by fall 2006 over 50 single-sex public schools were in existence ." by ington 

Early Implementation of Public 

Single-Sex Schools: Perceptions and Characteristics 

Prepared by 

RMC Research Corporation 

Portland, Ore. 

Cornelius Riordan 

Providence College 

Bonnie J. Faddis 

Margaret Beam 

Andrew Seager 

Adam Tanney 

Rebecca DiBiase 

RMC Research Corporation 

Monya Ruffin 

American Institutes for Research 

Jeffrey Valentine 

University of Louisville 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

2008 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-01-CO-0055/0010 with 

RMC Research Corporation. Nancy Rhett, Dena Gross, Adrienne Hosek, and Beth Franklin served as the 

contracting officer’s technical representatives. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions 

or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is 

intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Bill Evers 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

August 2008 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Early Implementation of Public SingleSex Schools: Perceptions and Characteristics, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

To order copies of this report, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

Via fax, dial (301) 470-1244. 

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, 

call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a 

teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to: http://www.edpubs.org. 

This report is also available on the Department’s web site at 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 

diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-0852 or 

(202) 260-0818. 
iii 

Contents 

Exhibits ............................................................................................................................................v 

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... ix 

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 

Study Background......................................................................................................................1 

History of Public Single-Sex Schools in the United States .......................................................2 

Review of the Research on Single-Sex Education...........................................................................5 

Systematic Review Process........................................................................................................5 

Systematic Review Results........................................................................................................6 

Data Sources and Methodology.....................................................................................................11 

Scope and Content of the Surveys ...........................................................................................11 

Survey Samples........................................................................................................................13 

Scope and Content of the Site Visits........................................................................................15 

Site Visit School Sample .........................................................................................................15 

Characteristics of Public Single-Sex Schooling ............................................................................17 

Staff and Student Characteristics.............................................................................................17 

Principals and Teachers .....................................................................................................17 

Students..............................................................................................................................19 

School Programs ......................................................................................................................20 

Curriculum and Instruction................................................................................................21 

Professional Development .................................................................................................22 

Single-Sex Schooling...............................................................................................................23 

Reasons for Establishing Single-Sex Schools....................................................................24 

Perceived Benefits of Single-Sex Schooling .....................................................................24 

Sex Differences in the Perceived Benefits of Single-Sex Schooling.................................25 

School Climate.........................................................................................................................27 

Student Interactions and Behaviors .........................................................................................30 

Student Academic Achievement and Behaviors......................................................................32 

Student Extracurricular Activities............................................................................................34 

Implications for Further Study.......................................................................................................37 

Future Studies of Single-Sex Schooling ..................................................................................38 

Options for Conducting Experimental Research on Single-Sex Schooling.......................38 

Summary............................................................................................................................40 

References......................................................................................................................................41 

Appendix A: Supplementary Exhibits ...........................................................................................43 

Appendix B: Site Visit Reports......................................................................................................57 

Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments.....................................................................................91 

v 

Exhibits 

Exhibit ES1 Summary of Systematic Literature Review Findings .............................................. xi 

Exhibit ES2 Single-Sex School Survey Respondents ................................................................ xiii

Exhibit 1 Systematic Literature Review Findings .....................................................................7 

Exhibit 2 Single-Sex School Survey Respondents ..................................................................14 

Exhibit 3 Site Visit School and Student Characteristics..........................................................16 

Exhibit 4 Racial and Ethnic Background of Survey Respondents...........................................18 

Exhibit 5 Educational Background and Experience of Survey Respondents ..........................19 

Exhibit 6 Student Background by School Level......................................................................20 

Exhibit 7 Participation in Professional Development Over Past 12 Months ...........................23 

Exhibit 8 Perceived Benefits of Single-Sex Schooling............................................................25 

Exhibit 9 Perceived Differences Between Boys and Girls on Explanatory Category 

Scores From Teachers Who Instruct Both Sexes.....................................................26 

Exhibit 10 Teacher Perceptions of School Climate Problems ...................................................28 

Exhibit 11 Teacher Perceptions of School Climate ...................................................................29 

Exhibit 12 Teacher Ratings of School Climate..........................................................................30 

Exhibit 13 Classroom Observation Summary: Student Interactions .........................................31 

Exhibit 14 Classroom Observation Summary: Academic Behaviors ........................................33

Exhibit A1 Classroom Observation Summary: Elementary Schools .........................................45 

Exhibit A2 Classroom Observation Summary: Middle Schools ................................................47 

Exhibit A3 Classroom Observation Summary: High Schools....................................................48 

Exhibit A4 Perceptions of School Problems: Elementary Schools ............................................49 

Exhibit A5 Perceptions of School Problems: Middle Schools ...................................................50 

Exhibit A6 Perceptions of School Problems: High Schools.......................................................51 

Exhibit A7 Climate Constructs and Scale Reliabilities ..............................................................52 

Exhibit A8 School Climate: Elementary Schools.......................................................................53 

Exhibit A9 Teacher Ratings of School Climate: Middle Schools ..............................................53 

Exhibit A10 Teacher Ratings of School Climate: High Schools..................................................54 

Exhibit A11 Dual Academy Elementary Schools: Students At and Above the Proficient Level.55 
vi 

Exhibit A12 Single-Sex Elementary Schools: Students At and Above the Proficient Level .......55 

Exhibit A13 Middle Schools: Students At and Above the Proficient Level.................................55 

Exhibit A14 High Schools: Students At and Above the Proficient Level ....................................56

Exhibit B1 Descriptive Data on the Observed Elementary Schools...........................................60 

Exhibit B2 Students At and Above the Proficient Level............................................................63 

Exhibit B3 Students At and Above the Proficient Level............................................................69 

Exhibit B4 Student Demographics .............................................................................................74 

Exhibit B5 Students At and Above the Proficient Level............................................................78 

Exhibit B6 Students At and Above the Proficient Level............................................................78 

Exhibit B7 Student Interactions and Academic Behaviors.........................................................79 

Exhibit B8 Classroom Observation Summary............................................................................80 

Exhibit B9 Students At and Above the Proficient Level in 2005...............................................87 

Exhibit B10 2003–04 Adequate Yearly Progress.........................................................................87 

Exhibit B11 Student Performance on High School Exams (2003–04).........................................88 
vii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors recognize the contributions of the site visitors who spent several days at each school 

and wrote preliminary reports about each school that served as the source data for the summary 

findings: 

 Wanda Bailey, American Institutes for Research (AIR) 

 Sheri Bonaglia, AIR 

 Wendy Graham, RMC Research 

 Chandra Johnson, AIR 

 Fonda Sutton, AIR 

 Loretta Webb, AIR 

 Gwen Willis-Darpoh, AIR 

In addition, the authors acknowledge the work of Fred Mael and his team at AIR in conducting 

the systematic review of the literature on single-sex schools as part of this contract and the work 

of Jeffrey Valentine in preparing a paper on future directions for single-sex schooling research. 

