All girls school benefit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The old argument was that girls in coed schools were denied leadership opportunities and were silenced in the classroom. That is just no longer true in the independent schools around here. Girls are leaders in these schools in all areas.

In spite of girls being the clear leaders in and out of the classroom, our experience was that boys' needs sucked all of the energy and attention from teachers and the administration. School days were dominated by boy drama at recess, boy behaviors during class, boy disruptions, etc. And no, teachers weren't holding them to "girl" standards- because of specific grants our school had won, our administration worked hard to address the issue with a counseling team, developmental experts, etc., and boys were given a structure and culture that really favored their needs, but that only seemed to make their behavior worse.

I saw a long time ago on dcum that boys would best thrive in either the strictest of settings and/or in a setting that emphasized physical work. I think many boys need the equivalent of Deep Springs, but for elementary and middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worth it. Will get worse in middle school. Read Carol Gilligan In a Different Voice. Girls start silencing themselves around boys. Best to move before middle school.

When I was going through this decision-making process, I read a ton of academic research in an attempt to take the emotion and reactive response out of it. There are a few studies, including a big one from the UK (where there are more single-sex schools across all regions and socioeconomic groups) that have shown co-ed is best for boys and worst for girls. And single-sex is best for girls. Single-sex is worst for boys.

After I read that, it validated my sense that in my DD's private co-ed k-8, boys' emotional development and education came at the expense of that of girls, regardless of the structure or priorities of the school.

It’s important to distinguish between elite all-boys schools and general boys’ schools. The advantages seen in some boys’ schools aren’t just about having only boys—they come from elite selection, high resources, strong culture, and mentoring practices that say, “we’re the best of the best.”  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01614681231194418?icid=int.sj-full-text.citing-articles.1&utm_source=chatgpt.com

In contrast, average single-sex boys’ schools don’t consistently outperform co‑ed peers, and many boys actually thrive more in mixed settings. Since our son is attending a “top-tier” all-boys school—not a general population one—we believe it offers benefits above and beyond what co‑ed could provide. But if the only option were a general population school, we’d much prefer co‑ed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The old argument was that girls in coed schools were denied leadership opportunities and were silenced in the classroom. That is just no longer true in the independent schools around here. Girls are leaders in these schools in all areas.

In spite of girls being the clear leaders in and out of the classroom, our experience was that boys' needs sucked all of the energy and attention from teachers and the administration. School days were dominated by boy drama at recess, boy behaviors during class, boy disruptions, etc. And no, teachers weren't holding them to "girl" standards- because of specific grants our school had won, our administration worked hard to address the issue with a counseling team, developmental experts, etc., and boys were given a structure and culture that really favored their needs, but that only seemed to make their behavior worse.

I saw a long time ago on dcum that boys would best thrive in either the strictest of settings and/or in a setting that emphasized physical work. I think many boys need the equivalent of Deep Springs, but for elementary and middle school.

I totally agree with this. The reality is the approaches that really motivate boys—structured challenge, blunt accountability, even a little tough talk—just don’t work the same way in co-ed settings. In an all-boys environment, you can say something like “What’s your problem, man? Get it together,” and it lands hard but still supportive. In a co-ed classroom, with girls listening, it just reads differently.

Boys also need room to push limits, go a little wild, take risks—and then learn how to reel it back in on a dime. That’s actually a skill in itself. But you can’t really allow that kind of energy in co-ed without it swallowing the whole environment and draining time and attention away from the girls. And even when schools try to manage it with counseling teams and boy-focused programs, it often just feeds the drama and still sucks all the oxygen from the room.

This is exactly why elite, well-curated all-boys schools can work so well. They’re designed to channel that energy in positive ways without hurting anyone else’s learning. But for me, it’s also crucial that even in an all-boys school, there are women in leadership. I wouldn’t send my sons anywhere they didn’t see strong female authority modeled too. So I’m glad they had co-ed elementary years, but for middle and high school, they’re going to an elite all-boys institution. We’d never choose a “general population” boys’ school—if the choice were between that and co-ed, we’d pick co-ed every time. But in the right, well-run boys’ school, all that boy energy that’s disruptive in co-ed can actually be shaped into something really positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The old argument was that girls in coed schools were denied leadership opportunities and were silenced in the classroom. That is just no longer true in the independent schools around here. Girls are leaders in these schools in all areas.

