Single-sex education, also known as single-gender education, is the practice of conducting education where male and female students attend separate classes or in separate buildings or schools. The practice was common before the twentieth century, particularly in secondary education and higher education. Single-sex education in many cultures is advocated on the basis of tradition as well as religion, and is practiced in many parts of the world. Recently, there has been a surge of interest and establishment of single-sex schools due to educational research. Single sex education is practiced in many Muslim majority countries; while in the West it is most popular in Belgium, Chile, Israel, South Korea, and English speaking countries such as Singapore, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Australia. In the Western world, single sex education is primarily associated with the private sector, with the public (state) sector being overwhelmingly mixed sex; while in the Muslim world the situation is the opposite: public schools are usually single sex, while many private schools are mixed sex. Motivations for single sex education range from religious ideas of sex segregation to beliefs that the sexes learn and behave differently, and, as such, they thrive in a single sex environment.
- 1 History
- 2 Effects of single-sex education
- 3 Single-sex education by region
- 3.1 Australia
- 3.2 Bangladesh
- 3.3 India
- 3.4 Ireland
- 3.5 Middle East
- 3.6 Nigeria
- 3.7 Pakistan
- 3.8 Sweden
- 3.9 United Kingdom
- 3.10 United States
- 4 References
- 5 Other readings
- 6 External links
Before the 19th century, single-sex schooling was most common. During the 19th century, ideas about education have started to change: modern ideas that defined education as a right, rather than as a privilege available only to a small elite, have started to gain support in North America and Europe. As such, mass education was introduced, and more and more coeducational schools were set up. Together with mass education, the practice of coeducation was universalized in many parts. Increased secularization in the 20th century also contributed to the acceptance of mixed sex education. In 1917 coeducation was mandated in the Soviet Union. According to Cornelius Riordan, "By the end of the nineteenth century, coeducation was all but universal in American elementary and secondary public schools (see Kolesnick, 1969; Bureau of Education, 1883; Butler, 1910; Riordan, 1990). And by the end of the 20th century, this was largely true across the world. In the UK, Australia, and Ireland the tradition of single sex education remained quite strong until the 1960s. The 1960s and 1970s were a period of intense social changes, and during that era many anti-discrimination laws were passed, such as the 1972 Title IX. Wiseman (2008) shows that by 2003, only a few countries across the globe have greater than one or two percent single sex schools. But there are exceptions where the percent of single sex schools exceeds 10 percent: Belgium, Chile, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, and most Muslim nations. Recently, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in single sex schools in modern societies across the globe, both in the public and private sector (Riordan, 2002).".
Effects of single-sex education
The topic of single-sex education is controversial. Advocates argue that it aids student outcomes such as test scores, graduation rates, and solutions to behavioral difficulties. Opponents, however, argue that evidence for such effects is inflated or non-existent, and instead argue that such segregation can increase sexism and impairs the development of interpersonal skills
Advocates of single-sex education believe that there are persistent gender differences in how boys and girls learn and behave in educational settings, and that such differences merit educating them separately. One version of this argument holds that male-female brain differences favor the implementation of gender-specific teaching methods, but such claims have not held up to rigorous scrutiny. In addition, supporters of single-sex education argue that by segregating the genders, students do not become distracted by the other gender's actions in the classrooms, but most of the social distraction in classrooms is actually attributable to same-gender interactions.
A systematic review published in 2005 covering 2221 studies was commissioned by the US Department of Education entitled Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. The review, which had statistical controls for socio-economic status of the students and resources of the schools, etc., found that the results of studies on the effects of single-sex schooling "are equivocal. There is some support for the premise that single-sex schooling can be helpful, especially for certain outcomes related to academic achievement and more positive academic aspirations. For many outcomes, there is no evidence of either benefit or harm. There is limited support for the view that single-sex schooling may be harmful or that coeducational schooling is more beneficial for the student." It also said that in general, most studies reported positive effects for SS schools on all-subject achievement tests and the preponderance of studies in areas such as academic accomplishment (both concurrent and long term) and adaptation or socioemotional development (both concurrent and long term) yields results lending support to SS schooling. The quantitative data itself "finds positive results are three to four times more likely to be found for single sex schools than for coeducational schools in the same study for both academic achievement and socio-emotional development," said Cornelius Riordan, one of the directors of the research.
