Conclusion
Research has demonstrated that single-sex education offers benefits to some segments of the population. The larger issue is whether sex segregation is a valid reform method that can be applied to public schools. The American public needs to decide if our government should financially support segregated institutions that may perpetuate stereotypes based on race, class, or gender.
Many argue that public single-sex schools offer educational opportunity to disadvantaged students that is presently enjoyed only by privileged students. Research and common sense suggest that what single-sex schools offer especially benefits people from lower and middle-class backgrounds, precisely the people who need the public sector. However, it is important to realize that this learning environment may not produce the same effects in public schools. Selective private schools inevitably attract higher caliber students and offer more resources and facilities than public schools. The evidence of academic improvement in private single-sex schools may be a result of factors other than the sex-segregated environment, and may not necessarily transfer to public schools.
Another problem with single-sex education is the potential to reinforce existing academic and social stereotypes. Many argue that children respond to expectations set for them by parents, teachers, and school administrators. Segregating students by sex has the potential to communicate to students that they do not have the same academic aptitudes, and therefore boys and girls must learn separately. Many feminists believe that sex segregation admits that girls cannot learn in a coeducational environment, and do not have the same academic aptitudes as boys.
In addition, single-sex education may not be the only solution to gender inequity in the classroom. Studies show that teachers in both single-sex and coeducational environments hold gender stereotypes. In order to fully address gender inequity in education, simply separating students by sex is not the answer. Tactical methods of reform, such as teacher training, examine underlying problems of discrimination and bias. Once critic argues that instead of justifying sex segregated schooling, "what we should do is correct those things that place women at disadvantage in the education system. Once those things are remedied, women and men will receive education that better prepares them for the real world, where the sexes must interact in competition and cooperation." (Atlanta Journal, 1996) If the real issue is what goes on in the classroom, then improved methods of addressing gender bias should be used in coeducational classrooms as well.
It is difficult to generalize about the effects of single-sex education because there is such a diverse range of institutions. A distinguished researcher in the field of single sex schools Valerie Lee states, "Right now I'm equivocal. I can't conclude that all you need to do is send your girls to an all-female school and your problems will be solved. It really depends on the school. You have to sit in on the classes and find out what's going on there." Now that single-sex experiments in public schools have begun, we can more accurately measure the effectiveness of single-sex education in non-private schools. However, results in the form of higher test scores may not indicate the social and emotional benefits of single-sex schooling. The Supreme Court has yet to rule definitively on the legality of single-sex education due to its inability to define equality of opportunity and access. Until the court system declares single-sex experiments in public schools illegal, we should encourage all efforts to improve equality in the classroom.
Government 375: Educational Reform and Ideology