Finally, the authors are grateful for the guidance and contributions provided by the late PPSS 

staff member Nancy Rhett, who developed the original design for this study and had a keen 

interest in the issue of single sex schooling. 

ix 

Executive Summary 

For most of our nation’s history, coeducation has been the norm in our public elementary and 

secondary schools. In recent years, however, interest in public single-sex education has increased 

substantially. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 authorized school districts to use local or 

innovative program funds to offer single-sex schools and classrooms consistent with applicable 

laws. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Education published amendments to the Title IX 

regulations in October 2006 that would provide school districts additional flexibility to 

implement single-sex programs. In anticipation of an increase in the number of public single-sex 

schools, the U.S. Department of Education contracted with RMC Research Corporation to 

conduct a descriptive study of existing single-sex public schools that would address the 

following evaluation questions: 

1. What is currently known about the effects of single-sex schooling on student achievement 

and other outcomes? 

2. What is known about the causes of those outcomes? 

3. What are the characteristics of public single-sex schooling? What are the contextual, 

instructional, and behavioral practices unique to single-sex schools? 

4. What perceived benefits or disadvantages are associated with single-sex schooling? 

5. What studies, including research questions and methodology, would be most appropriate 

to advance the knowledge base in this field? 

To address these questions the study includes a systematic review of the literature available in 

2004, a survey of public single-sex schools, and a preliminary exploratory observational study of 

a subsample of currently operating public single-sex schools. The observational study was 

designed to yield three types of descriptive information about single sex schools: the schools’ 

demographic characteristics, the professional characteristics of the teachers and principals, and 

the teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of the school characteristics. Both the survey and the 

observations were confined to those single-sex schools that were operational as of fall 2003. 

Key findings that emerged from the study include: 

 The results of the systematic review are mixed, though the findings suggest some support 

for the premise that single-sex schooling can be helpful. Among the concurrent academic 

accomplishment outcomes, 53 percent were null (favored neither single-sex nor coed 

schooling), 10 percent had mixed results across sex or grade levels, 35 percent favored 

single-sex schooling, and only 2 percent favored coed schooling. Among the concurrent 

Although the study describes characteristics that are somewhat more prevalent in single-sex 

schools, the results are not causal evidence that single-sex schools improve the quality of 

academic and behavioral interactions between teachers and students. Instead, these 

descriptive findings are a potential source of hypotheses for further investigations that utilize 

experimental or quasi-experimental designs. 
x 

socio-emotional outcomes, 39 percent were null, 6 percent were mixed, 45 percent 

favored single-sex schooling, and only 10 percent favored coed schooling. 

 The site visit observers in the eight single-sex school sites found little evidence of 

substantive modifications to curricula to address the specific needs of either boys or girls, 

although some teachers who were interviewed provided examples of using support 

materials specific to the interests of girls.

 In the eight elementary and middle schools visited, site visitors observed more positive 

academic and behavioral interactions between teachers and students in the single-sex 

schools than in the comparison coed schools.

 Both principals and teachers believed that the main benefits of single-sex schooling are 

decreasing distractions to learning, and improving student achievement. 

 Teachers cited greater benefits of single-sex schooling for girls than for boys in 5 of the 

10 benefit categories. That is, teachers believed that girls benefit more than boys from 

better peer interactions, a greater emphasis on academic behaviors, a greater degree of 

order and control, socio-emotional benefits, and safe behavior. Teachers believed that 

both sexes benefit equally from single-sex education in terms of a greater sensitivity to 

sex differences in learning and maturation.

 In separate focus groups, both parents and students cited essentially the same benefits as 

the teachers and implied that they chose the single-sex school for these reasons.

 Teachers in single-sex high schools rated problems with student behavior as less serious 

than teachers in coed schools, but the opposite was true in middle schools. There were no 

statistically significant differences between single-sex and coed school teachers’ ratings 

of problems at the elementary school level.

 In the 10 case study schools the site visitors observed more positive student interactions 

for the single-sex schools than for the coed comparison schools. Compared to students in 

the coeducational schools, students in elementary and middle single sex schools exhibited 

a greater sense of community, interacted more positively with one another, showed 

greater respect for their teachers, were less likely to initiate class disruptions, and 

demonstrated more positive student role modeling than students in the coed comparison 

schools. (The site visits did not include a coeducational comparison high school.) 

 The research team suggests that future research use prior empirical work (both qualitative 

and quantitative) to identify variables that should be measured and potentially used as 

statistical controls. Researchers should randomly assign students who wish to attend 

single-sex schools to single sex or coed schools and plan on following the study 

participants over a relatively long period of time. A longitudinal study will yield data that 

researchers can use to evaluate both the effects of any randomization failure and the 

relative effects of attending a single-sex school. 

Systematic Literature Review 

The systematic review of the literature on single-sex schooling1 identified 40 quantitative studies 

that met criteria requiring studies to at least use comparison studies with statistical controls in 

addition to quasi-experimental and experimental studies. These 40 studies were the highest 

 

1

 http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/index.html (2005). 
xi 

quality research currently available on the topic. (Over 300 other studies were examined and 

excluded from the review because they did not meet the selection criteria.) The 40 studies 

provided 112 outcomes because most studies examined more than one outcome. Most of the 112 

outcomes were in two areas: short-term academic achievement (43 outcomes) and short-term 

socio-emotional development (49 outcomes). 

The results of the literature review were mixed, though the findings suggested some support for 

the premise that single-sex schooling can be helpful, especially for certain outcomes related to 

academic achievement and more positive academic aspirations. The literature review did not, 

however, include any public single-sex schools in the United States; thus the findings should not 

be generalized to this population. In addition, the studies had some analytical weaknesses that 

may have inflated the statistical significance of their findings. Overall, there were more socioemotional outcomes favoring single-sex schools than academic outcomes favoring single-sex 

schools. In addition, more socio-emotional outcomes favored girls in single-sex schools (70 

percent of 30 outcomes) than boys in single-sex schools (40 percent of 25 outcomes). It should 

be noted that the studies included in the literature review all involved matched comparison 

designs and none were random assignment experiments, the "gold standard" of evidence for 

assessing the impact of an educational intervention. 

Exhibit ES1 

Summary of Systematic Literature Review Findings 

Percentage of Outcomes 

Outcome Measure Category and Topic 

Total 

Outcomes Pro-SS Pro-CE Null Mixed 

Concurrent Academic Accomplishment 43 35% 2% 53% 10% 

Long-Term Academic Accomplishment 4 25% 0% 75% 0% 

Concurrent Adaptation and Socio-Emotional 

Development 

49 45% 10% 39% 6% 

Long-Term Adaptation and Socio-Emotional 

Development 

10 50% 20% 30% 0% 

Perceived School Culture 4 50% 0% 50% 0% 

Subjective Satisfaction 2 50% 50% 0% 0% 

Total 112 

Note. SS = single-sex. CE = coed. 

