Single-sex schools

Conclusions

In contrast to an earlier study conducted on the LSAY95 data, this paper concludes that single-sex schooling moderately benefits girls by fostering higher rates of engagement in physical science courses in Year 11. However, while girls study physical science more frequently in these schools, they are no more likely than girls elsewhere to aspire to careers related to these subjects. Conversely, for boys in LSAY09 the attendance of single-sex schools made no difference in the uptake of life and physical science courses, but these boys were more likely than boys in coeducational schools to plan life science careers.

These results need to be considered in the broader context of the Australian education system. First, it seems that sex-segregated education is on the decline, after a long period of accounting for about 20% of student enrolments. Therefore, the analyses performed in this paper are necessarily based on low numbers of students in girls-only and boys-only schools. Furthermore, the benefits of single-sex schooling for science engagement identified in this paper are moderate in size. Finally, the question that arises is to what extent is the greater involvement in physical science of girls in Year 11 of lasting benefit, if this form of science engagement is not accompanied by plans to enter the associated careers? Likewise, while the tendency for boys in single-sex schools to nominate a future life science career as their ambition might be construed as a proof of more gender-integrated school cultures, alternative explanations are equally plausible. For instance, the cultural capital of parents related to their field of employment is likely to influence youth career aspirations. A recent international study confirms that the sons of fathers who work in life science occupations are more likely than other students, all else being equal, to plan a similar career for themselves (Sikora & Pokropek 2012b).

While it is impossible in this analysis to dismiss a positive impact of single-sex schooling, it must be borne in mind that the numbers of students likely to attend single-sex schools are declining, that the benefits are not equal for life and physical sciences, and that factors which encourage girls in girls-only schools to study physical science do not foster hopes for careers in these fields. Thus, it is doubtful whether these moderate benefits are of a long-lasting nature and could justify a serious consideration of programs designed to extend single-sex education into the government sector. In response to ‘What if we had girls’ or boys’ schools, or some schools offering single-sex classes?’ asked by the ACT Government, Education and Training (2010) in the context of brainstorming about future reforms to local government schools, this paper suggests, if only in terms of science engagement, that such changes would have very moderate effects. Far more likely is that the gender segregation enforced and perpetuated by powerful factors outside the school environments will be reflected in students’ choices of science courses and science careers, regardless of the type of school they attend. Most Australian schools will remain coeducational. If they were all to be converted into single-sex schools, the potential benefits would be negligible, as it is highly unlikely that single-sex schooling is an effective remedy for reducing gender segregation in all forms of school activities, including science engagement. Furthermore, sex-segregated schooling is even less likely to ameliorate the gender segregation which affects the later life outcomes of young people (Sullivan, Joshi & Leonard 2010, 2011).

References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 1997, Australian social trends, participation in education: government and non-government schools, cat.no.4102, ABS, Canberra.

——2006, Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO), 1st edn, cat.no.1220, ABS, Statistics, Canberra.

ACT Government, Education and Training 2010, ‘Improving ACT public high schools and colleges: a discussion paper to generate ideas’, ACT Government, Education and Training, Canberra.

Ainley, M & Ainley, J 2011, ‘A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in science’, International Journal of Science Education, vol.33, no.1, pp.51—71.

Ainley, J & Daly, P 2002, ‘Participation in science courses in the final year of high school in Australia: the influences of single-sex and coeducational schools’, in Gender in policy and practice: perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling, eds A Datnow & L Hubbard, Routledge Falmer, New York & London, pp.243—61.

Ainley, J, Kos, J & Nicholas, M 2008, Participation in science, mathematics and technology in Australian education, ACER research monograph no.63, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation 1998, Separated by sex: a critical look at single-sex education for girls, AAUWEF, Washington, DC.

Anker, R 1997, ‘Theories of occupational segregation by sex: an overview’, International Labour Review, vol.136, no.3, pp.315—39.

Anlezark, A, Lim, P, Semo, R & Nguyen, N 2008, ‘From STEM to leaf: where are Australia’s science, mathematics, engineering and technology (STEM) students heading?’, NCVER, Adelaide.

Archer, L, DeWitt, J, Osborne, J, Dillon, J, Willis, B & Wong, B 2010 ‘“Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity’, Science Education, vol.94, no.4, pp.617—39.

Asparouhov, T 2004, ‘Weighting for unequal probability of selection in multilevel modeling’, in Mplus Web Notes no.8, viewed 15 February 2013, .

Baker, DP, Riordan, C & Schaub, M 1995, ‘The effects of sex-grouped schooling on achievement: the role of national context’, Comparative Education Review, vol.39, no.4, pp.468—82.

