Analysis and Evaluation of the Rationales for Single-Sex Schooling‡

Probability Values and Human Values in Evaluating Single-Sex Education

“…They have argued, for example, that money spent to provide parallel classes or schools for girls and boys diverts funds away from other potentially valuable educational reforms (e.g., better-designed curriculum, more instructional class time, more support for teachers' professional development in other instructional arenas). Critics have also argued that the use of gender as a sorting criterion runs the risk of ignoring potentially more precise assessments of student qualities that may be relevant for instruction (e.g., assessing students' actual rather than gender-inferred qualities) or reduces the chance that multiple methods of instruction will be provided to all students (e.g., see Bigler et al 2014;Halpern et al 2011). In short, choices do not come without costs.…”

“…2). From this perspective, the appropriate response to inequities would be to institute or enhance societal and educational reform in coeducational contexts, for example, finding the means to help boys and girls avoid dominating or shrinking from discussions, helping teachers become aware of and avoid using gender-biased attentional strategies in the classroom, and developing programs to promote positive interactions between girls and boys (e.g., see Bigler et al 2014;Halpern et al 2011;Martin et al 2014).…”

Anecdotal and Essentialist Arguments for Single-Sex Educational Programs Discussed by Liben: a Legal Analysis

“…While researchers have acknowledged that education in single-sex settings may in some cases be effective, there is no evidence that the beneficial effects are due to the single-sex nature of those settings (Noguera 2012). Indeed, mounting research, including most recently the largescale meta-study conducted by Pahlke, Hyde, and Allison, indicates that when proper controls and confounding factors are taken into account, presumed benefits of single-sex education disappear (Pahlke et al 2014; see also Bigler et al 2014;Signorella and Bigler 2013;Hayes et al 2011). Furthermore, there have never been any valid studies demonstrating educational benefits from subjecting boys and girls to different teaching methods in single-sex settings, even assuming that doing so is otherwise lawful.…”

“…Assuming for our purposes that such outcome-based justifications are genuine and that school boards or administrators have actually articulated them with sufficient specificity (which, ACLU's investigation shows, is frequently not the case) (Sherwin and Brandt-Young 2012), these would almost certainly be considered by most courts as sufficiently Bimportant governmental objectives^(United States v. Virginia, 1996, p. 558). However, as I argued over a decade ago (Sherwin 2005), schools seeking to justify their single-sex programs on these grounds will still be unable to satisfy this standard, no matter how important any articulated outcomebased objective may be, for the simple reason that there is no valid evidence that single-sex classrooms actually bring about superior results (Bigler et al 2014;Halpern et al 2011;Mael et al 2005;Pahlke et al 2014;.…”

“…Aside from the purported differences in brain development and learning discussed above, the most frequent justification offered for single-sex education programs is that they will improve educational outcomes-from test scores to grades to disciplinary incidents-or that they will close gender gaps in achievement (Bigler et al 2014;Sherwin and BrandtYoung 2012). Assuming for our purposes that such outcome-based justifications are genuine and that school boards or administrators have actually articulated them with sufficient specificity (which, ACLU's investigation shows, is frequently not the case) (Sherwin and Brandt-Young 2012), these would almost certainly be considered by most courts as sufficiently Bimportant governmental objectives^(United States v. Virginia, 1996, p. 558).…”