Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
[b]Aside: please don't call it "single gender education."[\b]

Not the OP, but why not?

np here. because it is inaccurate. it's single-sex education. Sex is "do you have a penis or a vagina." Gender is "do you wear a dress or pants." There is no such thing as single-gender education.

Many women's colleges offer admissions to MtF transexuals. I would describe that as single gender education.

Most girl's schools at the K - 12 level are actually single sex, not single gender.

I am close friends with an Ed.D. who is the head of a private, co-ed, K-8 school (not in this area). When I was going through the search process for my daughter's school, he told me that research has identified Middle School girls as the only segment of school-aged kids, male and female, that realize any benefit from single-gender schooling (and that it's very slight).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conventional wisdom is that single sex is better for boys in the middle school time period (wiggliness, inability to sit still/focus as much) and better for girls in high school (self-silencing, boys dominating class discussion).

As others have said, much depends on your child's personality and of course on the specific school and what they do with the single sex element.

I'm just starting to consider an all boys school for my son who will be entering K next year. He's socially immature but academically ready.
I was thinking that if I could find an all boys class he might be on par with the other boys and not compared against more mature girls.

To my knowledge there are not any boys schools that start in K.

Mater Dei in Bethesda starts in 1st grade. The Heights in 3rd, St Anslems in 6th, Landon in 3rd, St Albans in 4th, Georgetown Prep in 9th and Gonzaga in 9th.

We went to one of the above schools and found it very beneficial for DS. It gave the boys a chance to act like themselves in the classroom and not try to impress the girls especially if it was something that would be perceived as not cool. (art, music, understanding history etc)


There was plenty of time and opportunities for the boys to interact with girls outside of school.

Anonymous wrote:The conventional wisdom is that single sex is better for boys in the middle school time period (wiggliness, inability to sit still/focus as much) and better for girls in high school (self-silencing, boys dominating class discussion).

As others have said, much depends on your child's personality and of course on the specific school and what they do with the single sex element.

I'm just starting to consider an all boys school for my son who will be entering K next year. He's socially immature but academically ready.
I was thinking that if I could find an all boys class he might be on par with the other boys and not compared against more mature girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
[b]Aside: please don't call it "single gender education."[\b]

Not the OP, but why not?

np here. because it is inaccurate. it's single-sex education. Sex is "do you have a penis or a vagina." Gender is "do you wear a dress or pants." There is no such thing as single-gender education.

I like your simple definition. I will be using it!

OP, there have been many other threads on this.
Some corporate studies for women have shown that many of the women who have risen to the top of corporate empires have gone to single-sex schools and learned leadership there. Or if not, they participated in team sports and/or girl scouts.

For boys, someone mentioned here that AA boys, in particular, tend to benefit greatly from single-sexed schools.

My husband and I both went to single-sex high schools and our dd went to Holton from grade 7-12.

We all benefited from our experiences. Perhaps others may not find the same benefits. So, I do think it depends on the individual. I am a feminist and I want girls to do the best they possibly can. I think a lot of girls learn great skills from single-sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
[b]Aside: please don't call it "single gender education."[\b]

Not the OP, but why not?

np here. because it is inaccurate. it's single-sex education. Sex is "do you have a penis or a vagina." Gender is "do you wear a dress or pants." There is no such thing as single-gender education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
[b]Aside: please don't call it "single gender education."[\b]

Not the OP, but why not?

I think it's rooted in the confusion between the definitions of sex and gender.

I went to an all-girls school that had a "brother" school. In my experience, single-sex education has a lot to offer girls, but isn't always so beneficial to boys (at least at the high school level).

I felt like having a school focused on us really built girls' self-esteem; it seemed like the (predominantly white, predominantly wealthy) boys at our brother school already had enough self-esteem & could stand to learn some humility.

OTOH, there've been some who have suggested low-income African-American boys might particularly benefit from a single-sex environment, and I can see that.

Anonymous wrote:
[b]Aside: please don't call it "single gender education."[\b]

Not the OP, but why not?

I went to an all girls school from 7-12 and my husband went to an all boys school from 9-12. We both agree that single-sex education is better for girls.

Aside: please don't call it "single gender education."

The conventional wisdom is that single sex is better for boys in the middle school time period (wiggliness, inability to sit still/focus as much) and better for girls in high school (self-silencing, boys dominating class discussion).

As others have said, much depends on your child's personality and of course on the specific school and what they do with the single sex element.

I went to a coed school until 8th grade, then an all-girls school for high school, and then back to coed for college. Even by 8th grade there was starting to be a dynamic of boys dominating the classroom discussions, and girls just kind of sitting there not raising their hands. In high school, the girls at my school seemed to flourish in the classroom (many of them I had known from my previous school) and I believe it was because of the same-sex thing. They weren't afraid to get an answer wrong in front of a classroom of only girls, for example. When I went to college, I noticed most of my classes had that same dynamic of boys taking the lead, and girls not participating as much. I think because of my same-sex education in high school, I felt very comfortable speaking/answering/debating things in class. I feel it's served me well professionally, too.

There has been very little solid research on this, and the answer is probably that it depends on the individual and it can change at different times and ages. The only research I found a while back was a smallish study that indicated girls learning tended to be negatively affected in a predominantly male environment, while boys learning was not negatively affected in a predominantly female situation. This doesn't mean routine co- ed, but skewed to one gender or the other.
If others can scare up better studies, ease share links.
That said, I'm guessing all girls school these days are more empowering for girls than they were 40 years ago.
Are you looking for personal experiences, opinions or research?

I don't want this thread to be about whether single gender education is better than coed. I'd prefer to hear only from those who believe that single gender education is better for at least one gender.

Does single gender education benefit boys more? Girls more? Both genders equally? Why?

What grades are the most important to have your DC in a single gender environment? Early years? High school? Middle school?

Thanks in advance.