After the American Association of University Women (AAUW) released their 1992 report titled "How Schools Shortchange Girls," a significant change in educational policy occurred. Based on the report's observations that American schools were ridden with gender bias, proponents of single-sex schools found the impetus to push for educational change (Simpson, 1996: 25). In the United Sates, California and New York took the lead in implementing single-sex schools, influencing many other states to follow. The single-sex movement is not limited to the United States; many gender-segregated schools can be found all around the globe (Levit, 1999: 452). An increasingly popular initiative such as single-sex education requires special attention. Are single-sex schools founded on sound principles, and what kind of social implications do they bring? Current sociological and educational research indicates single-sex schools are unjustified and reinforce gender divisions that harm gender equality.

In order to prove that single-gender schools are unjustified, the principles upon which they are founded must be examined. It is argued that the gender bias inherent in coeducation causes girls to lose self-esteem, underachieve academically in quantitative subjects like math and science due to different learning styles, and fall subject to male harassment and dominant behavior. "The argument in support of sex segregation is two pronged: 1) women's nature and 2) women's situation (Fuchs-Epstein, 1997: 189)." To legitimize these claims, single-sex supporters have provided statistical evidence and found professional advocates to give credibility to the cause.

Unfortunately, the studies that support single-sex schools are old, methodologically flawed, and misrepresentative of the facts. Most of the research upon which segregation-supporters rely can be traced back to studies conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s. Elizabeth Tidball first analyzed career success based on attendance at single-sex schools. Roberta Hall and Bernice Sandler pointed to the "chilly climate" women feel in coeducational settings. Daryl Smith documented decreased female self-esteem in coeducational settings (Levit, 1999: 480-482). Carol Gilligan proposed that different learning styles between males and females accounted for females academic underachievement (Wrigley, 1992: 127). The initial studies and their subsequent off-shoots were short-sighted and lacked the controlled conditions to yield legitimate results.

Several respected experts in the field have suggested that high achievement rates in single-sex elementary and secondary school environments should be attributed to variables other than sex-exclusivity, such as the academic focus of the school, the pro-academic choices made by students and parents, the socioeconomic status of the students' families, small class sizes, the educational environment, curriculum, empathetic teaching, strong female role models, and strict discipline, sometimes in a traditional religious context. (Levit, 1999: 506)

It is a significant methodological flaw for researchers to attribute differences between single-sex and coeducational settings to segregation itself without accounting for confounding variables. For example, in the book Failing Boys, Debbie Epstein shows empirically that single-sex schools do bring higher academic achievements. This is, however, not due to the institution's gender structure, but rather the students' class association. "The higher achievement of all-girls' schools can be explained as a function of social privilege (Epstein, 1998: 59)."

Misrepresentations of the research become even more blatant when we consider the original AAUW report that has been so influential to the single-sex movement. The initial report acknowledged that another factor was the dominant influence on academic achievement over the gender mix of the institution. When reviewed in its entirety, the study reports "socioeconomic status, not sex, is said to be the best predictor of both grades and test scores (Kaminer, 1998: 25)." Moreover, the AAUW study never advocated single-sex schools as a solution to gender bias. AAUW researchers say "they never meant to endorse single-sex education (Leslie, 1998: 55)." Further research by the AAUW has found that "academically there [is] no evidence that single-sex education works (Murray, 1998: 28)." "Separating by sex is not the answer," said Maggie Ford, president of the AAUW. "Girls can achieve in coed classes as long as they are treated fairly (Leslie, 1998: 55)."

New, sophisticated studies are more reliable and disprove the earlier research in favor of single-sex schools. By controlling for confounding variables, the true cause of educational inequalities can be identified. The original studies in the 1970s and early 1980s did not allow for meta-analysis, and consequently their results tended to explain isolated situations without giving relative weight to other studies. Additionally, longitudinal studies that yield the most accurate results have been carried out only recently (Fuchs-Epstein, 1997: 197).

Earlier studies, such as those conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s, are more likely to find correlations between a single-sex environment for girls and positive achievement. Later studies, from the mid 1980s to the present, and those with more sophisticated methodology (controlling for conflating variables), are more likely to find that the effects of institutional gender type are insignificant and to show that other variables, such as prior individual student factors or institutional selectivity factors, matter much more to student satisfaction and performance. These later studies are more likely to favor mixed-sex over single-sex education. (Levit, 1999: 501)

With little scientific data supporting single-sex schools, the negative social implications caused by segregation undermine the case for their existence still further. When males and females are separated in education, stigmatization results. When all-girls' schools are established, males view segregation as a necessary step in providing the "weaker" female sex a chance of success. At the same time, while some people believe women will feel empowered in a safer environment, it could reinforce their self-perception that they are the "weaker" gender and thus require extra protection to succeed. "The few pitiful advantages women have from social assignments that confine them, isolate them, segregate them and shelter them, are no match for the overwhelming disadvantages they suffer by the affirmation such boundaries serve, to symbolically indicate they are creatures in need of special care, protection, and discipline (Fuchs-Epstein, 1997: 209)."

