Issue 2, Feb 2001 (Back to Contents)

Andrew Reekes, Director of Studies, writes about single sex education.

It is a universal truth in matters educational that what is dismissed as unfashionable and reactionary becomes in time, by a circular process, the acme of contemporary thinking. So the last year has seen belated recognition in the maintained sector of the benefits of single sex teaching, with experiments in a number of coeducational schools in separately teaching boys and girls. The persistent dominance of single sex schools in the League Tables has forced this reappraisal, as has the widening gulf between girls and boys in published assessments. There has been much wild speculation about the onset of girl power and the demise of boys floundering in the slipstream of the opposite sex. Parents in independent schools had rumbled the value of such schools rather earlier, and they continue to generate strong demand, especially in the day market.

The tide in the boys' boarding schools flowed strongly towards coeducation in the 80s and 90s; it was remarkable how frequently newly found enthusiasm for the virtues of coeducation coincided with diminishing boy numbers. And there are strong arguments for coeducation; art, drama, music, debating can benefit from the mix, and there is a normality in boy/girl relations from the constant interaction. Academically, however, single sex schools have certain advantages, the greatest of which is the freedom to concentrate on work without inevitable distractions. As a solution to the underperformance of boys it is effective. Boys can be persuaded that it is not 'uncool' to work; the self conscious are prepared to venture opinions; and it is possible to generate amongst them in exam preparation the same collective competitive urge that they find in a sports team. They can be persuaded to read, use libraries, develop scholarly work habits. Boys react to the presence of girls in class in several ways: they can be unaffected, and be positively stimulated into discussion and debate; but they can become overly combative, or, alternatively fearful of failure withdraw to the margins and clam up. A single sex class simplifies matters, allows for a concentrated focus on the topic, and the predominance of these single sex schools in the League Tables suggests that here the focus is strong and sustained. A number of recent research works have demonstrated the improvement in boys' performances when separately taught.

It is arguable that this focus is reflected, too, on the games field. Only the single sex boys schools are now capable of putting out 4 or 5 teams at each age level in the major games; a number of famous sporting schools have ceased effectively to compete. To those unpersuaded of the merits of competitive sport this may be a matter of indifference, but it has been clearly registered by a part of the parental market for such schools, who continue to value widespread participation in sport for boys. It explains the continuing strong demand for places at Radley, for many parents see a school with a shape, ethos, purpose and broad curriculum they, especially the fathers who attended a similar place, recognise and all done pre-eminently well. For single sex schools allow their pupils to be educated without social pressures, yet, nowadays, with opportunities to meet, socialise, act and debate with, other schools. In many ways, it is the best of both worlds.