In recent years, anxiety about perceived 'underachievement' by boys has put the concept of segregation by sex back on the teaching agenda. But does it actually benefit the students? There are so few mixed schools providing single-sex groupings for lessons that there has been little evidence to support assertions made on either side of the debate.
In this longitudinal study, the authors examined the learning and achievements of students at a mixed comprehensive with an ethos of single-sex teaching that extends over the last 30 years. They plotted all students' GCSE results over the last 12 years and compared them with national trends over the same period. In addition, through a series of lesson observations, they examined the attitudes of single-sex groupings to the classroom and learning environment and how these differed in mixed sex groupings.
Although the gender gap remained, the GCSE results in this school suggest that both girls and boys achieved very much better than boys and girls did nationally. Indeed, the boys achieved proportionately better than the girls did compared with the national trends for achievements by gender. In the classroom the girls were found to be extremely dominant in mixed sex groupings, setting the pace, potentially at the expense of some boys' learning. The authors observe that the confidence displayed by the girls is a: strength of the strategy, rather than a weakness; the need to focus on girls' achievements and aspirations is as important as the need to find strategies to improve levels of boys' commitment and achievement.
The authors also warn the reader of the dangers of extrapolating too much from the evidence of one single aspect of one school and its teaching, and highlight the potential pitfalls of making single-sex groupings a knee-jerk reaction when addressing the issue of boys' potential underachievement.
Keywords:
United Kingdom; England; mixed sex; secondary schools; achievement; gender; single sex classes; sex differences; coeducation; pupils; Year 9; Year 10; GCSE; boys;
"Comprehensive reorganisation of schools in England was thoroughly uncontentious in terms of gender considerations", say the authors of this study.
It is salutary that it is the issue of apparent underachievement of boys which has brought single-sex teaching onto the agenda of mixed comprehensive schools, and significant that it was rarely voiced as an appropriate strategy when the concern in the 1970s and 1980s was with the provision of more equal opportunity for girls.
In the last ten years British schools, researchers, policy makers and the media have been concerned about an apparent gender gap between girls' and boys' achievements at school. This gap varies at different key stages and across subjects, but is most apparent in English. It also persists amongst most subjects at GCSE. Research has suggested explanations can be found in a combination of factors including individual schools, the economic environment, and factors such as ethnicity, social class and parental education. (There is also recent research which questions whether the bulk of boys are underachieving at all). For more information, click here to see the digest: Investigating the Patterns of Differential Attainment of Boys and Girls at School.
There has been a lot of research into potential solutions to improving boys' learning of including:
However, the authors of this study point out that many of these strategies have been on trial fairly briefly and there has been little evaluation of their success. In consequence 'it is clear that, along with other strategies, the long-term effectiveness of single-sex groupings as an appropriate intervention strategy has yet to be established.'
So far, there has been little hard evidence to establish whether single-sex groupings are effective over time. This research was undertaken as an attempt to discover the long-term effects and outcomes of single-sex groupings on educational achievements of both boys and girls in one school in Essex.
Boys and girls at the school have always been taught in single-sex groups in years 7-9, and placed in single sex tutorial groups. English and mathematics and - since the introduction of Balanced Science courses - science have been segregated in years 10 and 11. The only mixed sex groupings are in the foundation subjects and PSCE in years 10 and 11, and these, as the authors note, are for the "largely pragmatic" reasons of wishing to retain both grouping by ability and student choice at GCSE.
The school has not initiated single-sex teaching recently in the hope of raising the achievement levels of boys. For historical reasons, it has been operating single-sex classes in most subjects, perhaps uniquely, since its formation thirty years ago. The authors note:
throughout the 1980s and 1990s there has been little apparent discussion of changing the single-sex mode of organisation. Indeed there has been a conviction that single-sex groupings have supported students' learning and have met an educational need.
This history made it possible for the authors to evaluate the achievement levels of boys and girls in this environment over a long period.
The research covered two aspects of single-sex groupings in education:
The observations looked at:
The intention was to compare classroom interactions in the year 9 single-sex groupings with each other, and the interactions in the single-sex groupings with the mixed sex groupings in year 10. 13 teachers were observed. A further intention of the study was to observe contrasting teaching styles and identify any differences in teaching approach. As only four female teachers taught both boys' and girls' classes, 'it was difficult to make comparisons of differences in their approach with boys and girls with any confidence.'
Analysis of GCSE results 1988-1999 showed the following similarities to national trends
The following differences from national trends
Quantitative analysis showed that:
Qualitative analysis showed that although there were often marked similarities in lessons taught to girls and those taught to boys:
Most teachers, students and parents considered single-sex groupings to provide a good environment for learning with the benefits significantly outweighing the costs. Girls were more convinced of this than boys.
In single sex classrooms there was little evidence that girls missed having boys in the class, or boys missed having girls. Arguments in other research that men and boys preferred single sex education because it removed the pressure to indulge in 'peacock behaviour' and allowed opportunities for male bravado and bonding, were not sustained by observations at this school, either in single-sex or mixed classes. Girls' classrooms were perceived by both staff and girls as "pleasant and safe places" for them, offering great benefits. However the atmosphere in the boys' classrooms was not significantly different. There was little evidence to suggest that the gender of the teacher was an important influence on children's behaviour.
A significant feature of the mixed classes was the dominance by girls which "simply did not allow this environment for learning to be disturbed by off-task boys' interventions." Although, the authors point out, this can be seen positively as the girls having gained confidence and assurance by their single-sex education, it can also be seen negatively as suggesting that "some boys were overawed and dominated by the girls in year 10 classes; were much less involved in lessons, and appeared to achieve less well as a result." There was little evidence that single-sex classes had enabled the school to provide a different curriculum for girls and boys.
The authors' contention is that:
In completing this digest its authors began to ask the following questions about implications for practitioners:
Sukhnandan, L., Lee, B., and Kelleher, S. (2000). An investigation into gender differences in achievement, phase 2: school and classroom strategies, Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research. For a summary of this study see http://www.gtce.org.uk/research/genderhome.asp.
Gorard, S., Rees, G., and Salisbury, J. (2001). Investigating the Patterns of Differential Attainment of Boys and Girls at School,British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 27., No 2., pp. 125-139.