Exhibit reads: A total of 43 outcomes were reported across all studies in the area of 

concurrent academic accomplishment, and 35 percent of those outcomes were prosingle-sex education, 2 percent were pro-coeducation, 53 percent were null (indicating 

no differences between single-sex and coed schools), and 10 percent were mixed 

(supporting single-sex schools or coed schools for some but not all subgroups). 

Source: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/index.html (2005). 
xii 

Data Sources for Surveys and Site Visit Observations 

Survey and observation data provided information on the characteristics of public single-sex 

schooling in the United States. The study team distributed surveys in February 2005 to principals 

and teachers in 19 of the 20 single-sex schools in operation in fall 2003.2 The recipients included 

four elementary schools, five middle schools, four combined middle and high schools, and six 

high schools. In 17 of these schools, the students were predominantly nonwhite, and in 18 of the 

19 schools most students were eligible for free or reduced price meals. Only 6 of the schools 

were in operation prior to 2000 (see Exhibit ES2). 

All but one of the principals returned the principal survey (95 percent), and 88 percent of the 

teachers returned the teacher survey for a total sample size of 18 principals and 478 teachers. To 

draw comparisons between single-sex and coed schools, the study team analyzed Schools and 

Staffing Survey (SASS) data from 1999–2000 and 2003–04 from 150 demographically similar 

coed schools (the sample included 146 principals and 723 teachers). The study team used a 

propensity score analysis to derive a subsample of the nationally representative SASS sample 

that best matched the single-sex schools on several demographic characteristics. 

To gather more qualitative information to describe the characteristics of single-sex public 

schools, observation teams visited eight single-sex and two coed schools. The study team 

attempted to recruit two single-sex schools and two matching coed schools at each level 

(elementary, middle, and high school) for site visit observations. Principals of the single-sex 

schools suggested coed schools in their districts that were most similar to their own schools in 

terms of student race and poverty level. However, most of the coed comparison schools 

contacted did not agree to participate. Due to the difficulty obtaining cooperation from 

comparison schools, the sample contains only two coed comparison schools (one elementary and 

one middle school). Due to the small number of site visit schools (two comparison and eight 

single sex), the sample is not representative of single sex or coeducational schools. However, this 

sample does include 40 percent of the single sex schools that were in existence at that time. 

Staff and Student Characteristics 

Overall, single-sex and coed school principal and teacher characteristics were similar across the 

two groups in terms of education. However, teachers in single-sex schools were less likely to be 

African-American and had fewer years of teaching experience than teachers in the coed schools. 

Teachers in single-sex schools were also less likely to have standard certification and more likely 

to have probationary, temporary, or emergency certification. (Note that this information was 

collected prior to the NCLB deadline for meeting Highly Qualified Teacher requirements). 

Student characteristics were also similar across the two samples, although fewer students in 

single-sex schools were eligible for free or reduced price meals. The majority of students in both 

single-sex and coed schools were African-American. 

 

2

 According to the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, there were 88 single sex schools open in the United 

States as of fall 2007. 
xiii 

Exhibit ES2 

Single-Sex School Survey Respondents 

School Location Grades Sex 

No. of 

Students 

No. of 

Teachers 

Percent 

NonWhite Percent 

FRPM 

Year 

Started 

New Yorka K–3 BG 192 18 97 100 2002 

Washington K–5 BG 290 22 98 87 2001 

Ohio K–6 B 250 25 99 99 2003 

Ohio K–6 G 340 30 99 99 2003 

Pennsylvania 5–8 BG 1,117 70 96 91 2003 

California 5–8 BG 103 7 100 97 1996 

Kentucky 6–8 BG 820 49 50 93 2002 

Coloradoa 6–8 BG 320 29 42 29 2003 

California 6–8 BG 1,210 42 92 90 1999 

Pennsylvania 7–10 B 316 14 100 100 2002 

Pennsylvania 7–10 G 268 14 100 100 2002 

Illinoisa 7–12 G 327 30 86 69 2000 

New York 7–12 G 400 28 99 84 1996 

Ohio 9–11 BG 590 40 94 83 2001 

North Carolina 9–12 B 60 10 — — 2003 

North Carolina 9–12 G 95 9 96 90 2003 

Wisconsin 9–12 G 90 6 99 94 1975 

Pennsylvania 9–12 G 1,194 55 86 48 1848 

Maryland 9–12 G 875 48 86 50 1844 

Total 8,857 546 

aCharter school. FRPM = free or reduced-price meals. BG = Boys and Girls (or Dual Academy). 

Exhibit reads: The single-sex school located in New York opened in 2002 and serves 192 

boys and girls in Grades K–3 and has 18 teachers. All of the students qualify for free or 

reduced-price meals and 97 percent are nonwhite. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Principal Survey, 2005.

School Programs 

The single-sex schools were more likely than the coed schools to receive Title I funds, but the 

coed schools were more likely to offer programs for limited English proficient students. The 

single-sex schools offered more extended day and parent involvement programs than the coed 

schools, whereas the coed schools were more likely to have drug and violence prevention 

programs. 
xiv 

Professional Development 

The study found few differences in the percentage of teachers and principals who participated in 

various types of professional development. However, fewer than half of the surveyed single-sex 

school teachers received any professional development on single-sex education (33 percent at the 

elementary school level, 24 percent at the middle school level, and 15 percent at the high school 

level). Professional development on single-sex education was typically limited to a speaker 

visiting the school or a book presented to the teachers, although in a few cases single-sex 

education was discussed on a monthly basis. 

Perceived Benefits of Single-Sex Schooling 

Through principal and teacher surveys and site visit observations, the study team collected data 

on the perceived advantages and effects of single-sex schooling. Single-sex school teachers and 

principals listed decreased distractions to learning, improved student achievement, and the ability 

to address the unique learning styles and interests of boys and girls to be among the top five 

benefits of single-sex schooling. Generally, both teachers and principals embraced the concept of 

single-sex schooling. 

Sex Differences in Perceived Benefits of Single-Sex Schooling. Teachers also noted differences in 

single-sex school benefits for boys and girls. Specifically, teachers believed that girls benefit 

more than boys from better peer interactions, a stronger emphasis on academic behaviors, a 

greater degree of order and control, socio-emotional benefits, and safe behavior. Teachers 

perceived that both sexes benefit equally from single-sex education in terms of a greater teacher 

sensitivity to sex differences in learning and maturation. 

