Boys Go to Jupiter to Get More Stupider:
Exploring Single-Sex Education as a Solution to Male Underperformance in Academic Achievement
Embedded Files
Griffin Cappiello (Media & Communication Studies, 2028)
The American education system is facing a boy crisis. Across a variety of metrics, girls are largely outperforming boys in the classroom and have been for the past several years. To address this issue, certain experts propose a new change to the way students are taught: introducing a single-sex educational environment. Despite arguments that single-sex schooling prevents boys from developing socially and emotionally and because of the fundamental differences in how boys and girls learn and the positive effects of single-sex educational environments on both boys and girls, all-male schooling is a viable solution to the challenges facing boys, particularly those at the high school level, in education today.
In K-12 schools, boys of all ages are outperformed by their female classmates. A study published in an American Psychological Association journal showed “a significant female advantage” when comparing grades between boys and girls.1 The study found that neither age nor subject mattered; on average, girls received higher grades than boys by around twenty-two percent. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the modern day either; the study showed that this correlation has been relatively stable since as early as 1914. The longevity of the data in the study is indicative of a deep issue within education; the results from the study suggest that the modern American education system is failing young men. Such a significant disparity in grades between boys and girls, as well as the fact that boys are “disciplined and diagnosed with learning disabilities at higher rates” than girls and girls graduate high school and enroll in college at higher rates than boys, clearly shows that the status quo in education is not working for boys.2 A common response to this phenomenon – and one familiar to many high school boys – is that boys are simply not applying themselves as much as girls. Yet the fact that the difference between boys and girls is so vast and spans so much time would suggest that the system needs to change, not the boys. The ‘one size fits all’ education system is the cause of the drastic difference in academic performance between boys and girls. What – if anything – can be done to narrow the gap? I argue that the gendered differences in performance are indicative of similarly gendered differences in learning styles. By better understanding how boys and girls learn, educators will be able to teach more effectively, thus allowing boys to reach the same levels of academic success as girls.
"By better understanding how boys and girls learn, educators will be able to teach more effectively, thus allowing boys to reach the same levels of academic success as girls."
Fundamentally, the significant difference in academic performance is evidence to suggest that boys and girls learn differently. While psychologists are not in agreement as to what causes this difference, some argue that it seems that the American education system is designed to cater more toward the female mind. They point out that the modern classroom is set up so students must sit quietly for extensive periods of time, which is easy for girls, but “developmentally unnatural for boys.”3 At all ages, but particularly in the early years of elementary school, their pent-up energy leads to higher levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, triggering fight-or-flight behaviors, which are displayed as agitated and squiggly behavior. This behavior can often result in disciplinary action taken against them. Boys who act out in class are simply exhibiting a biological response to an uncomfortable situation; they simply cannot help but move around, while girls are biologically better equipped to sit still. Schools can combat this by changing the classroom environment to better suit boys’ needs. For example, since boys “tend to benefit from hands-on, interactive activities,” teachers can make an effort to include these types of classroom activities to supplement traditional classroom lectures.4 Alternatively, some schools can create extra-curricular solutions to help support boys outside of the classroom. In one Australian high school, an outdoor education program allowed male students to spend time camping in the wilderness to promote “individual physical fitness and cooperative activities.”5 This program was created as an alternative to competitive athletic programs that administrators felt promoted the wrong values — namely, that winning should be the first and only priority. The wilderness program instead took the form of what most Americans would think of as a summer camp, with a variety of physical activities available, as well as opportunities for boys to bond with their classmates. Though the author who mentions this school concedes that this solution would not be largely effective on its own, it still serves as an opportunity for boys to combine physical activity with social-emotional development: a combination that can rarely be found in the classroom. These solutions do not necessarily exclude girls. It would be entirely reasonable to assume that some girls might benefit from similar activities. By creating a more inclusive classroom atmosphere, educators can better help all students succeed. However, though psychologists may not agree on what causes this phenomenon, the disparity in academic performance between boys and girls suggests that there exists a definite difference either in how boys naturally learn or in how they are taught to learn in co-educational (coed) settings. Because of this difference, it would also be reasonable to propose an entirely different solution: separating boys and girls into single-sex environments.
"...the disparity in academic performance between boys and girls suggests that there exists a definite difference either in how boys naturally learn or in how they are taught to learn in co-educational (coed) settings."
There is strong evidence to suggest that all-male educational environments – that is, all-male schools or all-male classrooms within coed schools – help improve boys’ academic performance and increase their academic enjoyment. A study in South Korea compared students at all-boys high schools with male students at coed high schools, as well as students at all-boys high schools that gradually transitioned to coed high schools on a year-by-year basis across a variety of subjects, including English, Korean, and mathematics. The data showed that, on average, boys at single-sex schools performed almost eight percent better than their coed counterparts across all subjects.6 Furthermore, boys at all-male schools that transitioned to coed schools saw that increase in performance disappear the very year girls were introduced into the school environment, whether or not the boys had any classes with girls. This data suggests that girls are a distraction to boys in educational environments. By removing girls from the school environment, boys can focus on the material at hand, leading to improved academic performance. Though this particular study examined South Korean students, similar results can be found in American schools. A study by a teacher from a school district in Texas showed that at single-sex schools in the United States, “student attendance improves, distractions decline, and student participation increases.”7 The author of this study suggests that without the presence of girls, all-male educational environments can lead to an increased confidence in boys, which, in turn, leads to an increase in their desire to be at school. Consider a music class in which students are required to sing. A boy in a coed class may be hesitant to participate in this class for fear of embarrassing himself in front of girls, while a boy in an all-male class would not have the same fear. Boys are often “freer to learn and make mistakes when girls [are not] around.”8 The reverse is also true for a girl in a science class; she may be reluctant to participate in a frog dissection, but without boys in the classroom, she would be more open to the idea of dissecting the frog.9 While these examples are broad generalizations, they demonstrate the benefits of single-sex educational environments for both boys and girls; that is, creating single-sex classes for boys does not necessarily harm female performance, rather it improves performance for students of both genders. Furthermore, in an all-boys environment, educators are more likely to “share an appreciation for the intensity and complexity of boyhood.”10 Teachers who teach classes solely composed of boys can focus specifically on how to instruct male students most effectively. Through the implementation of strategies designed to help boys learn, such as allowing movement in the classroom or utilizing competition to motivate students, teachers are able to cater to the specific educational needs of boys.