In spite of girls being the clear leaders in and out of the classroom, our experience was that boys' needs sucked all of the energy and attention from teachers and the administration. School days were dominated by boy drama at recess, boy behaviors during class, boy disruptions, etc. And no, teachers weren't holding them to "girl" standards- because of specific grants our school had won, our administration worked hard to address the issue with a counseling team, developmental experts, etc., and boys were given a structure and culture that really favored their needs, but that only seemed to make their behavior worse.

I saw a long time ago on dcum that boys would best thrive in either the strictest of settings and/or in a setting that emphasized physical work. I think many boys need the equivalent of Deep Springs, but for elementary and middle school.

I totally agree with this. The reality is the approaches that really motivate boys—structured challenge, blunt accountability, even a little tough talk—just don’t work the same way in co-ed settings. In an all-boys environment, you can say something like “What’s your problem, man? Get it together,” and it lands hard but still supportive. In a co-ed classroom, with girls listening, it just reads differently.

Boys also need room to push limits, go a little wild, take risks—and then learn how to reel it back in on a dime. That’s actually a skill in itself. But you can’t really allow that kind of energy in co-ed without it swallowing the whole environment and draining time and attention away from the girls. And even when schools try to manage it with counseling teams and boy-focused programs, it often just feeds the drama and still sucks all the oxygen from the room.

This is exactly why elite, well-curated all-boys schools can work so well. They’re designed to channel that energy in positive ways without hurting anyone else’s learning. But for me, it’s also crucial that even in an all-boys school, there are women in leadership. I wouldn’t send my sons anywhere they didn’t see strong female authority modeled too. So I’m glad they had co-ed elementary years, but for middle and high school, they’re going to an elite all-boys institution. We’d never choose a “general population” boys’ school—if the choice were between that and co-ed, we’d pick co-ed every time. But in the right, well-run boys’ school, all that boy energy that’s disruptive in co-ed can actually be shaped into something really positive.

The bolded nails it. Our school actually tried that in a very deliberate way and it was a massive failure that eventually led to multiple teachers quitting and huge retention issues for girls that year. School even sent an email in April of that year addressing the problems but it was too little, too late. Most boy families were very happy with the atmosphere that year, though.

[Anonymous]

DD did single sex for HS. She absolutely love it. DS is in co-ed but I'm seriously looking at single sex options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found that the boys only get worse with age due to a massive maturity gap. It's especially bad in grade 4. We're moving to an all girls school next year and DD can't wait. We also think she will thrive.

Yeah, I agree. In open-admission public schools, the maturity gap with boys really shows by 3rd–5th grade and can drag the whole environment down.

I may be odd, but I think something similar applies to girls too—they do better in a setting tailored to them. And of course, less mature boys in the mix make it even harder for girls to thrive.

That’s why we chose an all-boys school for middle/high school. You just can’t do real boy formation work—or the same for girls—at full strength in a co-ed environment.

WTH is “real boy formation work?” And why are you looking for any school to accomplish that?

Is this a serious question?

So you don't know either?

+1. Yes, it's a serious question. Are you so negligent on your parenting responsibilities that you need to find a school that will "form" your "real boy?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found that the boys only get worse with age due to a massive maturity gap. It's especially bad in grade 4. We're moving to an all girls school next year and DD can't wait. We also think she will thrive.

Yeah, I agree. In open-admission public schools, the maturity gap with boys really shows by 3rd–5th grade and can drag the whole environment down.

I may be odd, but I think something similar applies to girls too—they do better in a setting tailored to them. And of course, less mature boys in the mix make it even harder for girls to thrive.

That’s why we chose an all-boys school for middle/high school. You just can’t do real boy formation work—or the same for girls—at full strength in a co-ed environment.

WTH is “real boy formation work?” And why are you looking for any school to accomplish that?

Is this a serious question?

So you don't know either?

+1. Yes, it's a serious question. Are you so negligent on your parenting responsibilities that you need to find a school that will "form" your "real boy?"

Honestly, that “negligent parenting” jab is part of the problem. When boys are bold, physical, impulsive—even obnoxious at times—people act like it’s a moral failing on the parents’ part. But these are natural masculine traits that, in almost every other point in history, weren’t just tolerated but valued—even necessary for survival. The point isn’t to stamp those traits out or make boys behave like stereotypical girls. It’s to shape them. Boys need to learn how to be good as boys—rambunctious but controlled, confident but humble, adventurous but responsible. And the hard truth is most boys simply don’t have the maturity to consistently meet the behavioral standard of their female peers. That’s a battle they’re going to lose if “good” only ever means sitting still, staying neat, endlessly agreeable, and quiet.

