Stop the gender politics and start studying

By Cornelius H. Riordan, 9/7/2003

Most Americans take coeducation for granted. Typically, we've been educated in mixed-sex public schools and we have little awareness about single-sex schools. Our political culture reinforces such acceptance. It implies that schools reflecting the variety of society exemplify what is best about democratic societies.

In fact, coeducation began not because of any firm belief in its sound educational effect, but rather because of financial constraints. Historically, mixed-sex schools have been economically more efficient. But they may not provide a better education.

Having conducted research on single-sex and coeducational schools for the past two decades, I have concluded that single-sex schools help to improve student achievement. My conclusions are based on high quality national data gathered by the National Center for Education Statistics, as well as on studies conducted around the globe. Single-sex schools work better for males and females, whites and non-whites; they are especially effective for students of low socioeconomic status and/or students who are historically disadvantaged. Compared to their counterparts in coeducational schools, disadvantaged students in Catholic single-sex schools show higher achievement on standardized tests in mathematics, reading, science, and civics. They display higher levels of leadership, do more homework, and gain a greater sense of control over their lives. Students acknowledge that their schools have higher levels of discipline, and, not surprisingly, complain of a less satisfactory social life.

Even seven years beyond high school graduation, women who attended a girls' school continue to have higher test scores than women who attended coeducational schools. The results for students attending women's colleges parallel these secondary school results. Amazingly, women who attend a women's college for even a single year and then transfer to a coeducational college obtain a significant gain in occupational success.

There are at least a dozen theories on why single-sex schools are more effective academically and developmentally than mixed-sex schools, especially for minorities and at-risk students. Single-sex schools provide more same-sex student role models, more leadership opportunities, greater order and discipline, and fewer social distractions. The schools are typically smaller; encouraging a shared value community and positive relationships among teachers, students, and parents.

In selecting a single-sex school, students reject the antiacademic norms that permeate most public coeducational schools attended by at-risk youth. I have no illusions that students do this gleefully and go off to school dancing in the streets. Parents most often make this choice for their children. But the point is this: An effective school requires that students accept (even grudgingly) the academic norms of the school.

Are single-sex schools constitutional? Previous court cases do not provide much assistance in addressing this question. For example, we do know from the 1996 Supreme Court decision regarding Virginia Military Institute that operating a prestigious and exclusive public school for males, without any comparable alternative for females, is illegal. But this decision is narrowly tailored and would not apply to a single-sex school for at-risk boys or girls. Nor would it apply to a public school district operating single-sex schools for both boys and girls with a coeducational alternative.

Until now, the regulations established by Title IX in 1972 were the only source of guidance on this question. Title IX requires that no person, on the basis of sex, be excluded or denied the benefits of any educational program or activity receiving federal aid. But the detailed and legal language in Title IX is not clear.

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, however, Congress defined single-sex schools as acceptable innovative educational programs that could receive public funds.

In response to this new legislation, it is expected that the Department of Education will relax the language of Title IX in such a manner as to make both single-sex schools and single-sex classes permissible under the law. This new language is expected as this article goes to print.

Opponents of single-sex schools see the idea as reactionary and regressive. Some feminists see any form of ``separatism'' as negatively affecting women's equal access in other areas of society. Many people regard coeducation as a major milestone in the pursuit of gender equality. But, the best way to alleviate these misgivings is to finally determine the educational outcomes of attending single sex and coeducational public schools. No one knows the full extent to which single-sex schools are more effective than coeducational schools, and for what types of students, at what grade levels, and for how long.

The politicization of the issue by opposition groups has closed down the scientific process on single-sex schools in the public sector. Hence, the relaxing of Title IX guidelines will provide the necessary first step toward increasing the number of single-sex schools so that research can be conducted, as is the accepted practice in the educational policy and research community.

Impoverished, desperate, and powerless children in lower-tiered schools stand to gain the most from single-sex education. These schools can help close the gap between rich and poor, between blacks and whites. In effect, they may help to reach the twin goals of schooling in American - greater achievement and greater equality for everyone.

Cornelius Riordan is a professor of sociology at Providence College and author of ``Girls and Boys in School: Together or Separate?''