Barone, C 2011, ‘Some things never change: gender segregation in higher education across eight nations and three decades’, Sociology of Education, vol.84, no.2, pp.157—76.

Ceci, SJ, Williams, WM & Barnett, SM 2009, ‘Women’s underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations’, Psychological Bulletin, vol.135, no.2, pp.218—61.

Charles, M 2011, ‘What gender is science?’, Context, vol.10, issue 2, viewed 15 November 2012, .

Charles, M & Bradley, K 2009, ‘Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries’, American Journal of Sociology, vol.114, no.4, pp.924—76.

Cherney, ID & Campbell, KL 2011, ‘A league of their own: do single-sex schools increase girls’ participation in the physical sciences?’, Sex roles, vol.65, no.9, pp.712—24.

Fullarton, S & Ainley, J 2000, Subject choice by students in year 12 in Australian secondary schools, LSAY research report no.15, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.

Halpern, DF, Eliot, L, Bigler, RS, Fabes, RA, Hanish, LD, Hyde, J, Liben, LS & Martin, CL 2011, ‘The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling’, Science, vol.333, no.6050, pp.1706—7.

Hill, C, Corbett, Ch & Rose, AS 2010, Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, American Association of University Women, Washington, DC.

Kessel, C & Nelson, DJ 2011, ‘Statistical trends in women’s participation in science: commentary on Valla and Ceci’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol.6, no.2, pp.147—9.

Kjrnsli, M & Lie, S 2011, ‘Students’ preference for science careers: international comparisons based on PISA 2006’, International Journal of Science Education, vol.33, pp. 121—44.

Law, H & Kim, DH 2011, ‘Single-sex schooling and mathematics performance: comparison of sixteen countries in PISA 2006’, Hong Kong Journal of Sociology, vol.7, no.2, pp.1—24.

Leonard, D 2007, Single-sex and co-educational secondary schooling: life course consequences? Full research report, Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon, England.

Little, RJA & Rubin, DB 1987, Statistical analysis with missing data, Wiley, New York.

Mislevy, RJ, Beaton, AE, Kaplan, B & Sheehan, KM 1992, ‘Estimating population characteristics from sparse matrix samples of item responses’, Journal of Educational Measurement, vol.29, no.2, pp.133—61.

NCVER (National Centre for Vocational Education Research) 2012, Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 cohort user guide, Technical paper no.74, NCVER, Adelaide.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2006, Women in scientific careers: unleashing the potential, OECD, Paris.

——2007a, PISA 2006 Science competencies for tomorrow’s world, viewed 10 November 2012, .

——2007b, PISA 2006 technical report, OECD, Paris, viewed 13 November 2012, .

——2009, ‘PISA 2006 data analysis manual — SPSS version’, OECD, Paris.

——2012a, Education at a glance: 2012 OECD indicators, OECD, Paris, viewed 11 November 2012, .

——2012b, ‘PISA 2009 technical report’, OECD, Paris, viewed 11 November 2012, .

Osborne, J, Simon, S & Collins, S 2003, ‘Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications’, International Journal of Science Education, vol.23, no.9, pp.1049—79.

Raudenbush, SW & Bryk, AS 2002, Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Royston, P 2004, ‘Multiple imputation of missing values’, Stata Journal, vol.4, no.3, pp.227—41.

Salomone, R 2003, Same, different, equal: rethinking single-sex schooling, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Sikora, J & Pokropek, A 2011, Gendered career expectations of students: perspectives from PISA 2006, OECD education working papers, no.57, OECD, Paris, viewed 3 October 2013, .

——2012a, ‘Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries’, Science Education, vol.96, no.2, pp.234—64.

——2012b, ‘Intergenerational transfers of preferences for science careers in comparative perspective’, International Journal of Science Education, vol.34, no.16, pp.2501—27.

Smyth, E 2010, ‘Single-sex education: what does research tell us?’, Revue Française de Pédagogie, vol.171, pp.47—55.

Streitmatter, J 2002, ‘Perceptions of a single-sex class experience: females and males see it differently’, in Gender in policy and practice: perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling, eds A Datnow & L Hubbard, Routledge Falmer, New York, pp.212—26.

Sullivan, A, Joshi, H & Leonard, D 2010, ‘Single-sex schooling and academic attainment at school and through the lifecourse’, American Educational Research Journal, vol.47, no.1, pp.6—36.

——2011, ‘Single‐sex schooling and labour market outcomes’, Oxford Review of Education, vol.37, no.3, pp.311—32.

Wiseman, AW 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, vol.3, no.2, pp.179—201.

Wu, M 2005, ‘The role of plausible values in large-scale surveys’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, vol.31, no.2—3, pp.114—28.