girls that studied at single-sex high schools were more likely to take courses that go against the typical “girl” stereotype such as heavy science and math classes. A “stereotypical girl” excels in the arts such as language or drama, but without the presence of men, they may feel more comfortable to pursue what would typically be a “boy’s class” if interested. A study featured in Educational Review showed similar results except for the opposite gender. The case showed that boys at single-sex schools were more likely to take classes that would be considered “girl classes” such as language and drama (Stables). It would appear that having students separated by gender where they feel more comfortable and avoid judgment by the opposite gender allows them to actually break what we see as gender stereotypes.
The speculation continues for single-sex schools as people may claim that a student attending one of these schools loses social skills with the opposite gender. This is a noticeable trait that I see in my brother, who has a harder time getting to know girls and understanding social interactions with them. Of course, part of “growing up” is socializing with the opposite gender and becoming comfortable with sexuality. As adolescents reach adulthood, being a balanced person with strong academics and social skills is crucial to achieving success. Many students at single-sex schools may struggle with learning how to work with, understand, and socialize with the opposite gender. Is splitting up kids based on gender for the sake of potential academic success worth giving up social skills that are typically achieved during the late teenage years?
Advocators for the single-sex schools would argue absolutely yes. The purpose of going to school is the get an education. When I asked my brother his opinion on single-sex schooling he replied straightforwardly, “If the purpose of school at its essence is education, and less educating gets done when boys and girls are flirting, single-sex schools accomplish better the purpose of schooling”. Although Joey’s opinion is much more mature and educated now rather than how he may have replied when he was just a freshman at CC, I believe students that have the ability to experience single-sex education understand that they receive a higher quality education. To help students become balanced at single-sex schools, many of these schools have “brother” or “sister” schools that they have dances and sporting events with. This allows the students to be able to focus on their education during the school day, but learn the necessary social skills they need at extracurricular events. By advertising having a “brother” or “sister” school, single-sex schools combat criticism they receive on the lack of social interactions their students may have with the opposite gender.
It would seem that single-sex schools have just about it all for students that want an education tailored to their needs. The students with the opportunity to attend a single-sex school have the ability to grow developmentally and strengthen their gender identity. These select students have the chance to break stereotypes by taking classes they might not have taken at a co-ed school. They become stronger students with higher confidence levels in and out of the classroom. And now, with many schools pairing up with a school of the opposite gender, the students attending single-sex schools are able to have those “normal” social interactions that are experienced on a regular basis at co-ed schools without it interfering with their education.
These terrific benefits that come from single-sex educations don’t stop with a high school degree, either. According to a University of Michigan study reported in the Journal of Psychology, students that graduated from single-sex schools were “more likely to go to a prestigious college, and more likely to aspire to graduate schools or professional school, than were graduates of co-ed schools” (Lee and Marks). The many aspects that make up a single-sex school are what work together to create these well balanced, high-achieving students.
Our nation felt the heat as the “No Child Left Behind” act was passed, requiring that annual progress be charted each year. With students struggling in the regular classroom, boys appearing to suffer from an abnormally high rate of ADHD, and pressure from the federal government, may schools are now making the decision to offer single-sex classrooms. Following the lead that many private schools have set, public schools are setting their students up for a brighter future by opening more single-sex classrooms and schools. My brother, Joey, was just one of many students to benefit from single-sex education. As it turns out, ADHD was not the explanation for his poor academics. Putting Joey is a single-sex school was the alternative option that my parents decided rather than medication. It worked!
Educators and parents across the country that have struggling students should consider single-sex education. With gender-specific curriculum based on biology and needs, lack of distractions, and increased comfort, students in single-sex classrooms are receiving a better education and becoming more confident and balanced individuals than those in co-ed classrooms.
Works Cited
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, 2011. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
Chandler, Michael A. “Study: Single-sex education may do more harm than good.” Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
Lee, Valerie and Bryk, Anthony. “Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 78:381-395, 1986. Print.
Lee, Valerie and Marks, H. M. “Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 82:578-592, 1990. Print.
National Association for Single Sex Public Education. Single Sex Schools. NASSPE, 2011. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
“No Child Left Behind.” Edweek.org. Education Week, 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
Ripley, Amanda. “Who Says A Woman Can’t Be Einstein?” Time.com. Time, 27 Feb. 2005. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
Stables, A. “Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex schools in their enjoyment of school subjects and in their attitudes to science and to school.” Educational Review, 42(3):221-230, 1990. Print.
Weil, Elizabeth. “Teaching Boys and Girls Separately.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 2 March 2008. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
Sincerely, Sarah 