Why All Boys?

June 21, 2002

Some time ago, I gave a talk called "Why All Boys?" Although it is impossible to replicate the talk, let me share with you some of the information I gathered.

In 1990, the American Association of University Women publicized a widely disseminated report that focused on the data indicating that boys tended to 'lead' girls in schools, particularly in the subject areas of math and science. At that time, boys also tended to hold more leadership positions, hence the title of the report: How Schools Shortchange Girls. What the report failed to acknowledge was the fact that although boys led girls in math and science, girls led boys by an equally significant margin in the language arts. In fact, an ETS Gender Study, also from 1990, showed that while girls were catching up to the boys in math and science, boys were not making similar gains in the language arts.

The report resulted in schools focusing on how to make education more friendly and supportive of girls. These efforts were successful, but also produced some unintended consequences. While girls are now doing as well as boys in math and science, there has been no catching up on the part of boys in language arts. A commonly accepted tenet is that the average 11th grade boy writes at the level of the average 8th grade girl. Since 1991, more girls than boys are taking AP exams; since 1994, more girls are taking upper level math courses, and more women than men are enrolled in undergraduate college programs; and since 1998, more girls participate at a leadership level in academic clubs, student government, newspaper or yearbook, service clubs, and school plays or musicals.

Currently, the only area where boys 'lead' girls is in sports.

It seems that in making coed schools friendlier to girls, we may have made them more difficult for boys. One solution might be to undertake the same effort to make schools friendlier to boys that was expended in the 90s to promote girls' needs. As a former Head of an all-girls school, I worry that such an effort might result in a flip-flop, basically wiping out the gains that girls have made in the past 12 years.

In a single-gender school, however, this is not a worry.

From birth there are notable differences between girls and boys. Girls are born with a higher proportion of nerve cells to process information. More brain regions are involved in language production and recognition. By five years of age, girls are well suited to schools. They are calm, get along with others, pick up on social cues, and reading and writing come easily to them. The start of school is comparatively tough on boys, as they must curb aggressive impulses. They lag behind girls in reading skills, and hyperactivity may be a problem. While some boys surge ahead, typically the students with the greatest academic difficulty are boys. Recent studies have found that boys do better in environments that:

• provide opportunities for movement;


• allow louder expression. Recent research shows that boys actually hear differently than girls;


• provide critical feedback on performance and progress through coaching. Boys have unrealistically high estimates of themselves; they are more likely to need a reality check than girls, who tend to be more self-critical and need encouragement;


• supply interesting materials. Unlike girls, boys are primarily motivated by material that interests them, rather than a desire to please adults;


• allow appropriate competition;


• give them their own space;


• furnish opportunities to learn by doing;


• do not compare them to girls.

As early as 1983, Cornelius Riordan, a sociologist then at Providence College, was researching the "hot topic" of why Catholic schools regularly outperformed public schools, even when socioeconomic and other factors were accounted for. In the process he discovered that 42% of the Catholic schools were single-gender. As he looked more closely at the data, he discovered that the single-gender schools were nearly twice as effective as either coed Catholic schools or public schools. However, he was so uncomfortable with his findings that he tempered his conclusions when presenting his final report. In 1994, Riordan finally wrote: "Single-gender schools are more effective academically than co-educationals."

Over many years the data consistently and persistently confirm this fact. While there are some that have reported a null effect (no difference), no study in the US has demonstrated that coed schools are more effective. Each fall the Financial Times' 500 tables rank England's independent schools according to results on A-level exams. Single-gender schools overwhelmingly dominate. Rarely does a coed school break into the top thirty.

A pilot study in a Michigan public middle school separated the sixth grade into single-gender and coed sections of science, math, band, and computer classes. The study yielded the following results:

• Teacher-assigned grades in single-gender classes consistently
  increased.


• Pre- and post-study testing showed stronger learning in single-gender
  math classes.


• Behavior was reported as better in single-gender classes.


• Parent surveys were overwhelmingly supportive of the single-gender
  classes.


• Teacher observation included an improved working atmosphere
  and a reduction of attention-getting behaviors.

The data in support of single-sex education, especially for boys, are compelling. Perhaps the correct response to the question "Why all boys?" is: "Why not?"