In 2008, the US government sponsored another study, Early Implementation of Public Single-Sex Schools: Perceptions and Characteristics, which listed the benefits of single-sex schools: (1) Decreases distractions in learning, (2) Reduces student behavior problems, (3) Provides more leadership opportunities, (4) Promotes a sense of community among students and staff, (5) Improves student self-esteem, (6) Addresses unique learning styles and interests of boys or girls, (7) Decreases sex bias in teacher-student interactions, (8) Improves student achievement, (9) Decreases the academic problems of low achieving students, (10) Reduces sexual harassment among students, (11) Provides more positive student role models, (12) Allows for more opportunities to provide social and moral guidance, (13) Provides choice in public education.
Australian researchers reported in 2009 that high school students' interpersonal relationships were positively associated with both academic and nonacademic achievement, although the interaction between boys and girls in a majority of cases resulted in less homework done, less enjoyment of school, and lower reading and math scores.
A UCLA report commissioned by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools used data from a large national survey of U.S. college freshmen and found stronger academic orientations among women who had attended all-girls, compared to coeducational high schools, but the effects were small and the authors concluded “that the marginal benefits do not justify the potential threats to gender equity brought on by academic sex segregation.”
In September 2011, the journal Science published a study deeply critical of gender-segregated schooling, arguing that the movement towards single-sex education "is deeply misguided, and often justified by weak, cherry-picked, or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence." The study goes on to conclude that "there is no well-designed research showing that single-sex (SS) education improves students' academic performance, but there is evidence that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism."
Opponents of single-sex education, including the authors of the Science article, argue that it is not single-sex education that is producing positive results but rather, the ability of students who enter such programs and resources of the schools that are responsible. They also argue that single-sex schooling does not adequately prepare students for adult workplaces and society, where males and females need to respect and communicate effectively with each other. Coeducational schools offer greater opportunity to break down sexist attitudes through purposeful interaction with the other sex. Coeducational schools are also said to create greater feelings of safety and mutual respect among students across the gender spectrum.
Leonard Sax, the President of National Association for Single-sex Public Education or NASSPE countered the Science article by saying that "ALL the studies cited in the SCIENCE article regarding 'negative impacts' were in fact studies involving a small number of PRE-SCHOOL students attending a COED pre-kindergarten" (capitalized letters in the original). He further said that "these authors provide no evidence for their substantive claim that 'gender divisions are made even more salient in SS settings.' In fact, this conjecture has been tested, and proven false, in multiple studies." Sax cited a study which said that "girls in the all-girls classroom were less aware of 'being a girl' and less aware of gender stereotypes regarding science, compared to girls who were randomly assigned to the coed classroom."
In January 2012, a study of the University of Pennsylvania was published, involving a randomized experiment, considered the experiment with the highest level of scientific evidence. The data comes from schools in South Korea, where a law was passed randomly assigning students to schools in their district. The study by Park, Berhman and Choi titled Causal Effects of Single-Sex Schools on College Entrance Exams and College Attendance: Random Assignment in Seoul High Schools concluded that "Attending all-boys schools or all-girls schools rather than attending coeducational schools is significantly associated with higher average scores."
In 2014, E. Pahlke, J. S. Hyde, and C. M. Allison published a meta-analysis comparing achievement and attitudes in single-sex versus coeducational schools that included 1.6 million students in grades K-12. The study concluded that "there is little evidence of an advantage of SS schooling for girls or boys for any of the outcomes.” In a 2015 review of this study Cornelius Riordan observed that the authors "employ a 0.2 effect-size threshold in drawing these conclusions about there being no advantage to single-sex schooling. Despite the above conclusion, the research found that, in a separate analysis of just the best studies (well controlled) conducted in America, the effect size in mathematics was 0.14 for both boys and girls. The verbal performance was 0.22 for girls and 0.13 for boys.... Educational research has shown that a standard effect size of 0.10 on gains from sophomore to senior year of high school is equivalent to one full year of learning by the average public school student in the United States." Thus, he says, that "Applying this standard, a difference of 0.10 (or greater) between students in single-sex and in coeducational schools would be substantially important."
