Single Sex Schools:

The Bush administration is pushing for them, and I'm kind of on the fence about them. My high school debate partner and I(*) used essentially what Bush is pushing as our plan senior year, so I've read a decent amount of literature on both sides.

I think if they're run exactly properly they can be a very good thing. All the data shows that girls in classes with boys tend not to speak up, not to want to show that they're smart (of course there are exceptions. But overall, more boys than girls participate in classes. It probably has something to do with how girls are more likely to be taught to be nonconfrontational and more likely to feel societal pressure not to be intelligent). And boys in classes with girls tend to be more show-offy and less focussed on learning.

The evidence seems to show that high school students in single sex classes do better than those in coed classes, and students in single-sex high schools do better than those in single sex classes in coed schools. When I was debating this four years ago, there were on the order of six single sex public schools in the country, and studies done on them gave some data. When compared to students with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, students in single-sex schools did better. Now this is a bit problematic because I think that generally the single-sex schools were opt-in, so they tended to attract students with committed parents, who are statistically more likely to succeed (hence the success of M-to-M or VTP students in Atlanta). But still, the numbers are fairly compelling.

But there are drawbacks. Any program of this sort is going to lead to more bussing. I had friends in high school who spent close to two hours on the bus every morning and afternoon, and our county wasn't even that big. I also don't entirely believe in spending limited school funding on busses rather than on teachers or supplies, despite the fact that I personally had a great experience in a magnet school.

Another more intrinsic problem is that of stigmatisation, which was the main answer we got to our plan. Since one imagines that legally a school district will have to provide coed options (and making these schools opt-in will decrease the problem of "separate but equal" addressed in the NYT). Particularly if such programs exist only for one sex, will this make the students who attend single sex classes be called dumb? special ed? whatever?

Do these programs continue to affect students once they enter a coed environment? The studies I've seen at least dealt with number of students going to college rather success once in college. Given that more girls than boys attend college (and that girls' high school grades tend to be better than boys'), are we just creating a problem that doesn't exist? Maybe girls just learn differently than boys. In my own experience (completely anecdotal), girls are significantly less likely to monopolise class discussions than boys, but do contribute something to class discussions. Even in math or science classes, girls (with a few notable exceptions) are less likely to engage the professor (not that that's necessarily a bad thing-- see Susan's "Hum: a discussion class. Calculus: not a freaking discussion class"). But then it's unclear that this is a problem. I don't think my grades have been hurt by my silence in my math lectures (they have been hurt by my lack of attendance to math lectures, since clearly I missed the part that in the syllabus that attendance to a class where the professor insults my intelligence by reading the textbook aloud was mandatory. Oh wait, it wasn't there. Not that I'm bitter or anything). And I don't really feel that my grades have been hurt because I don't talk terribly much in discussion classes. I mean, I contribute a couple of times a class period (more in Civ when it was clear that no one had done the reading and I felt bad for the professor). And it seems OK. So do programs designed to increase girls' engagement with their classes actually correlate with real world success?

I'm unsure. And presently, single sex schools sound expensive. So I'm voting no. But if anyone has any more data/studies/info on this, I'd love to read it. Ihadn't thought about this in years, but it's actually a pretty interesting question. Sorry this post is basically a lot of asides strung together. I've been filling out forms and reading sagas all day, and I think my brain actually died.

(*) This actually was the source of the dumbest argument I ever heard in a debate round. My partner and I (both female) read a card saying that girls get sexually harassed/ assaulted in high school. One member of the all-male team facing us responded to this with the "they were asking for it argument." The judge was so pissed, and how bad does it look for two guys to do that to two girls?