School Climate 

School climate refers to the sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and organizational 

structures within a school and their effects on students. Using data from the single-sex school 

surveys and the SASS coed school survey sample to compare the two groups on school climate, 

the study found that teachers in single-sex high schools rated problems with student behavior as 

less serious and also experienced greater instructional support than coed school teachers. In 

contrast, single-sex middle school teachers reported less instructional support and more student 

misbehavior than coed teachers. There were no statistically significant differences between 

single-sex and coed elementary school teachers on these factors. 

Student Interactions and Behaviors 

Observation data collected during the 10 site visits were more positive for single-sex schools 

than for the respective grade level comparison schools in this sample with regard to student 

interactions and behaviors. Students in the single-sex elementary and middle schools visited 

exhibited a greater sense of community, interacted more positively with one another, showed 

greater respect for their teachers, were less likely to initiate class disruptions, and demonstrated 

more positive student role modeling than students in the coed comparison school sample. Singlesex school staff, students, and parents also emphasized the positive socio-emotional benefits of 

attending a single-sex school. 
xv 

Student Academic Achievement and Behaviors 

Student achievement data for the single-sex schools are fairly typical of high-poverty schools in 

which the majority of the students do not meet state achievement standards. According to the 

principal survey data, 49 percent of students were at or above proficient in reading and 

35 percent were at or above proficient in mathematics on state assessments at the elementary 

school level. At the middle school level, 28 percent of students were at or above proficient in 

reading and 22 percent were at or above proficient in mathematics. At the high school level these 

figures were 54 percent and 46 percent respectively. 

Researchers visited 164 single-sex classrooms and 45 coed classrooms in eight single-sex and 

two coed schools. The study team found that students in the single-sex elementary schools were 

more likely to complete homework than were students in the coed comparison elementary 

school, but both types of students appeared equally engaged in academic activities. Students in 

the single-sex middle schools were more likely to be engaged in academic activities and to 

complete homework than students in the comparison middle school. In the single-sex high 

schools, students exhibited high levels of engagement in academic activities and homework 

completion; however, the study did not include a comparison high school. These results must be 

interpreted with caution because of the small number of schools observed. 

Student Extracurricular Activities 

Extracurricular activity offerings such as clubs or sports were more limited in the single-sex 

elementary and middle schools than in their respective coed comparison schools, although 

students in the single-sex schools stated that the opportunities for them to engage in activities 

and pursue leadership roles were ample. At the high school level, the array of extracurricular 

offerings was correlated with school size, and the larger of the two high schools visited offered a 

wider variety of activities. 

Summary 

The systematic review of the 40 best quantitative studies lends some empirical support to the 

hypothesis that single sex schools may be helpful in terms of academic achievement and socioemotional development. The survey and observational studies found that public single-sex 

schools served primarily nonwhite, high-poverty students in urban areas. Descriptive evidence 

from the surveys and site visits suggest that single sex schools may have advantages for both 

boys and girls in terms of fostering socio-emotional health and promoting positive peer 

interactions. Other perceived benefits of single-sex schooling cited by teachers and principals 

include a greater degree of order and control and fewer distractions in the classroom. The study 

design does not support inferences about the effects of single sex schools on socio-emotional 

outcomes. Also, because the study was descriptive, the study team was not able to determine 

whether these socio-emotional benefits had an impact on student achievement. The study team 

did, however, identify a need for more professional development for teachers on meeting the 

distinct needs of boys and girls in single-sex public schools. 
xvi 

The report concludes with descriptions of areas of study and methodologies that could further 

advance research in single-sex schooling. Addressed are both the advantages of randomized 

trials and strong quasi-experimental designs in future studies of single-sex schooling and the 

challenges inherent in implementing such studies. 
1 

Introduction 

For most of our nation’s history, coeducation has been the norm in public elementary and 

secondary schools. Coeducation did not emerge from firm belief in its educational benefits, 

however, but from financial constraints—coed schools were simply more economically efficient 

(Riordan, 1990). Recently there has been a resurgence of interest in single-sex schools, both in 

the public and private sectors (Riordan, 2002). 

Single-sex schooling refers to education at the elementary, secondary, or postsecondary level in 

which males and females attend school exclusively with members of their own sex. This 

definition also includes dual academies, in which males and females attend the same school 

facilities but all classes are separated by sex. Not included in this definition are coed schools that 

provide separate classes for males and females only in selected subjects. 

Study Background 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001, authorized school districts to use local or innovative program funds to provide 

single-sex schools and classrooms consistent with applicable law (Title V, Part A, Subpart 3, 

Section 5131 (a) (23)). As a result of amendments to the regulations for implementing Title IX of 

the Education Amendments of 1972 made in October 2006, the number of single-sex schools is 

expected to increase substantially over the next few years. In anticipation of this expansion, the 

U.S. Department of Education contracted with RMC Research Corporation to conduct a study of 

existing single-sex public schools. Initiated in October 2003, the Study of Single-Sex Schools 

provides the first real look into public single-sex schools in the United States. 

The Study of Single-Sex Schools addressed the following evaluation questions: 

1. What is currently known about the effects of single-sex schooling on student achievement 

and other outcomes? 

2. What is known about the causes of those outcomes? 

3. What are the characteristics of public single-sex schooling? What are the contextual, 

instructional, and behavioral practices unique to single-sex schools? 

4. What perceived benefits or disadvantages are associated with single-sex schooling? 

5. What studies, including research questions and methodology, would be most appropriate 

to advance the knowledge base in this field? 

To address these questions, the study team conducted an extensive, systematic review of the 

research literature in 2004, a review of the theoretical arguments for and against single-sex 

schools, a survey of public single-sex schools in the spring of 2005, and an observational study

of a small subsample of public single-sex schools operating in the fall of 2005. Both the survey 

and the observations included only those single-sex schools that were operational as of fall 2003. 

In order to address the first evaluation question concerning the current body of knowledge about 

single-sex schools, the systematic review of the literature (Mael, Alonso, Gibson, Rogers, & 

Smith, 2005a) examined national and international research on the effects of single-sex public 
2 

and private education. In conjunction with this review, the authors prepared a separate review of 

studies that discussed the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of single-sex schools (Mael 

et al., 2005b). This paper addressed the evaluation question concerning possible causes of singlesex schooling outcomes. The study team organized the findings from this review into 14 

theoretical benefits of single-sex education and used these categories to develop questions for the 

surveys and observations at selected schools. The surveys of teachers and principals addressed 

evaluation questions concerning characteristics and benefits of single-sex schooling and 

identified topical areas that should be explored further in the school observations. The 

observational study also addressed the evaluation questions regarding characteristics, 

advantages, and disadvantages of single-sex education. In addition, the study team commissioned 

a paper designed to define what studies would advance the knowledge base in the field. 