Single-sex education by region
In Australia, most single sex schools are fee paying independent or Catholic schools.  There are a small number of single sex government schools, while within the independent sector the proportion of pupils attending single sex schools has dropped from 31% in 1985 to 24% in 1995. Nevertheless, single sex education in Australia is much more popular than in the US. In 2001, the Australian Council for Educational Research after six years of study of more 270,000 students, in 53 academic subjects, showed that boys and girls from single-sex classrooms "scored on average 15 to 22 percentile ranks higher than did boys and girls in coeducational settings. The report also documented that boys and girls in single-sex schools were more likely to be better behaved and to find learning more enjoyable and the curriculum more relevant.'"
|This section does not cite any sources. (May 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
In Bangladesh, a large number of city schools and colleges are single-sex institutions except for universities. Notable all Cantonment schools (non-residential schools run directly by Military), Zilla Schools (run directly by Government [First starting in early colonial ages]), Cadet colleges (residential schools run directly by Military) are single-sex schools.
In India, boys are said to do better in single-sex classrooms because of the varying educational needs of boys when compared to girls. However, the number of single-sex state schools has dropped substantially over the past 40 years, from 2,500 to 400. Figures indicate that, as of 2002, 53% of girls in the Indian population actually attend schools. Some conservative parents may decide to withdraw their daughters at the age of puberty onset because of fear of distraction. It is also believed that by having single-sex classrooms the students will be able to focus more on their education, as they will not have the distraction of the other sex. The study argues that co-education schools provide opportunities for students to interact with their peers which de-stresses students and creates a friendlier, more relaxed environment.
A country with conservative traditions, Ireland has significantly more pupils studying in single-sex schools than other western countries: more than one third of second level schools are single sex. Even at primary level, single sex education is quite common: 17% of primary school children attend single-sex schools. 
In the Middle East public schools are all gender-segregated, whereas private schools are coeducational. There are single-sex private schools as well. In Iran, single-sex public schools have been in place since the Islamic Revolution. Universities are mostly coeducational in Iran.
In the United Arab Emirates, private schools are mostly coeducational, while public schools are segregated.
In Syria, private schools are coeducational, while public schools are mostly, but not exclusively, segregated. Universities are all coeducational.
In Israel secular schools are usually coeducational and religious schools are usually single-sex, although there are exceptions.
In Lebanon most schools are coeducational schools
In Nigeria, public opinion regarding sexes in schools is influenced most by religious and cultural beliefs rather than the idea that students learn better separated into sexes. Because of this, the attitude towards the separation/integration of sexes varies depending on the ethnic makeup of the region. People in northern Nigeria are mostly Muslim and as a result, are more inclined to choose single-sex education over co-education in-line with their religious beliefs. However country-wide, co-education schools are more common than single-sex schools.
In contrast to the predominance of co-education schools, many prestigious educational institutions only accept one sex, major examples are, King's College and Queen's College situated in Lagos. At university level, although the sexes are not separated in the classroom, it is common practice to employ a single sex housing policy on university campuses e.g. Covenant University.
Most of the private schools in Karachi, Lahore, Hyderabad, Islamabad and Rawalpindi are co-education but government schools are all single-sex education. Most colleges are also single-sex education institutions till graduation. There is one women's university in Rawalpindi as well. A few other universities also offer degree courses separately to both genders. In some cities, single-sex education is preferred, like Peshawar and Quetta, where many schools are single-sex educational, but there are also schools which are co-educational. However, most of the higher education in Pakistan is co-education.
By a law from 1575, girls as well as boys were expected to be given elementary schooling. The establishment for girl schools were left to each city's own authorities, and no school for girls were founded until the Rudbeckii flickskola in 1632, and that school were to be an isolated example. However, some schools for boys did occasionally accept female students, even on high levels: Ursula Agricola and Maria Jonae Palmgren were accepted at Visingsö Gymnasium in 1644 and 1645 respectively, and Aurora Liljenroth graduated from the same school in 1788.
During the 18th century, many girl schools were established, referred to as Mamsellskola (Mamsell School) or Franskpension (French Pension). These schools could normally be classified as finishing schools, with only a shallow education of polite conversation in French, embroidery, piano playing and other accomplishments, and the purpose was only to give the students a suitable minimum education to be a lady, a wife and a mother.
