Abstract
Gender-segregated (GS) schooling has become popular in the United States despite the fact that every major review has concluded that GS schooling is not superior to coeducational schooling. Moreover, concern has been raised that GS schooling leads to negative effects, including increased gender stereotyping. We argue that these negative effects result from peer influences in gender-segregated peer contexts—including GS schooling. We also contend that educational policy makers need to understand these peer effects so that better decisions can be made about how children are grouped in classrooms and to create coeducational programs that promote tolerance and acceptance between girls and boys.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 431-447 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Educational Policy |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 6 2015 |
Keywords
- educational policy
- educational reform
- gender
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Education
Access to Document
Other files and links
Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Gender-Segregated Schooling: A Problem Disguised as a Solution'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
Gender-Segregated Schooling : A Problem Disguised as a Solution. / Fabes, Richard; Martin, Carol; Hanish, Laura; Galligan, Kathrine; Pahlke, Erin.
In: Educational Policy, Vol. 29, No. 3, 06.05.2015, p. 431-447.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Gender-Segregated Schooling
T2 - A Problem Disguised as a Solution
AU - Fabes, Richard
AU - Martin, Carol
AU - Hanish, Laura
AU - Galligan, Kathrine
AU - Pahlke, Erin
N1 - Funding Information: The evidence is clear that girls and boys have a strong preference for same-gender peers and that these preferences appear early in development and increase as children move through school ( Mehta & Strough, 2009 ). We are not arguing that all same-gender interactions are detrimental for children or that they should be avoided. Indeed, there are some positive outcomes associated with same-gender interactions ( Fabes et al., 2003 ). However, there are also important positive outcomes associated with other-gender interactions ( Lockheed, 1986 ), and children should be provided with opportunities for both kinds of interactions. Moreover, as the data reviewed in this article suggest, when gender segregation is institutionalized, it draws attention to the salience of gender and this heightened salience increases some of the negative effects of same-gender peer socialization. In addition, peer influences associated with gender segregation have the potential to foster stereotypic beliefs, expectations, and practices in GS classrooms. There are many reports of teachers in GS classes conveying stereotyped attitudes about boys’ and girls interests, talents, skills, and abilities ( American Civil Liberties Union, 2012 ). For example, Lee, Marks, and Byrd (1994) found that girls’ schools perpetuated a pernicious type of sexism in the form of academic dependence and nonrigorous instruction. These stereotyped beliefs and instructional practices often result from faulty theories about “hard-wired” differences between boys’ and girls’ brains and development ( Gurian et al., 2001 ) and support the view that boys and girls learn and develop so differently that they should be educated using radically different teaching techniques and strategies. These beliefs have been debunked as “pseudoscience” ( Halpern et al., 2011 ) but this message has yet to reach many educational decision makers and teachers who are implementing GS schools and classes. Because of these unintended consequences, we should not institutionalize gender segregation in our schools. Put simply, we contend that because of the dynamics of the peer group, segregating boys and girls in school will not necessarily lead to the outcomes that adults desire and in fact, may have the opposite effect to those desired. The concerns and issues raised about GS schooling have also led to lawsuits and court trials directed at halting GS classes (for example, see Katz, 2012 ). As such, educators considering GS schooling must weigh the possibility of legal and financial challenges in making these decisions. Rather than creating programs that perpetuate stereotypes and myths that boys and girls are so inherently different they cannot be expected to get along or be taught together, the evidence reviewed in this article highlights the need for programs that promote tolerance and acceptance between girls and boys (e.g., Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007 ). Instead of promoting segregation, policy makers should strive to find ways to teach a diverse body of students to work together and to respect each other. The findings reviewed and presented here suggest that the powerful effects of gender segregation are the outgrowth of peer-group socialization processes—processes that occur whenever girls and boys spend large amounts of time in same-gender peer groups. Rather than encouraging gender segregation, which leads to limited skills and behaviors, educators can enlist peer group socialization processes to promote healthy and positive mixed-gender interactions. As girls and boys spend more time together, they learn the skills and behaviors necessary for working and living together. A long history of research has demonstrated the negative effects of separating people and the positive effects of bringing people together; intergroup contact has been experimentally and longitudinally demonstrated to be an effective method for reducing prejudice and bias and improving intergroup relationships ( Hodson, 2011 ; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 ). In conclusion, we contend that gender segregation is not the answer to any educational difficulties that girls and boys might be having. In fact, as previously noted, we suggest the opposite—that gender segregation is part of the problem and that we need to break the gender-segregation cycle ( Figure 1 ). As such, GS schooling is a problem disguised as a solution. Based on the scientific evidence, we contend that educational policy makers must (a) be more aware of the role that peer processes play in classroom settings and the effects these have on students’ and teachers’ perceptions, behaviors, and practices, (b) be more careful and thoughtful about how children are aggregated in classrooms, in work and play groups, and in the broader school context, and (c) be more actively engaged in fostering and promoting positive girl–boy interactions in coeducational settings. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Support for the first three authors was provided, in part, by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1 R01 HD45816) and from the National Science Foundation (0338864). Support for Erin Pahlke was provided, in part, by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DRL-1138114). Support also was provided by the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics as part of the Lives of Girls and Boys Project ( http://livesofgirlsandboys.org ) and the Challenged Child Project. The first three authors also are founding executive members of the American Council for Coeducational Schooling ( http://coedschools.org ).
PY - 2015/5/6
Y1 - 2015/5/6
N2 - Gender-segregated (GS) schooling has become popular in the United States despite the fact that every major review has concluded that GS schooling is not superior to coeducational schooling. Moreover, concern has been raised that GS schooling leads to negative effects, including increased gender stereotyping. We argue that these negative effects result from peer influences in gender-segregated peer contexts—including GS schooling. We also contend that educational policy makers need to understand these peer effects so that better decisions can be made about how children are grouped in classrooms and to create coeducational programs that promote tolerance and acceptance between girls and boys.
AB - Gender-segregated (GS) schooling has become popular in the United States despite the fact that every major review has concluded that GS schooling is not superior to coeducational schooling. Moreover, concern has been raised that GS schooling leads to negative effects, including increased gender stereotyping. We argue that these negative effects result from peer influences in gender-segregated peer contexts—including GS schooling. We also contend that educational policy makers need to understand these peer effects so that better decisions can be made about how children are grouped in classrooms and to create coeducational programs that promote tolerance and acceptance between girls and boys.
KW - educational policy
KW - educational reform
KW - gender
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930518839&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930518839&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0895904813492382
DO - 10.1177/0895904813492382
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84930518839
VL - 29
SP - 431
EP - 447
JO - Educational Policy
JF - Educational Policy
SN - 0895-9048
IS - 3
ER -