This report begins with a brief overview of the history of public single-sex schools in the United 

States. It then summarizes the findings from the literature review, the principal and teacher 

surveys, and the site visit observations. The report concludes with descriptions of areas of study 

and methodologies that could further advance research in single-sex schooling. Addressed are 

both the advantages of randomized trials and strong quasi-experimental designs in future studies 

of single-sex schooling and the challenges inherent in implementing such studies.

History of Public Single-Sex Schools in the United States 

Starting in the late 1980s, educational leaders began to establish single-sex classes as a potential 

solution to some of the problems in inner-city schools. For example, in 1989 the principal of an 

elementary school in Rochester, N.Y., established single-sex classrooms for both boys and girls 

(Riordan, 2002). Parents could enroll their children in a single-sex or coed classroom at each 

grade level. From the outset the district office was critical of the principal’s decision even though 

the principal had support from teachers, parents, students, and the community. At the time, the 

school was one of the lowest achieving schools in the state of New York and enrolled 

predominantly very poor Hispanic and African-American students. In the following years, 

students in the single-sex classrooms showed greater gains on reading and mathematics tests, 

higher attendance rates, lower suspension rates, and higher parental participation rates than 

students in the coed classes. 

Efforts to establish public single-sex schools faced opposition in the courts throughout the 1990s. 

In 1991 Detroit, Mich., school officials proposed to open three academies for African-American 

boys, but they were determined to be in violation of Title IX. In 1993 school officials in Ventura, 

Calif., attempted to experiment with single-sex classes, but they too failed in the face of legal 

challenges (Richardson, 1995; Walsh, 1996). In 1994 a school in Irvington, N.J., established 

single-sex classes but canceled them due to pressure from opposition groups (Walsh,1996). 

Opponents of single-sex schools were concerned that single-sex schools and classrooms might 

Although the study describes characteristics that are somewhat more prevalent in single-sex 

schools, the results are not causal evidence that single-sex schools improve the quality of 

academic and behavioral interactions between teachers and students. Instead, these descriptive 

findings are a potential source of hypotheses for further investigations that utilize 

experimental or quasi-experimental designs. 
3 

violate Title IX requirements and result in better educational opportunities for one sex than were 

available for the other sex. 

Hubbard and Datnow (2002) described an effort to open 12 pairs of single-sex schools in 

California in 1997. Governor Pete Wilson established these schools by offering grants to districts 

to open schools for both boys and girls. By fall 2000 only one pair of these schools remained in 

operation. Hubbard and Datnow suggested that many of these schools failed because the

principals and teachers were not driven by a strong sense of why they were offering single-sex 

education. 

Public single-sex schools have opened at an increasing rate since 1996. By fall 2003 the number 

of single-sex public schools had grown to 20, and by fall 2007 over 80 single-sex public schools 

were in existence in a number of states. Single-sex schools in the public sector have adopted 

different operational models. Under the classic model a school serves either boys or girls only. 

Often a school is established for one sex but not the other. For example, the founders of the 

Young Women’s Leadership Schools were interested only in establishing schools for girls and 

did not establish corresponding schools for boys. Another model is the dual academy, in which 

boys and girls attend the same school but attend classes separately. Dual academies vary greatly 

with regard to the intermingling of the sexes during nonacademic activities: in some cases boys 

and girls are permitted to interact in the cafeteria, hallways, and extracurricular activities, 

whereas in other cases they are not. 

This study examined both dual academies and fully separate schools for boys or girls, but singlesex classes within otherwise coed schools were not included. Regardless of which model a 

school decides to follow, interest in public single-sex education is clearly growing in the United 

States. Information from this study can be used to inform policy in the area of single-sex 

education. 

5 

Review of the Research on Single-Sex Education 

The study team conducted a systematic review of the existing literature on single-sex schooling3

to address two important evaluation questions: 

1. What is currently known about the effects of single-sex schooling on student achievement 

and other outcomes? 

2. What is known about the causes of those outcomes? 

The systematic review of the literature provides a historical backdrop for this study’s surveys and 

observations of public single-sex schools in the United States. The literature review includes 

studies from public single-sex schools in other countries and studies of Catholic and other private 

schools in the United States, but no studies of public single-sex schools in the United States were 

available for inclusion in the literature review. 

Systematic Review Process 

The study team (Mael et al., 2005a) began with an exhaustive search of electronic databases and 

other sources for citations of both published and unpublished studies. This search strategy

yielded 2,221 citations. In the first stage of the review the study team excluded studies whose 

subjects were not schools in English-speaking or Westernized countries that served elementary, 

middle, or high school students who were completely segregated for all classes. Studies of dual 

academies that met these criteria were acceptable, but studies of single-sex classes in coed 

schools were not. This initial screening yielded citations for 379 publications that fit the initial 

inclusion criteria. The second stage of the review excluded publications such as essays, reviews, 

opinion pieces, or similar documents and studies that contained obvious methodological 

problems; only qualitative and quantitative studies likely to meet the coding standards in the 

third stage were retained. The second stage reduced the number of studies to 114 and coded them 

as quantitative (88) or qualitative (26). 

In the third stage two reviewers used a quantitative coding guide to code each study 

independently. A quantitative study was coded for its treatment of the following broad issues: 

sample characteristics, psychometric properties, internal validity, effect, and bias. Each of these 

categories had several criteria for retention, although a study did not have to meet all of the 

criteria. A distinctly different coding scheme was developed to evaluate the 26 qualitative 

studies. Only four of the qualitative studies met the criteria for final inclusion and were reviewed 

separately. This report includes only the 88 quantitative studies that were part of the third stage 

of the review. 

To be included in the quantitative review, a study had to utilize appropriate measurement and 

statistical methods. A primary criticism of previous single-sex literature reviews had been the 

confounding of single-sex schooling effects with the effects of religious values, financial 

privilege, selective admission criteria, or other advantages. Thus a study had to include statistical 

 

3

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/index.html (2005). 
6 

controls for individual characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status, individual ability, and age) and 

school characteristics that might explain the differences between single-sex and coed schools. Of 

the 88 quantitative studies identified in the third stage, only 40 published studies met the 

inclusion criteria and were retained. Reasons for excluding the other 48 studies included 

(a) failure to operationalize the intervention properly, (b) failure to apply statistical controls 

during the analyses, (c) work that was qualitative in nature rather than quantitative, (d) work 

written in a foreign language, (e) failure to draw comparisons between single-sex and coed 

schools, or (f) exclusion of students who were not elementary, middle, or high school age. 

Systematic Review Results 

Exhibit 1 shows the results of the systematic review organized by six broad topical areas. 