In the first half of the 19th century, a growing discontent over the shallow education of women eventually resulted in the finishing schools being gradually replaced by girl schools with a higher level of academic secondary education, called "Higher Girl Schools", in the mid-19th century. At the time of the introduction of the compulsory elementary school for both sexes in Sweden in 1842, only five schools in provided academic secondary education to females: the Societetsskolan (1786), Fruntimmersföreningens flickskola (1815) and Kjellbergska flickskolan (1833) in Gothenburg, Askersunds flickskola (1812) in Askersund, and Wallinska skolan (1831) in Stockholm. During the second half of the 19th century, there were secondary education girl schools in most Swedish cities. All of these were private, with the exception of the Women's college Högre lärarinneseminariet in Stockholm from 1861, and its adjacent girl school Statens normalskola för flickor. The Girl School Committee of 1866 organized the regulation of girl schools and female education in Sweden: from 1870, some girl schools were given the right to offer the Gymnasium (school) level to its students, and from 1874, those girl schools who met the demands were given governmental support and some were given the right to issue professional degrees. This was necessary to make it possible for women to enroll at the universities, which had been open to women in 1870, as female students were not accepted in the same schools as males over the elementary educational level.
In 1904-1909, co-education were initiated on governmental secondary educational schools, which undermined the girl schools. In 1927, all Gymnasiums for males were made co-educational, a reform which made girl schools redundant. The following year, girl schools could apply to become governmental, and before the end of World War II, all girl schools were transformed from private institutions to a part of the official governmental educational system. From 1956, the governmental girl schools were abolished and made co-educational: this process was completed in 1974.
Single-sex schooling was traditionally the norm for secondary schools in the United Kingdom, especially for private, grammar and secondary modern schools, but most UK schools are now coeducational. In the state sector of the U.K. education system, the only single-sex junior schools are Winterbourne Junior Boys' School and Winterbourne Junior Girls' School (both in the London Borough of Croydon). The number of single-sex state schools has fallen from nearly 2,500 to just over 400 in 40 years. According to Alan Smithers, Professor of Education at Buckingham University, there was no evidence that single-sex schools were consistently superior. A major longitudinal study of over 17,000 individuals examined whether single-sex schooling made a difference for a wide range of outcomes, including academic attainment, earnings, marriage, childbearing and divorce. The authors found that girls fared better in examinations at age 16 at single-sex schools, while boys achieved similar results at single-sex or co-educational schools. Girls rated their abilities in maths and sciences higher if they went to a girls' school, and boys rated their abilities in English higher if they went to a boys' school, i.e. gender stereotyping was weaker in the single-sex sector. Later in life, women who had been to single-sex schools went on to earn higher wages than women who had been to co-educational schools.
A major event that affected single-sex schooling in the US was when the Title IX amendments of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were passed in 1972. The Encyclopedia of Women and Gender explains Title IX as being, "Founded on the premises of equal opportunity, equal access, and full integration, it focused on providing complete access to participation in all functions of schooling, regardless of gender" (Sex Segregation In Education, 2001). Many feminists fought for the passage of this law. The goal was to ban all sex discrimination in any education program which received financial aid from the government. It was stated specifically on the Department of Education website as, "No person in the US, on the basis of sex, can be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance".
The main cause which led to the start of more public schools having single-sex classes or entire schools was when the reforms to the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 were passed in 2006. Originally Title IX had allowed separation of males and females in certain areas in school prior to the new changes. For example, they were allowed to have single gender classes for physical-education when there were contact sports involved and also for sex-education classes. Kasic (2008) indicates that the new regulations allow nonvocational public schools to still receive funding if they offer single-sex classes or entire single-sex schools, but in order to start these programs they have to have a governmental or educational objective. These programs are also required to be voluntary, so public schools cannot be required to offer these single-sex programs and if they do they cannot force students to participate in them. Diana Schemo explains in a New York Times article, "Until now, publics school districts that offered a school to one sex generally had to provide a comparable school for students of the other sex. The new rules, however say districts can simply offer such students the option to attend comparable coeducational schools" (Schemo, 2006, p. 2). Since these regulations were approved the number of public schools offering single-sex programs has been on a steady incline due to the fact that the rules are more flexible.