Growing antagonism between the sexes is a documented phenomenon of segregation. In a study of elementary school children, when divided into single-gender groups, discussions of the other sex showed rising resentment. Sociologist Barie Thorne discovered that after periods of extended interaction within a single-sex peer group, encounters with a member of the opposite sex were increasingly hostile (Wrigley, 1992: 115). It is this inherent suspicion, distrust, and antagonism brought on by segregation, that makes single-sex education a detriment to society.

While distrust between the sexes grows, a woman's self-image plummets. Psychologists theorize that single-sex schools create "pink ghettos" that "perpetuate feelings of inferiority (Simpson, 1996: 25)." A set of interviews conducted by Susan Watson indicate females' reasons for choosing a single-sex school reinforced their loss of self-esteem. The responses of three female students and their families indicated their choice to attend a single-gender school was primarily based on the "elite socialization" and "protective environment" offered by the school. Girls could escape the "disruptive environment" boys cause by retreating to the "sanctuary" the all-girls' school provided (Watson, 1997: 377-378). This process of "learning one's gender identity" will affect females more than males. As Barbara Lloyd and Gerard Duveen found in their analysis of kindergarten students, boys tend to naturally form single-gender groups more than girls (1992: 106). This means when segregation is imposed, it will be a more radical change for females, and consequently they will "learn their gender" more.

As segregation further divides the sexes, women will find it harder to succeed in their careers. Cynthia Fuchs-Epstein conducted a study of female lawyers and found that "men rely on school ties for later business opportunities, and women who lack such ties because they did not have male friends in school are disadvantaged in the process of rain-making later down the line (1997: 202)." Such results are consistent with and help explain Gwen Moore's study of women elites in business and politics. Female executives and elected public servants had a spread of educational experiences in which no greater proportion came from women's schools (Fuchs-Epstein, 1997: 204).

Sex segregation creates a vicious cycle. As gender identities become further entrenched, traditional male and female careers will be pursued by the sexes. Consequently, "the sex-segregated labor market" will further entrench "gender-defined schooling (Wrigley, 1992: 4)." State-sponsored segregation implies hierarchy. Sociological research indicates that segregated cultures are more repressive and fuel economic and political stratification. "Societies in which women are spatially segregated typically are those with more rigid and traditional gender roles and those in which women are economic, social, and political second-class citizens (Levit, 1999: 518)."

Society must be extremely cautious in dealing with gender issues. Sex segregation already abounds in every aspect of our lives. Religious, economic, political, and domestic spheres all display the implications of gender inequality. Even if single-sex schools offered some benefits, which so far remain unproven, segregation would have greater negative long-term consequences. "The segregation itself sends messages. Numerous studies in anthropology, sociology, and social psychology demonstrate that structural segregation becomes developmental (Levit, 1999: 525)." Support for single-sex schools is largely based upon faulty research and misconceptions about the nature of gender inequality.

Works Cited

Epstein, Debbie, Jannette Elwood, Valerie Hey, and Janet Maw. Failing Boys: Issues in Gender and Achievement. 1st ed. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1998.

Fuchs-Epstein, Cynthia. "Multiple Myths and Outcomes of Sex Segregation." New York Law School Journal of Human Rights 14 (1997): 185-210.

Kaminer, Wendy. "The Trouble With Single-Sex Schools." The Atlantic Monthly 281.4 (April 1998): 22-28.

Leslie, Connie. "Separate and Unequal?" Newsweek March 23, 1998: 55.

Levit, Nancy. "Separating Equals: Educational Research and Long-Term Consequences of Sex Segregation." George Washington Law Review 67 (March 1999): 451-526.

Lloyd, Barbara, and Gerard Duveen. Gender Identities and Education: The Impact of Starting School. New York: Harvester & Wheatsheaf, 1992.

Murray, Barbara. "Girls' Classes Get a Bad Mark." U.S. News & World Report March 23, 1998: 28.

Simpson, Michael D. "What's the Verdict?" NEA Today 15.3 (October 1996): 25.

Watson, Susan. "Single-Sex Education for Girls: Heterosexuality, Gendered Subjectivity and School Choice." British Journal of Sociology and Education 18.3 (September 1997): 371-384.

Wrigley, Julia. Education and Gender Equality. 1st ed. London: Falmer Press, 1992.