Note: This is a guest post by Darryl Williams, principal of the Brighter Choice Charter Schools for Boys鈥� elementary and middle school programs in Albany, New York.
In an article recently published in the New York Times, Tamar Lewin presents the idea that She writes, 鈥淪ingle-sex education is ineffective, misguided and may actually increase gender stereotyping,鈥� a paper to be published Friday asserts.
Gender stereotyping is pervasive in many under-performing public schools because excuse-making has remained an acceptable form of educational reform in some states. And our boys鈥� poor performance on standardized exams, their suspension rates and over identification in special education usually are on the table for discussion when districts start looking for an explanation for their mediocre results.
According to Lewin, the strongest argument against single-sex education is that it reduces boys鈥� and girls鈥� opportunities to work together, and reinforces sex stereotypes. More specifically, she cites from the report that 鈥淏oys who spend more time with other boys become increasingly aggressive...similarly, girls who spend more time with other girls become more sex-typed.鈥� The scientific research has been mixed on both brain-based learning and the effectiveness of single-gender programs.
However, we cannot ignore the gender bias teachers bring to co-ed classrooms, especially in our urban schools. 鈥淲hy can鈥檛 you write neat like Jessica....The girls are just much calmer than the boys...The girls can sit quietly longer than the boys at the assembly.鈥�
All these beliefs, assumptions and biases are developed in some co-ed classrooms and prove truly influential in teacher鈥檚 expectations for our young men. Our scholars at Brighter Choice are expected to meet the expectations we set irrespective of the norms usually associated with boys or girls. The benefit here is that we strive to create a college-bound culture that supports scholars in developing the habits necessary for success in high school, college and life. Single-sex schools, as Dr. Leonard Sax asserts, should be a choice for families. Furthermore, parents must be encouraged to visit, tour and 鈥渋nspect鈥� single-gender programs to determine if the school is a right fit for their child.
I would argue that the success of any educational program, single-gender or co-ed, rests in the quality of teaching provided to scholars. We鈥檝e found that there are some approaches like using competition as motivation, presenting visual anchors to accompany instruction and carefully scaffolding independent practice effective in teaching our scholars. We have not found allowing 鈥渂oys to be boys鈥� or relaxing our structure to be particularly effective, but with some demographics, this may serve students well.
I wish this study focused on the teachers in single-gender schools. What qualities do the effective teachers possess? What approaches and methods are they using to provide high-quality instruction? How are they building relationships with their scholars? I鈥檓 no researcher (yet) but I would bet my last dollar that if a single-gender school has many great teachers, the program will be a success for its scholars.