IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v35y2013i8p1174-1181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Providing new opportunities or reinforcing old stereotypes? Perceptions and experiences of single-sex public education

Author

Listed:
  • Goodkind, Sara
  • Schelbe, Lisa
  • Joseph, Andrea A.
  • Beers, Daphne E.
  • Pinsky, Stephanie L.

Abstract

There has been a widespread increase in single-sex public schooling in the U.S. following 2006 changes to the Department of Education regulations motivated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Single-sex public schooling is viewed as a means to improve the educational experiences and performance of low-income youth of color. Yet little is known about its effects and efficacy, particularly for these populations. This article is based on a community-based participatory research project, on which high school students and university researchers collaborated, conducted in a low-income, African American high school implementing single-sex courses. Our findings challenge proponents' key assumptions that single-sex education will improve the academic achievement of low-income youth of color by 1) eliminating distraction from the other sex; 2) addressing the different learning styles of girls and boys; and 3) remedying inequities by offering these youth opportunities traditionally afforded to more privileged youth. While some distractions were decreased, others were increased or ignored; racialized stereotypes of hypersexuality and essentialized notions of gender were reinforced; and students felt punished rather than privileged by being separated by sex. We conclude that single-sex education as a public school option is a neoliberal approach to addressing low achievement that deflects attention from the structural inequities that created the problem and implicitly blames those experiencing oppression.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodkind, Sara & Schelbe, Lisa & Joseph, Andrea A. & Beers, Daphne E. & Pinsky, Stephanie L., 2013. "Providing new opportunities or reinforcing old stereotypes? Perceptions and experiences of single-sex public education," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1174-1181.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:35:y:2013:i:8:p:1174-1181
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740913001205
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Billger, Sherrilyn M., 2009. "On reconstructing school segregation: The efficacy and equity of single-sex schooling," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 393-402, June.
    2. Ramey, Jessie B., 2013. "For the public good: Urban youth advocacy and the fight for public education," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1260-1267.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Massimo Anelli & Giovanni Peri, 2019. "The Effects of High School Peers’ Gender on College Major, College Performance and Income," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(618), pages 553-602.
    2. Seul-Ki Kim & Young-Chul Kim, 2021. "Coed vs Single-Sex Schooling: An Empirical Study on Mental Health Outcomes," Working Papers 2103, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    3. Doris, Aedín & O’Neill, Donal & Sweetman, Olive, 2013. "Gender, single-sex schooling and maths achievement," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 104-119.
    4. Schneeweis, Nicole & Zweimüller, Martina, 2012. "Girls, girls, girls: Gender composition and female school choice," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 482-500.
    5. Anelli, Massimo & Peri, Giovanni, 2015. "Peers' Composition Effects in the Short and in the Long Run: College Major, College Performance and Income," IZA Discussion Papers 9119, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Gijsbert Stoet & Drew H Bailey & Alex M Moore & David C Geary, 2016. "Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, April.
    7. Justman, Moshe & Méndez, Susan J., 2018. "Gendered choices of STEM subjects for matriculation are not driven by prior differences in mathematical achievement," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 282-297.
    8. Park, Hyunjoon & Behrman, Jere R. & Choi, Jaesung, 2018. "Do single-sex schools enhance students’ STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) outcomes?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 35-47.
    9. Kamal, Zahra, 2021. "Gender separation and academic achievement in higher education: Evidence from a natural experiment in Iran," BERG Working Paper Series 171, Bamberg University, Bamberg Economic Research Group.
    10. Emily McDool & Damon Morris, 2020. "Gender and Socio-Economic Differences in STEM Uptake and Attainment," CVER Research Papers 029, Centre for Vocational Education Research.
    11. Willi Leibfritz & Rolf Horst Dumke & Albert Müller & Wolfgang Ochel & Michael Reutter & Frank Westermann, 2001. "Fiscal Policy and the European Stability and Growth Pact: Between macroeconomic necessities and economic- and fiscal-policy requirements," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 5.
    12. Benoît Rapoport & Claire Thibout, 2016. "Why Do Boys and Girls Make Different Educational Choices? The Influence of Expected Earnings and Test Scores," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2016n01, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    13. Strain, Michael R., 2013. "Single-sex classes & student outcomes: Evidence from North Carolina," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 73-87.
    14. Susanne Link, 2013. "Institutional Determinants of Student Achievement - Microeconometric Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 50.
    15. Massimo Anelli & Giovanni Peri, 2013. "Peer Gender Composition and Choice of College Major," NBER Working Papers 18744, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Susanne Link, 2012. "Single-Sex Schooling and Student Performance: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from South Korea," ifo Working Paper Series 146, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:35:y:2013:i:8:p:1174-1181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.