It does not take more than one talk about the birds and the bees to confirm that girls and boys are, in fact, different. In kindergarten, this materialized as dolls versus action figures and in middle school as makeup versus spiked hair. But should the segregation imposed on the playground and shopping mall persist in the classroom? Dr. Leonard Sax, founder and executive director of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE), says yes.
A psychologist and family physician, Sax is one of the leading figures involved in the growing movement that supports single-sex education in public schools. All parents, he believes, should be able to decide whether to send their children to coed or single-sex institutions — a decision currently only available to wealthy families who can afford private school tuition.
Why segregate? According to the NASSPE, separating males from females in the classroom actually breaks down gender stereotypes, allowing both males and females to feel freer to pursue their individual academic interests. Evidence from Sax's studies shows that girls in single-sex classrooms are more likely to pursue supposedly male-dominated subjects such as math, science and information technology, whereas boys are more likely to pursue areas stereotyped as feminine, such as art, music, drama and foreign language.
While supporters of the movement promote single-sex education as a means of narrowing the gender gap in the United States, others feel segregation would do the opposite — or, at best, do nothing at all.
Tufts Professor of Education Kathleen Weiler believes that the arguments for a move toward single-sex education are ungrounded.
"The assertion that males and females learn differently is controversial to say the least," Weiler said. "I am not at all convinced that there is any significant biological difference in the way men and women think, so separating boys and girls or men and women in different classrooms makes no sense to me based on this argument."
The NASSPE, however, argues that male and female styles of learning may differ inherently due to dissimilar brain development patterns. With males and females in separate classrooms, teachers would be able to embrace teaching styles that may benefit one gender without sacrificing the needs of the other — male classrooms would be more fluid and interactive, allowing students to move around the room while learning; female classrooms would call for a more quiet and focused study, according to the group.
Weiler said that while males and females often approach the classroom differently, their attitudes are likely the results of differing social and cultural experiences — and not of gender-based learning styles.
"Social processes of gendering and powerful constructs of masculinity and femininity are clearly operative in our lives," Weiler said. "This may well mean that those gendered as male or female may have different conceptions of themselves and may meet different expectations from other students and teachers in schools and colleges. When you consider that sexism and racism are still very much operative, individual students may experience the classroom very differently."
Moreover, Weiler thinks classroom segregating can neither ensure that students reach their full educational potential nor dissolve cultural gender divides.
"I think the way to address [a gender gap] is to set high standards of respect for all students on the part of teachers and professors and to bring the topic of gender to open discussion," she said.
Christopher Ott, communications manager of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, agreed there are methods more effective than gender segregation in improving education.
"We know that the proponents of single-sex education have the best of intentions, but there's an alternative that we know works," Ott told the Daily. "What we know works is small classes, highly trained teachers and involved parents. There's no secret to providing a good education."
Ott criticized the move toward single-sex education, citing that not enough research has been done to prove the system's efficacy and that resources could be better spent on projects that have been proven to yield benefits.
"We think it's important to take a good look at whether this is important. Segregating students into separate male and female classes is going to cost more … and now [is] a time when resources for education are so scarce in so many places," he said.
Ott also brought up the importance of preparing children to coexist with the opposite sex outside of the classroom.
"Real-world interaction happens all the time outside of school," he said. "To deprive people of that in school may not be a good idea."
Tufts senior Sarah Tavares, who attended a private, single-sex middle school, agreed with Ott's concerns about social preparedness — which is one reason she transferred to a coeducational public high school.
"I felt like I was missing out on a normal teenage social experience being at an all-girls school," Tavares said. "Obviously everyone will be together in the real world so to keep girls and guys apart … would just make them socially unprepared for life."