In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of single-sex public education in the 1996 case of United States v. Virginia. This ruling, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concluded that single-sex education in the public sector is constitutional only if comparable courses, services, and facilities are made available to both sexes. The No Child Left Behind Act contains provisions (sections 5131.a.23. and 5131c, 20 U.S.C. section 7215(a)(23), and section 7215(c)) designed by their authors — senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) — to facilitate single-sex education in public schools. These provisions led to the publication of new federal rules in October 2006 to allow districts to create single-sex schools and classes provided that 1) enrollment is voluntary, and 2) comparable courses, services, and facilities are available to both sexes. The number of public schools offering single-sex classrooms rose from 4 in 1998 to 540 in 2010, according to the web site of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education.
Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University sponsored a nationwide survey conducted by Knowledge Networks in early 2008. According to the survey, "more than one-third of Americans feel parents should have the option of sending their child to a single-sex school."
Gender Segregation in American History
In the United States, gender segregation in schools was initially a product of an era when traditional gender roles categorically determined scholastic, professional, and social opportunities based on sex. For instance, leading experts supported gender segregation in higher education because they considered it “to be dangerous and inappropriate for women. Experts claimed that scientific evidence established that women were physically and temperamentally not suited to the rigors of the academy . . . . Separate education for men and women paralleled the separate spheres that each was expected to occupy.” Furthermore, colleges and universities did not consider female applicants until the second half of the nineteenth century when the women’s rights movement began advocating for gender equality. In response to social progression “at the turn of the twentieth century, educators, particularly those in the South, fiercely resisted coeducation in elite all-male colleges, and ‘most of the Ivy League institutions would drag their feet well into the twentieth century before becoming coeducational.”
Importance of History and Culture in Single-Sex Education Determinations
Girls and boys segregation in schools is definitive of a sex-based classification, and, thus, it must be supported by an “exceedingly persuasive justification” to pass constitutional muster. In light of this requisite standard, the legality of single-sex educational institutions depends on the accuracy of underlying assumptions and support. Accordingly, it is important to be aware that a majority of research used to advocate the benefits of single-sex education is cloaked in uncertainty. Specifically, proponents “who want to build a case for single-sex education usually draw on . . . uncontrolled studies, small samples, and anecdotal evidence; the positive findings are repeated but are not analyzed.” Alternatively, opponents of single-sex education are able to gather tangible support from observable patterns of pervasive gender inequality in other social contexts.
The diversity of opinions that concurrently support gender segregation in education creates a complex and fragmented dynamic. The miscellany of proponents includes: conservatives emphasizing innate gender differences, traditionalists favoring rigid gender roles, democrats striving to remedy past discrimination, progressives promoting diversity in academic choices, and feminists championing exclusively female support systems. Because the coalition of proponents consists of parties with dissimilar interests, the body of “educational research regarding the efficacy of single-sex schools is mixed at best.” Moreover, advocates tend to bolster their respective positions by emphasizing specific aspects of educational research without addressing the remaining “array of evidence regarding institutions, structures, and processes that construct views on gender and equality.” Although educational research supporting gender segregation in schools is rife with ambiguity, “the social research is absolutely clear that separation on the basis of identity characteristics creates feelings of individual inadequacy and instills beliefs about group hierarchy.”
Studies used to make policy or legal arguments in the current debate over single-sex education narrowly “look only at the slice of the social picture that schooling represents.” An informed assessment regarding the appropriate role of gender segregation in contemporary and future education developments requires contemplation of potential implications beyond the direct, internal, and immediate influences that single-sex schools stand to exert on students. It is undeniable that gender inequality exists, consciously or not, in contemporary social, professional, and domestic hierarchies or relationships. Indeed, "[g]ender separatism is so pervasive that it is almost invisible. It is woven into the fabric of our daily social routines.” Vestiges of past gender segregation and its connotations throughout American history validate questions concerning the likely effects of
Single-Sex Education's Impact on Female Citizens' Civil Rights
Assessing the current single-sex education debate through a broad lens realizes contextual factors that effectively constitute the crux of the issue. Most discussions regarding the potential effects of single-sex education characterize future students of such institutions as the sole beneficiaries of resulting impacts. An appropriate assessment, however, considers contextual implications and realizes that female citizens as a class will be the true beneficiaries if single-sex education developments reach fruition.
