Copyright Karen Clement, May 2004. Submitted 10:00pm CST.

Despite the leaps made in gender equity over the past few decades, sexual discrimination continues to hinder female achievement in school and work. In the workplace, female degree-holders still earn $20,000 less than their male counterparts (Sadker, 1999). This workforce inequity can be traced to gender bias in university and high school (Sadker; Woolfolk, Winne & Perry, 2003). Unsurprisingly, some parents believe that single-sex education provides their daughters with more post-secondary opportunities. Research on gender equity seems to support this growing public sentiment (Sadker; Cowley & Easton, 2004; Woolfolk et al). While reduced gender bias contributes to the success of female-only schools, gender equity is not the sole factor behind its effectiveness. Other influences include personalized instruction, high academic standards, and smaller class size. By exploring these factors and reviewing the results of some Lower Mainland schools, this paper demonstrates how female-only environments deliver a more equitable education than their coed counterparts.

Studies on class interaction show strong male dominance in the classroom (Sadker; Woolfolk et al). A 1996 study by Stumpf & Stanley indicates a positive correlation between academic performance in males and the male-female participation ratio. In areas like Computer Science, where male participation is high, female performance suffers. In fact, Stumpf & Stanley observed that female performance decreased as female participation decreased, contrary to their expectations of high achievement. One proposed rationale is that schools perpetuate gender stereotyping, resulting in learned helplessness and stereotype threat in females, especially in male-dominant subjects (Stumpf & Stanley; Woolfolk et al). In a female-only environment, gender bias would be one less concern in cultivating female interest in math, science, and technology.

Minimal gender bias is not the only reason why all-girl schools are highly lauded. It also seems that the size of single-sex schools make them better equipped to deliver cultural relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995, cited in Woolfolk et al). As an indirect result of gender restriction, single-sex schools maintain smaller class sizes and larger teacher-student ratios. Smaller student populations facilitate personalized instruction and teacher attention, which have been shown to enhance student performance (Sadker). In addition, preselection vehicles such as entrance exams help administrators identify candidates with demonstrated academic ability. The high academic standard of the school is introduced through the entrance exam, and is reinforced throughout student life, resulting in more academically focussed graduates.

Local secondary school results also offer compelling evidence for the effectiveness of female-only environments. From the Fraser Institute’s 2004 provincial ranking of 279 BC high schools (Cowley & Easton), of the five receiving the maximum score of 10/10, three are all-girl schools with longstanding records of academic achievement: Crofton House, York House, and Little Flower Academy (LFA). LFA’s 2003 senior class achieved a 100% graduation rate with 91% of students attaining Provincial Honours (Cowley & Easton; Little Flower Academy, 2004). At York House, graduates are often accepted into their choice of university, with almost 100% of graduates pursuing post-secondary studies (York House School, n.d.). Crofton House students consistently obtain above-average scores in provincial examinations (Cowley & Easton; Crofton House School, 2004), with more than 50% of graduating students obtaining Provincial scholarships. In light of these statistics, it is hard to dismiss the effectiveness of single-sex education.

Although all-girl schools seem to prepare female students better than a coed education, Sadker still described segregated schools as a bandaid solution. For Sadker, and for the rest of us, the goal of educational reform should be the creation of inclusive coed schools that discourage gender stereotyping.

REFERENCES

Cowley, Peter and Easton, Steven T. (March 2004). Report Card on British Columbia’s Secondary Schools: 2004 Edition. PDF file, retrieved March 19, 2004 from http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/ shared/ readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=639.

Crofton House School (2004). Crofton House Prospectus. PDF file, retrieved March 21, 2004 from http://www.croftonhouse.bc.ca/ croftonhouse/ admissn/Prospectus.pdf.

Little Flower Academy (2004). Little Flower Academy Website. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from http://www.lfabc.org.

Sadker, David (1999). Gender Equity: Still knocking at the classroom door. Educational Leadership (April 1999, pp 22-26).

Stumpf, Heinrich & Stanley, Julian C. (1996). Gender-related differences on the College Board’s Advanced Placement and Achievement Tests, 1982-1992. Journal of Educational Psychology (88, 2, pp 353-364).

Woolfolk, A. E., Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2003). Educational psychology (2nd. Canadian ed.). Scarborough: Allyn and Bacon Canada.

York House School. York House School Quick Facts. Retrieved May 21, 2004 from http://www.yorkhouse.bc.ca/ index.cfm?fuseaction=whyChoose. quickFacts.