Could a co-ed school pull this off? Maybe—but it would create as many problems as it solves. Some parents of girls would see the discipline as too harsh or controlling, while others would see it as too permissive and disruptive. And there are tactics boys respond to—blunt correction, hard-but-supportive accountability—that just don’t land the same way in a co-ed classroom. Plus, co-ed schools, especially big ones, become more gendered anyway—girls drift toward yearbook and student government, boys toward robotics or sports. In a good all-boys school, everything—arts, academics, athletics, leadership—is done by boys. They don’t grow up thinking “this is girl stuff” and “this is boy stuff.”

What’s ironic is that if you actually listen to the complaints young women have about young men (yes, heteronormative here), it’s rarely that they’re too confident or too outspoken. It’s the opposite—they lack confidence, initiative, presence. So it’s not that they’re “too masculine.” It’s that they’re often not man enough. That’s the reality.

And this is why curated all-boys schools can be so valuable. They take the same energy that can be disruptive in a co-ed setting and channel it into something constructive. They give boys a space to develop on their own terms without constantly losing a battle they’re not ready to win—and without draining all the oxygen away from the girls. That’s why my sons will go to an elite all-boys school for the middle and high school years—one with strong male and female leadership. We’d never send them to just any boys’ school; if the choice were between a “general population” boys’ school and co-ed, we’d choose co-ed. But the right, well-run boys’ school? It’s the best of both worlds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found that the boys only get worse with age due to a massive maturity gap. It's especially bad in grade 4. We're moving to an all girls school next year and DD can't wait. We also think she will thrive.

Yeah, I agree. In open-admission public schools, the maturity gap with boys really shows by 3rd–5th grade and can drag the whole environment down.

I may be odd, but I think something similar applies to girls too—they do better in a setting tailored to them. And of course, less mature boys in the mix make it even harder for girls to thrive.

That’s why we chose an all-boys school for middle/high school. You just can’t do real boy formation work—or the same for girls—at full strength in a co-ed environment.

WTH is “real boy formation work?” And why are you looking for any school to accomplish that?

Is this a serious question?

So you don't know either?

+1. Yes, it's a serious question. Are you so negligent on your parenting responsibilities that you need to find a school that will "form" your "real boy?"

Honestly, that “negligent parenting” jab is part of the problem. When boys are bold, physical, impulsive—even obnoxious at times—people act like it’s a moral failing on the parents’ part. But these are natural masculine traits that, in almost every other point in history, weren’t just tolerated but valued—even necessary for survival. The point isn’t to stamp those traits out or make boys behave like stereotypical girls. It’s to shape them. Boys need to learn how to be good as boys—rambunctious but controlled, confident but humble, adventurous but responsible. And the hard truth is most boys simply don’t have the maturity to consistently meet the behavioral standard of their female peers. That’s a battle they’re going to lose if “good” only ever means sitting still, staying neat, endlessly agreeable, and quiet.

Could a co-ed school pull this off? Maybe—but it would create as many problems as it solves. Some parents of girls would see the discipline as too harsh or controlling, while others would see it as too permissive and disruptive. And there are tactics boys respond to—blunt correction, hard-but-supportive accountability—that just don’t land the same way in a co-ed classroom. Plus, co-ed schools, especially big ones, become more gendered anyway—girls drift toward yearbook and student government, boys toward robotics or sports. In a good all-boys school, everything—arts, academics, athletics, leadership—is done by boys. They don’t grow up thinking “this is girl stuff” and “this is boy stuff.”

What’s ironic is that if you actually listen to the complaints young women have about young men (yes, heteronormative here), it’s rarely that they’re too confident or too outspoken. It’s the opposite—they lack confidence, initiative, presence. So it’s not that they’re “too masculine.” It’s that they’re often not man enough. That’s the reality.

And this is why curated all-boys schools can be so valuable. They take the same energy that can be disruptive in a co-ed setting and channel it into something constructive. They give boys a space to develop on their own terms without constantly losing a battle they’re not ready to win—and without draining all the oxygen away from the girls. That’s why my sons will go to an elite all-boys school for the middle and high school years—one with strong male and female leadership. We’d never send them to just any boys’ school; if the choice were between a “general population” boys’ school and co-ed, we’d choose co-ed. But the right, well-run boys’ school? It’s the best of both worlds.

+a million, this is a perfect explanation of why we have one of each sex in single sex high schools. Thank you for writing all this out it’s an awesome way to discuss the intangibles in single vs co-ed education.