If the multitude of diverging interests that influence the single-sex education dispute were distilled, the core concern of the discussion asks whether single-sex education will help remedy past gender discrimination or not. In sum,
[Gender] separatism originated in beliefs about innate differences between women and men in inclinations and abilities, sentiments that comported with ‘widely held views about women’s proper place.’ The existence of segregated higher education was itself, for centuries, a critical factor in the limitation of women’s professional opportunities.
The implications of reviving single-sex education in America could further erode outdated sex stereotypes and, thereby, facilitate gender equality in other social contexts. Incorporating the national history of gender segregation allows all sides to balance specious benefits of future students against the potential regression of gender equality in America. Regardless of the outcome, female citizens will bear the brunt of effects and either reap the reward of societal progression or bear the burden of continued inequity.
- Riordan, C. (2009). The Effects of Single Sex Schools: Alced. Argentina
- C. Riordan (2011). The Value of Single Sex Education: Twenty Five Years of High Quality Research, Third International Congress of the European Association for Single Sex Education, Warsaw, Poland.
- Eliot, Lise (2011-08-18). "Single-Sex Education and the Brain". Sex Roles. 69 (7–8): 363–381. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0037-y. ISSN 0360-0025.
- U.S. Department of Education, "Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review" (Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2005)
- Riordan, C. (2007). The Effects of Single Sex Schools: What Do We Know? Building Gender-Sensitive Schools: First International Congress on Single Sex Education. Barcelona
- Riordan, C., Faddis, B., Beam, M, Seager, A., Tanney, A., DiBiase R., Ruffin M., Valentine, J. (2008). Early Implementation of Public Single-Sex Schools: Perceptions and Characteristics. Washington D.C.
- Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., McInerney, D. M., Green, J. Young People's Interpersonal Relationships and Academic and Nonacademic Outcomes: Scoping the Relative Salience of Teachers, Parents, Same-Sex Peers, and Opposite Sex Peers. Teachers College Record. March 23, 2009, 1-6.
- Sax, Linda (March 2009). "Women Graduates of Single-Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in their Characteristics and the Transition to College" (PDF).
- Halpern, Diane F.; et al. (2011). "The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling". Science. 333 (6050): 1706–1707. doi:10.1126/science.1205031. PMID 21940879.
- "DIFERENCIADA.org". Retrieved 2014-11-04.
- Park, Hyunjoon; Behrman, Jere R.; Choi, Jaesung (2012-01-01). "Causal Effects of Single-Sex Schools on College Entrance Exams and College Attendance: Random Assignment in Seoul High Schools". PSC Working Paper Series – via University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons.
- Pahlke, Erin; Hyde, Janet Shibley; Allison, Carlie M. (2014-07-01). "The effects of single-sex compared with coeducational schooling on students' performance and attitudes: A meta-analysis.". Psychological Bulletin. 140 (4): 1042–1072. doi:10.1037/a0035740. ISSN 1939-1455. PMID 24491022.
- Riordan, Cornelius, Schools, Single-Sex. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. 2015.
- "Australian Bureau of Statistics". Retrieved 2007-08-17.
- "Our Children". Smile Foundation. Retrieved 2011-12-29.
- Divya A (2008-11-09). "Same-sex classrooms a problem or solution?". The Times of India. Retrieved 2015-01-16.
- AdventureDivas: IRAN: Groundwork
- "Flickor och pojkar i skolan - hur jämställt är det?" (PDF) (in Swedish). Government of Sweden. 2009. p. 140. Retrieved 29 January 2015.
- Gunhild Kyle (1972). Svensk flickskola under 1800-talet. Göteborg: Kvinnohistoriskt arkiv. ISBN
- "Single-sex schooling - Centre for Longitudinal Studies". 2013-05-31. Retrieved 2014-11-04.
- Sullivan, A.; Joshi, H.; Leonard, D. (2010). "'Single-sex Schooling and Academic Attainment at School and through the Lifecourse'". American Educational Research Journal. 47 (1): 6–36. doi:10.3102/0002831209350106.
