Publicly funded single-sex schooling (SSS) has proliferated in recent years and is touted as a remedy to gaps in academic attitudes and achievement, particularly for low-income students of color. Research on SSS is rife with limitations, stemming from selective admissions processes, selection effects related to socioeconomic status, a lack of ethnic diversity among students, and a neglect of boys’ schools. Addressing those concerns, the current study is a quasi-experimental investigation of the academic attitudes and achievement among 11th-grade low-income students of color enrolled in nonselective, urban neighborhood public single-sex and mixed-sex high schools. Students in SSS reported significantly more negative attitudes about English/reading compared to students in mixed-sex schools (MSS), while there were no differences in math or science attitudes. Data from standardized tests indicate that SSS was associated with poorer achievement among boys in reading and math but higher achievement among girls on math, science, reading, and writing.
BakerD. (2002). Good intentions: An experiment in middle school single-sex science and mathematics classrooms with high minority enrollment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 1–23.
2.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
3.
BiglerR. S.LibenL. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotypes and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 162–171.
4.
BraceyG. W. (2006). Separate but superior? A review of issues and data bearing on single-sex education. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Educational Policy Research Unit (EPRU).
5.
BrownC. S. (2013). Legal issues surrounding single-sex schools in the U.S.: Trends, court cases, and conflicting laws. Sex Roles, 69, 356–362.
6.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2007). Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
CrombieG.ArmstrongP. I. (1999). Effects of classroom gender composition on adolescents’ computer-related attitudes and future intentions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 217–327.
9.
EcclesJ. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–610.
10.
EliotL. (2011). Single-sex education and the brain. Sex Roles, 69, 363–381.
11.
FabesR. A.ShepardS. A.GuthrieI. K.MartinC. L. (1997). Roles of temperamental arousal and gender-segregated play in young children’s social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 693–702.
12.
FergusE.SciurbaK.MartinM.NogueraP. (2009). Single-sex schools for Black and Latino boys: An intervention in search of theory. In Motion Magazine. Retrieved from http://inmotionmagazine.com/er/fsmn_09.html
13.
FredricksJ. A.EcclesJ. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519–533.
14.
GoodkindS. (2013). Single-sex public education for low-income youth of color: A critical theoretical review. Sex Roles, 69, 393–402.
15.
GoodkindS.SchelbeL.JosephA. A.BeersD. E.PinskyS. L. (2013). Providing new opportunities or reinforcing old stereotypes? Perceptions and experiences of single-sex public education. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1174–1181.
16.
GurianM.HenleyP.TruemanT. (2001). Boys and girls learn differently! A guide for teachers and parents. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
17.
HaagP. (1998). Single-sex education in grades K–12: What does the research tell us? In MorseS. (Ed.), Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for girls (pp. 13–38). Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.
18.
HalpernD. F.EliotL.BiglerR. S.FabesR. A.HanishL. D.HydeJ. S.. . . MartinC. L. (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333, 1706–1707.
19.
HayesA. R.PahlkeE. E.BiglerR. S. (2011). The efficacy of single-sex education: Testing for selection and peer quality effects. Sex Roles, 65, 693–703.
20.
HilliardL. J.LibenL. S. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children’s gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Development, 81, 1787–1798.
21.
HoffmanB. H.BadgettB. A.ParkerR. P. (2008). The effect of single-sex instruction in a large, urban, at-risk high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 15–35.
22.
HubbardL.DatnowA. (2005). Do single-sex schools improve the education of low-income and minority students? An investigation of California’s public single-gender academies. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36, 115–131.
JacksonJ. (2010). “Dangerous presumptions”: How single-sex schooling reifies false notions of sex, gender, and sexuality. Gender and Education, 22, 227–238.
27.
JamesA. N. (2009). Teaching the female brain: How girls learn math and science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
28.
JimenezE.LockheedM. E. (1989). Enhancing girls’ learning trough single-sex education: Evidence and a policy conundrum. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 117–142.
29.
KarpiakC. P.BuchananJ. P.HoseyM.SmithA. (2007). University students from single-sex and coeducational high schools: Differences in majors and attitudes at a Catholic university. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 282–289.
30.
KesselsU.HannoverB. (2008). When being a girl matters less: Accessibility of gender-related self-knowledge in single-sex and coeducational classes and its impact on students’ physics-related self-concept of ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 273–289.
31.
LeeV. E.MarksH. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary-school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 578–592.
32.
LentR. W.BrownS. D.HackettG. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.
33.
MaccobyE. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.
34.
MaelF.AlonsoA.GibsonD.RogersK.SmithM. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
35.
McCrearyA. J. (2011). Public single-sex K–12 education: The renewal of sex-based policy by post-race politics, 1986–2006. Journal of Law and Education, 40, 461–497.
36.
MeyerP. (2008). Learning separately: The case for single-sex schools. Education Next, 8, 10–21.
37.
MitchellA. B.StewartJ. B. (2013). The efficacy of all-male academies: Insights from critical race theory (CRT). Sex Roles, 69, 382–392.
NorfleetJ. A.RichardsH. C. (2003). Escaping stereotyping: Educational attitudes of male alumni of single-sex and coed schools. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 136–148.
40.
OECD. (2004a). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
OECD. (2009). Equally prepared for life? How 15-year-old boys and girls perform in school. Paris: Author.
44.
PahlkeE.HydeJ. S.AllisonC. M. (2014). The effects of single-sex compared with coeducational schooling on students’ performance and attitudes: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1042–1072.
45.
PahlkeE.HydeJ. S.MertzJ. E. (2013). The effects of single-sex compared with coeducational schooling on mathematics and science achievement: Data from Korea. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 444–452.
SadkerM.SadkerD. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
51.
SaxL. (2006). Six degrees of separation: What teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. Educational Horizons, 84, 190–212.
52.
SaxL.ArmsE.WoodruffM.RiggersT.EaganK. (2009). Women graduates of single-sex and co-educational high schools: Differences in their characteristics and the transition to college. Los Angeles, CA: Sudikoff Family Institute for Education and New Media.
53.
ShapkaJ. D.KeatingD. P. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum during adolescence: Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 929–960.
54.
SignorellaM. L.HayesA. R.LiY. (2013). A meta-analytic critique of Mael et al.’s (2005) review of single-sex schooling. Sex Roles, 69, 423–441.
55.
StablesA. (1990). Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex schools in their enjoyment of school subjects and in their attitudes to science and to school. Educational Review, 42, 221–230.
56.
SullivanA. (2009). Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 35, 259–288.
57.
WisemanA. W. (2008). A culture of (in) equality?: A cross-national study of gender parity and gender segregation in national school systems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 3, 179–201.
58.
WoodyE. L. (2003). Homophobia and heterosexism in public school reform: Constructions of gender and sexuality in California’s single gender academies. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 148–160.