Parents and students ought to be able to choose the style of education that works best for them, rather than shoehorning every student into a "one size fits all" education model.
Despite the evidence in favor of single-sex education for boys, it certainly is not without its critics. Some craft a legal argument, claiming that single-sex schools “violate constitutional principles.”11 By referring to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, critics of single-sex education claim that public single-sex schools would be comparable to the racially segregated schools of the Jim Crow era. “Separate but equal” was inherently unequal for schools segregated based on race, so therefore it will be similarly unequal for schools segregated based on gender. The key difference between the racial separation in Brown and the gender separation I propose is the element of choice. My proposal intends to “elevate both sexes to a higher level of achievement,” not to suppress either gender in the slightest.12 By giving parents the choice to decide between single-sex and coed schooling, they can decide what will best suit their child and give him the best opportunity to find success. This is also my response to critics who claim that single-sex education is not meant for every student.13 By no means am I suggesting that coed schools should be eliminated entirely. My point is not that boys and girls ought not to go to school together, but rather that all-male schools and classes should be considered as a potential solution for boys who are struggling in academics. Parents and students ought to be able to choose the style of education that works best for them, rather than shoehorning every student into a “one size fits all” education model.
Perhaps the most common – and most convincing – argument against all-male education, however, “is that it reduces boys’ and girls’ opportunities to work together in a supervised, purposeful environment.” By separating boys from girls, critics claim it hinders their social-emotional development by preventing them from spending time in the same environment. At surface level, this seems like a particularly strong argument. The entire point of education is to prepare students for the real world, and the real world is certainly not gender-segregated. However, in the case of all-boys schools, many “[give] boys the opportunity to interact in a respectful and supportive way with their female peers” through activities with sister schools, such as faith-based affiliations, service learning, and coed sports teams.15 In the case of coed schools with single-sex classrooms, boys are still able to interact with girls outside of the classroom, while still maintaining the all-male classroom environment. This ‘best of both worlds’ approach allows boys to develop socially, as well as academically, in the most productive environments possible.
That boys are struggling within the modern American education system cannot be denied. Girls drastically outperform boys across all subjects, and there is no indication that this gap will narrow anytime in the near future. Although critics of single-sex education point out potential social-emotional development issues, the positive academic outcomes of all-male education, which can be attributed to all-male educators’ better understanding of how and why boys learn differently than girls, greatly outweigh any consequences. Single-sex education can be a viable solution to the many challenges facing high-school-aged boys in education today
End Notes
1 Daniel Voyer and Susan D. Voyer. “Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 140, no. 4 (2014): 1189. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-a0036620.pdf.
2 Zara Abrams. “Boys are facing key challenges in school. Inside the effort to support their success.” Monitor on Psychology 54, no. 3 (2023): 46 https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/04/boys-school-challenges-recommendations.
3 Erica Komisar. “School is a Hostile Environment for Boys.” The Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/opinion/school-is-a-hostile-environment-for-boys-cortisol-outcomes-stress-girls-education-marriage-f6768c71.
4 Abrams, “Boys are facing key challenges in school,” 46.
5 Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower. “Oatmeal facials and sock wrestling: the perils and promises of extra-curricular strategies for ‘fixing’ boys’ education.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 31, no. 5 (2010): 687. doi:10.1080/01596306.2010.516953.
6 Christian Dustmann, Hyejin Ku, and Do Won Kwak. “Why Are Single Sex Schools Successful?” Labour Economics 54 (2018): 86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science
/article/pii/S0927537118300733.
7 Teresa A. Hughes. “The Advantages of Single-Sex Education.” National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal 23, no. 2 (2006-2007): 9. https://files.eric.ed.gov
/fulltext/ED492000.pdf.
8 Julie Jargon. “Inside the Schools Where Boys Can Be Boys.” The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2023. https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/boys-think-schools-favor-girls-schools-are-trying-new-tricks-to-change-that-2b9e4934.
9 Hughes, “The Advantages of Single-Sex Education,” 5-6.
10 “Why a School for Boys?,” International Boys School Coalition, accessed November 12, 2024, https://www.theibsc.org/about-ibsc/why-a-boys-school.
11 Caryl Rivers and Rosalind C. Barnett. “Single-Sex Education, Pros and Cons.” In The Truth about Boys and Girls: Challenging Toxic Stereotypes about Our Children. Columbia University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.7312/rive15162.
12 Hughes, “The Advantages of Single-Sex Education,” 7.
13 Margaret Talbot. “The Case Against Single-Sex Classrooms.” The New Yorker, July 11, 2012. https:/www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-case-against-single-sex-classrooms.
14 Diane F. Halpern et al. “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling.” Science 333, no. 6050 (2011): 1707. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1205031.
15 “Why a School for Boys?”
Report abuse