Because some studies used multiple outcome measures, the total number of outcomes is 112. For 

example, a typical study might examine results related to reading and mathematics achievement 

and self-esteem, which yield a total of three outcomes. For each of the 32 outcome measure 

categories, the exhibit lists the total number of outcomes and the percentages that support singlesex schooling, support coed schooling, are null, or are mixed (i.e., support both single-sex and 

coed schooling). Most of the outcome measures are in either the concurrent academic 

accomplishment (43 outcomes) or the concurrent adaptation and socio-emotional development 

(49 outcomes) areas. This report discusses only these two categories because of the small 

number of outcomes in the other categories. 

If a study’s findings all supported single-sex schooling for a given outcome variable, it was 

coded pro-single-sex. If a study’s findings all supported coeducation for a given outcome 

variable, it was coded pro-coeducation. A study was coded null if there were no statistically 

significant differences between the single-sex and coeducation outcomes and coded mixed if the 

study had statistically significant findings in opposite directions for different subgroups. For 

example, a study was coded mixed if the findings supported single-sex schooling for boys but 

supported coeducation for girls. Or, if the findings supported single-sex schooling at one grade 

level but supported coed schooling at another grade level, the study was coded mixed. If a study 

had findings that were both pro-single-sex and null, it was coded pro-single-sex. If a study had 

findings that were both pro-coeducation and null, it was coded pro-coeducation. 
7 

Exhibit 1 

Systematic Literature Review Findings 

Percentage of Outcomes 

Outcome Measure Category and Topic 

Total 

Outcomes Pro-SS Pro-CE Null Mixed 

Concurrent Academic Accomplishment

All subject achievement test scores 9 67% 11% 22% 0% 

Mathematics achievement test scores 14 22% 0% 56% 22% 

Science achievement test scores 8 25% 0% 62% 13% 

Verbal/English achievement test scores 10 30% 0% 70% 0% 

Grades 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 

Social studies achievement test scores 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 

 Subtotal 43 35% 2% 53% 10%

Long-Term Academic Accomplishment

Postsecondary test scores 2 50% 0% 50% 0% 

College graduation 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 

Graduate school attendance 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 

 Subtotal 4 25% 0% 75% 0%

Concurrent Adaptation and Socio-Emotional Development 

Self-concept 7 57% 0% 43% 0% 

Self-esteem 6 17% 33% 50% 0% 

Locus of control 5 60% 0% 40% 0% 

School track/subject preference 14 36% 14% 43% 7% 

Educational aspirations 3 67% 0% 33% 0% 

Career aspirations 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 

Delinquency 4 50% 0% 50% 0% 

Attitudes toward school 5 20% 20% 20% 40% 

Time spent per week on homework 2 50% 0% 50% 0% 

Attitudes toward working women 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 

 Subtotal 49 45% 10% 39% 6%

Long-Term Adaptation and Socio-Emotional Development 

School completion 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 

Postsecondary success 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 

Postsecondary unemployment 2 50% 0% 50% 0% 

Eating disorders 1 0% 100% 0% 0% 

Choice of college major 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 

exhibit continues 
8 

Exhibit 1 (continued) 

Sex role stereotyping 2 50% 50% 0% 0% 

Political involvement 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 

Percent married to first spouse 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 

 Subtotal 10 50% 20% 30% 0%

Perceived School Culture 

Climate for learning 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 

Opportunities for leadership roles 2 50% 0% 50% 0% 

School environment 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 

 Subtotal 4 50% 0% 50% 0%

Subjective Satisfaction 

Satisfaction with school environment 1 0% 100% 0% 0% 

College satisfaction 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 

 Subtotal 2 50% 50% 0% 0%

Total 112 

Note. SS = single-sex. CE = coed. 

Exhibit reads: A total of nine outcomes were reported across all studies in the area of all 

subject achievement test scores, and 67 percent of those outcomes were pro-single-sex 

education, 11 percent were pro-coeducation, 22 percent were null (indicating no 

differences between single-sex and coed schools), and none were mixed (supporting 

single-sex schools or coed schools for some but not all subgroups). 

Source: AIR, Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review, 2005. 

Among the concurrent academic accomplishment outcomes, 53 percent were null, 10 percent 

were mixed, 35 percent favored single-sex schooling, and only 2 percent favored coed schooling. 

Among the concurrent socio-emotional outcomes, 39 percent were null, 6 percent were mixed, 

45 percent favored single-sex schooling, and only 10 percent favored coed schooling. Thus the 

percentage of socio-emotional outcomes that favored single-sex schools exceeded the percentage 

of cognitive outcomes that favored single-sex schools. The researchers also provided separate 

results for boys and girls, and these results parallel the overall findings except that of the 30 

socio-emotional outcomes that pertained specifically to girls, 70 percent favored single-sex 

schools. Of the 25 socio-emotional outcomes for boys, only 40 percent favored single-sex 

schools. 

Thus, the results of the systematic review lend some support for single sex schooling, but the 

majority of academic outcomes were null or mixed. In addition, at least five methodological 

problems limit the acceptability of the studies included in the literature review: 

1. The statistical significance of the outcomes in these studies that favor either single sex or 

coed schools are likely to be exaggerated because the students are clustered within 

schools. To obtain accurate standard errors, hierarchical analyses should have been used. 

Thus some of the studies showing statistically significant results might actually be null 
9 

under the more appropriate multilevel analyses that are now the commonly accepted 

methodology.

2. Some of the studies, Lee and Bryk, 1986, for example, employed one-tailed tests that

inflate the significance of the results. Lee and Bryk claimed that previous evidence 

supported a directional hypothesis favoring single-sex schools, but Marsh (1989) 

challenged this claim, arguing that no basis for using one-tailed tests existed. Marsh 

found null results after employing two-tailed tests.

3. Fifty percent of the studies provided no information regarding the reliability of their 

measures. 

4. Lee and Bryk may have undercontrolled for possible extraneous variables, Marsh may 

have overcontrolled by including just about every possible variable. This methodological 

problem is, perhaps, the most serious and it is difficult to determine with any degree of 

confidence which of the studies is correctly specified. 

5. The wide heterogeneity of the 40 studies in the review hinders the drawing of firm 

conclusions. This heterogeneity applies to the quality of the studies, the time of the 

studies (they span nearly four decades), and the countries in which the studies were 

conducted.4

To supplement the literature review, the American Institutes for Research developed a paper that 

identified and described the possible explanations of positive or negative outcomes of single sex 

schools.5 The paper (Mael et al. 2005b), “Theoretical Arguments For and Against Single-Sex

Schools: A Critical Analysis of the Explanations,” reviews previous studies that asked why 

single-sex schools should have positive (or negative) effects. These theoretical rationales are in 

essence the intervening variables that might account for positive (or negative) effects attributed 

to single-sex schools. For example, some have argued that single-sex schools reduce sexual 

harassment in school, which makes possible higher cognitive achievement and better socioemotional development. These variables guided the construction of the surveys and the 

observations, and are described in detail in the following section. 