- Sullivan, A. 2009. ‘Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling’ British Educational Research Journal 35(2) 259-288
- Sullivan, A.; Joshi, H.; Leonard, D. (2011). "Single-sex schooling and labour market outcomes". Oxford Review of Education. 37 (3): 311–322. doi:10.1080/03054985.2010.545194.
- Sex Segregation in Education. Encyclopedia of Women and Gender. 2001.
- Diana Jean Schemo (2006-10-25). "Correction Appended". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
- "Single-sex education: the pros and cons". GreatSchools. Retrieved 2014-11-04.
- Valorjie K. Vojdik, Girls’ Schools After VMI: Do They Make the Grade?, 4 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 69, 84 (1997).
- See Nancy Levit, Separating Equals: Educational Research and the Long-Term Consequences of Sex Segregation, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 451, 514 (1999) (discussing historical lack of collegiate opportunities for women).
- Id. at 515 (noting societal reluctance towards implementation of coeducation). See also Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, The Myths and Justifications of Sex Segregation in Higher Education: VMI and the Citadel, 4 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 101, 118 n. 150 ("Columbia . . . remained all-male until 1983. Yale and Princeton became coeducational in 1969, followed in 1972 by Brown and Dartmouth, and Harvard in 1976.")
- J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (1994) (exercising stricter standard of review for sex-based classifications).
- See Katharine T. Bartlett et al., Gender and Law 2 (6th ed. 2013) (discussing legitimacy of sex-based classifications).
- Id. at 503 ("The touted ‘general consensus’ about positive education and socialization effects of single-sex education simply does not exist.")
- Id. (noting proponents’ refusal to rely on up-to-date studies).
- See Nancy Levit, Separating Equals: Educational Research and the Long-Term Consequences of Sex Segregation, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 451, 514 (1999). According to Levit, "Supporters of single-sex education talk about the subject as if it were an isolated matter . . . without the recognition of either how pervasive sex segregation is in other contexts or the historical and cultural connotations attached to segregation. Those who favor single-sex education argue that we can vest it with new meaning. This myopic optimism ignores the history, social meaning, and impact of segregation." Id. See also Lucinda M. Finley, Sex-Blind Nation? The Uneasy Legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson for Sex and Gender Discrimination, 12 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1089, 1103-04 (1996) (explaining that "separate never really means equal. All-girls schools usually have fewer academic offerings . . . . Women’s sports events frequently offer less prize money.")
- See Nancy Levit, Separating Equals: Educational Research and the Long-Term Consequences of Sex Segregation, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 451, 452-53 (1999) (detailing rationales of varied proponents).
- Id. at 454.
- See Nancy Levit, Separating Equals: Educational Research and the Long-Term Consequences of Sex Segregation, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 451, 511 (1999).
- Id. (“The contextual backdrop is missing from the single-sex education debate . . . The studies themselves, and those persons using the studies to make political and legal arguments, fail to consider the social context of gender education.”)
- Id. (discussing importance of potential impact on existing gender inequalities). Specifically, “[t]he dimension of sociological evidence regarding sex-exclusivity that is often overlooked in the single-sex schools debate is the very obvious fact of pervasive and persistent sex segregation in all aspects of daily living.” Id.
- Id. at 454 (recognizing that current discourse fails to consider "the wider body of social science data concerning the role of sex segregation itself in the formation of gender role attitudes").
- Id. (“The American tradition of sex-exclusivity in public education is a legacy that is tied inextricably to the exclusion of women from public and professional life.”)
- See Nancy Levit, Separating Equals: Educational Research and the Long-Term Consequences of Sex Segregation, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 451, 454 (1999).
- Id. “In determining whether sex-exclusive education will remedy existing educational disparities for girls or will aggravate a system of sex role stereotyping, courts must consider the historical and social meaning of sex segregation in American education.” Id.
- Id. (“Supporters assume that we can vest single-sex education with new social meaning. What they overlook, though, is the cultural significance that attaches to the relentless sex segregation in all other areas of life.”)
- Single-sex Schools for Girls and Gender Equality, UNESCO Brief, 2007
- Single sex environments and gender differences in risk aversion