Gender specific schooling: A comparative analysis

"Coeducation violates a customs so universal that it seems to express a fundamental instinct. In all ages of history and in all stages of civilization from savagery up, in the Orient, in ancient Greece and Rome, and with few exceptions in modem Europe, the dawn of puberty is marked by segregation of the sexes, especially for every purpose that can be called educational". (Hall, 1906, p. 653).This strong denunciation of coeducation by G. Stanley Hall, one of North America's most influential psychologists at the outset of this century, serves to remind us that, whereas today coeducation, including its educational value, is virtually taken for granted, this was not always the case. During the 19th century and the early 20th century, coeducation was a widely contested and emotionally charged issue (Stamp, 1970).Throughout the history of the debate on coeducation versus single-sex education, proponents of the latter have frequently emphasized that the coeducational school environment has an adverse influence on the academic adjustment of students. Nevertheless, the extant evidence on one major criterion of academic adjustment, scholastic achievement, remains inconclusive. Research in both the United States (Cornelison, 1973) and Great Britain (Irving, 1976) fails to show a consistent achievement advantage among students from either type of institution.In the light of these current controversies, it appears especially timely to review the theoretical imperatives and empirical support for coeducation versus separate schooling. In the following section, arguments advanced in favour of each form of education are presented.Opponents of gender specific classrooms argue that this strategy does not prepare students for the real world where males and females must work and live together (Finlay, 2004). Furthermore, opponents suggest that boys must be in co-educational classrooms in order for them to learn to respect girls (Finlay, 2004). The American Civil Liberties Union and National Organization for Women go so far as to suggest that separating boys and girls is discriminatory and promotes stereotypes (Balona, 2004).Others claim that even if CE is not inherently better, it is fairer, in that SS girls' schools have traditionally received poorer funding and fewer resources than parallel boys' schools (Hansot & Tyack, 1988). Another claim is that without male classmates, females have lower, more traditional aspirations and are more often shunted into stereotypical occupations. Conversely, separating girls from boys to provide them with more opportunities to move into stereotypically male-dominated roles is seen by some feminists as a capitulation to dominant male values such as competitiveness and individualism rather than as an attempt to improve male-female equity in either school or the subsequent workplace (Kenway & Willis, 1986). Another claim is that CE classrooms better socialize boys by curtailing wild and antisocial behavior (M. B. Jones & Thompson, 1981). In addition, feminists such as Kenway and Willis feel that "when girls are taught separately, then boys' education in this area is neglected and the problems of their sexist attitudes and behavior remain" (pp. 21-22). Finally, many school systems simply find SS schooling too expensive.Given the ubiquitousness of CE schooling, most theoretical statements on this topic are from those seeking to change or provide alternatives to the status quo. It is primarily for that reason that this section on arguments favouring SS schooling is longer and more elaborate than the section on arguments favouring CE education.SS high schools are claimed to have more serious and studious climates which are more immune to the dominant "rating and dating" culture (Koepke, 1991). By contrast, CE high schools are portrayed as "jungles of dating and social manoeuvre" (Goodlad, 1984) in which overly aroused adolescents are pressured into early experimentation, which results in warped cross-gender socialization and gender confusion (Gilder, 1973). …