 

5

 http://www.air.org/publications/pubs_ehd_education_evidence.aspx 

11 

Data Sources and Methodology 

The key evaluation questions that guided the surveys and observations are: 

 What are the characteristics of public single-sex schooling? What are the contextual, 

instructional, and behavioral practices unique to single-sex schools? 

 What perceived benefits or disadvantages are associated with single-sex schooling? 

To answer these questions the evaluation team administered principal and teacher surveys to 19 

public single-sex schools and conducted site visits at a subsample of eight single-sex schools and 

two coed comparison schools. In addition, the study team analyzed existing data from the 

national Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) from 1999–2000 and 2003–04 to make 

comparisons between the 19 public single-sex schools and a sample of 150 coed comparison 

schools. The study team used a propensity score analysis to derive a subsample of the nationally 

representative SASS sample that best matched the single-sex schools on several demographic 

characteristics. 

Scope and Content of the Surveys 

The surveys collected descriptive data on the characteristics of single-sex public schools to gain 

a better understanding of how these schools function and whether they exhibit any of the positive 

or negative outcomes commonly attributed to single-sex schooling. The principal survey 

collected data on school characteristics (enrollment, demographic characteristics of the students, 

staffing, curriculum), principal background and experience, admissions procedures, school 

climate, classroom instruction, student support, parent involvement, professional development, 

characteristics of single-sex schooling for boys and girls, and implementation challenges. The 

teacher survey collected data on teacher background and experience, class organization, 

classroom instruction and assessment, school climate, characteristics of single-sex schooling for 

boys and girls, and implementation challenges. 

In order to allow comparisons between the single-sex schools and a sample of coed schools, both 

surveys included items from the 1999–2000 SASS and the 2003–04 SASS, which were 

developed and administered by the National Center for Education Statistics.6 The principal 

survey included 30 SASS questions among its 74 questions, and the teacher survey borrowed 17 

of its 46 questions from the SASS. The SASS questions were used so that comparisons could be 

made between the single-sex schools and a sample of similar coed schools. The principal and 

teacher surveys overlapped on 20 single-sex schooling questions, five background questions, 

three school climate questions, and one professional development question. These surveys were 

administered in February 2005. 

The principal and teacher surveys also included items that related to the 14 theoretical benefits of 

single-sex education that had been identified in the background paper on explanatory variables 

(Mael et al. 2005b). These theoretical constructs include: 

 

6

 See www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass (2000). 
12 

 Diminished strength of youth culture values. 

 Emphasis on academic achievement and aspirations. 

 Greater degree of order and control. 

 Provision of positive same sex teacher and student role models. 

 Reduction of sex differences in curriculum and student opportunities. 

 Reduction of sex bias in teacher-student interactions. 

 Better peer interactions (e.g., less teasing, less dominance). 

 Greater leadership opportunities. 

 Greater staff sensitivity to sex differences in learning and maturation.

 More opportunities for students to pursue non-sex role stereotyped activities and 

aspirations. 

 Less sexual harassment, violence, delinquency, drugs, and predatory behavior. 

 Proacademic parent and student choice to attend. 

 More same sex bonding and community. 

 Greater socio-emotional benefits (e.g., self-efficacy, confidence). 

The surveys asked principals and teachers several descriptive questions linked to these 14 

theoretical benefits, including which benefits they perceived as the greatest advantages of singlesex schooling. The study team used the survey results to identify and observe these explanatory 

variables (perceived benefits) during the site visits as well. 

Virtually all previous studies on single sex schools have been confined to an analysis of the 

direct effects of school type (single sex or coed) on a variety of student outcomes such as 

academic achievement. As noted in literature review, the high quality studies controlled for 

antecedent (common cause) variables such as socioeconomic status. However, very few studies 

examined the mechanisms or explanations for why single sex schools might be expected to have 

more favorable student outcomes than comparable coeducational schools. These mechanisms 

(see above list) may serve as intervening variables between the independent variable of school 

type and the dependent variable of academic achievement. They also may operate as potential 

benefits of single sex schools as perceived by those people attending or working in single sex 

schools. 

The survey questions pertaining to these explanatory variables were asked only of teachers and 

principals in single sex schools; thus no comparison data is available. Moreover, the responses 

and the behaviors of teachers and students in single sex schools may reflect the selection bias 

associated with their choice of attending or working in these schools. The systematic literature 

review summarized the effectiveness of single sex schools, but the surveys and school 

observations are purely descriptive. 

It should be noted that because teacher survey respondents are clustered within schools in both 

single-sex and coed school samples, their responses to the survey questions are not completely 

independent of one another. This could reduce the size of the standard errors, which could then 

result in concluding that some differences are statistically significant when they really are not. 
13 

For this reason, the study team decided that only differences with p values < .001 would be 

considered statistically significant. 

Survey Samples 

The study team used several strategies to identify single-sex schools to participate in the study. 

First, the study team contacted all 20 schools the U.S. Department of Education identified as 

public single-sex schools in 2003.7 Some of these schools no longer operated as single-sex 

schools or otherwise did not meet the inclusion criteria. For example, some schools on the list 

separated students by sex only for certain classes; only schools that separated students by sex for 

all classes were included. Second, the study team found additional schools through the National 

Association for Single-Sex Public Education, the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, and the 

International Boys’ School Coalition. Surveys were distributed in February 2005 to principals 

and teachers in 19 of the 20 single-sex schools in operation in fall 2003 that met the inclusion 

criteria and agreed to participate. The 20th school did not respond to written or telephone 

communications soliciting their participation. The recipients included four elementary schools, 

five middle schools, four combined middle and high schools, and six high schools. All but one of 

the principals returned the principal survey (95 percent), and 88 percent of the teachers returned 

the teacher survey for a total sample size of 18 principals and 478 teachers (see Exhibit 2). 

The study team selected a sample of coed public schools from the 2003–04 SASS database to 

serve as comparison schools. The study team used a propensity score analysis to derive a 

subsample of the SASS sample that best matched the single-sex schools on the following 

characteristics: the percentage of students who were African-American, the percentage of 

students who were Hispanic, the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals, 

and school locale (i.e., urban area of a large or midsized city). The single-sex schools and the 

comparison schools were similar on these demographic characteristics. The study team selected 

50 schools at each level (elementary, middle, and high school) for a total of 150 schools, 146 

principals, and 723 teachers. This sample of 150 schools represents a national sample of 

demographically similar schools. 

 

7

 According to the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, there were 88 single sex schools open in the United 

States as of fall 2007. 
14 

Exhibit 2 

Single-Sex School Survey Respondents 

School Location Grades Sex 

No. of 

Students 

No. of 

Teachers 

Percent 

NonWhite Percent 

FRPM 

Year 

Started 

New Yorka K–3 BG 192 18 97 100 2002 

Washington K–5 BG 290 22 98 87 2001 

Ohio K–6 B 250 25 99 99 2003 

Ohio K–6 G 340 30 99 99 2003 

Pennsylvania 5–8 BG 1,117 70 96 91 2003 

California 5–8 BG 103 7 100 97 1996 

Kentucky 6–8 BG 820 49 50 93 2002 

Coloradoa 6–8 BG 320 29 42 29 2003 

California 6–8 BG 1,210 42 92 90 1999 

Pennsylvania 7–10 B 316 14 100 100 2002 

Pennsylvania 7–10 G 268 14 100 100 2002 

Illinoisa 7–12 G 327 30 86 69 2000 

New York 7–12 G 400 28 99 84 1996 

Ohio 9–11 BG 590 40 94 83 2001 

North Carolina 9–12 B 60 10 — — 2003 

North Carolina 9–12 G 95 9 96 90 2003 

Wisconsin 9–12 G 90 6 99 94 1975 

Pennsylvania 9–12 G 1,194 55 86 48 1848 

Maryland 9–12 G 875 48 86 50 1844 

Total 8,857 546 

aCharter school. FRPM = free or reduced-price meals. BG = Boys and Girls (or Dual Academy). 

Exhibit reads: The single-sex school located in New York opened in 2002 and serves 192 

boys and girls in Grades K–3 and has 18 teachers. All of the students qualify for free or 

reduced-price meals and 97 percent are nonwhite. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Principal Survey, 2005.

Eight of the 19 single-sex schools that completed surveys were dual academies; seven were 

elementary or middle schools, and one was a high school. Of the remaining 11 schools, three 

served boys only and eight served girls only. Although the majority of schools (13 of 19) had 

been in operation only since 2000, two of the all girls’ schools had been in operation for over 

150 years. In 17 of the schools most students were nonwhite, and in 16 of the schools most 

students qualified for free or reduced-price meals. 
15 

Scope and Content of the Site Visits 

The study team developed interview, focus group, and observation protocols to explore the 

evaluation questions with various stakeholders in single-sex schools and coed comparison 

schools. The site visit teams gathered information about the schools’ physical facilities; curricula 

and modes of instruction; climates and cultures; perceived benefits of single-sex schooling; and 

theoretical rationales for establishing single-sex schools as perceived by principals, teachers, 

students, and parents. The site visit teams conducted a principal interview; a district supervisor 

interview; focus groups with teachers, parents, and students; and observed classrooms and other 

school areas such as the cafeteria, hallways, and playground. Site visit team members were all 

experienced in evaluating educational programs and participated in group training on the 

observation protocols. 

Site Visit School Sample 

The study team attempted to recruit two single-sex schools and two matching coed schools at 

each level (elementary, middle, and high school). The study team used several criteria to select 

the single-sex schools: school size, charter school status, geographic diversity, and perceived 

willingness to participate in a site visit. Principals of the six participating single-sex schools were 

asked to suggest the coed schools in their districts that were most similar to their own schools in 

terms of student race and poverty level. The study team also searched national databases to 

identify similar schools. After identifying the best matches for each single-sex school, the study 

team contacted the potential comparison schools. Most of the comparison schools did not agree 

to participate. Due to the difficulty obtaining cooperation from comparison schools, the sample 

contains only one comparison school at the elementary and middle school levels and none at the 

high school level. The sample size for the comparison schools is not sufficient to generalize to 

coed schools, but the sample of single sex schools represents 40 percent of the schools in 

existence at the time. The purpose of employing coeducational comparisons schools was limited 

and exploratory, and the study design does not support inferences about the impact of single-sex 

schooling. 

When it became clear that the study team would not be able to recruit six comparison schools, a 

pair of single-sex elementary schools located in the same district was added to the study. At the 

direction of the district superintendent, these once coed schools had in 2003 become single-sex 

schools, one enrolling boys and the other girls. The study team was interested in studying how 

the two schools had responded to this mandate and whether the schools exhibited differences in 

terms of programs and outcomes. 

The final site visit sample comprised three groups: five elementary schools, three middle 

schools, and two high schools. The single-sex schools included four completely single-sex 

schools (Schools B, C, I, and J), three dual boys’ and girls’ academies housed in the same 

building (Schools A, F, and G), and one dual academy with some coed classes (School D). Due

to unequal numbers of boys and girls in Grades 4 and 5, the school grouped students by ability 

into coed groups for reading, mathematics, and science instruction. Two schools, one elementary 
16 

and one middle, served as coed comparison schools.8 The schools in the sample ranged in size 

from 850 students at School I to 150 students at School B, where low academic performance and 

parental school choice had resulted in decreased enrollment. Only one of the schools indicated 

that fewer than 50 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and all 

but one had student populations that were predominantly nonwhite. Consequently, this sample 

primarily informs on single-sex schools serving at-risk populations. 

With the exception of School I, which has been in existence for 150 years, all of the single-sex 

schools and dual academies are relatively new and many are undergoing rapid change. For 

example, School D added a coed component between the time the sample was selected and the 

site visits were conducted to address an inequity in class size, School G planned to split into two 

separate schools in the 2006–07 year, and School A planned to do so in 2007–08. In general, the 

schools also noted they had limited and diminishing resources for meeting the needs of students. 

Exhibit 3 

Site Visit School and Student Characteristics 

School Characteristics Student Characteristics (Percentages) 

School

ID 

Grades 

Served 

No. of 

Students 

SS 

Girls 

SS 

Boys Coed 

FRPM 

Eligible 

African 

American Asian Hispanic 

Native 

American White 

A K–4 237 Dual academy 100 86 10 3 

B K–6 150 X 80 97 3 

C K–7 340 X 92 95 < 1 4 

D K–5 297 X X X 93 63 15 19 2 

E K–6 840 X 84 90 9 < 1 

F 6–8 320 Dual academy 30 8 6 12 13 58 

G 6–8 850 Dual academy 92 50 4 4 < 1 43 

H 6–8 670 X 71 16 5 46 2 31 

I 9–12 850 X 50 82 3 1 14 

J 7–12 400 X 67 40 1 56 1 1 

Note. School D offers mostly single-sex classes but some classes in Grades 4 and 5 were coed. 

FRPM = free and reduced-price meals 

Numbers in Exhibits 2 and 3 may differ somewhat because survey data and site visit data were collected in two different school years. 

Exhibit reads: School A served 237 boys and girls in Grades K–4. All of the students 

were eligible for free or reduced-price meals; 86 percent were African-American, 10 

percent were Hispanic, and 3 percent were white. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Principal Interview, 2005.

 

8Originally, plans called for two coed comparison schools at each level for a total of six schools. Coed schools were reluctant to 

participate in the project and it was necessary to reduce the number of comparison schools back to one at each level. Then, at the 

last moment, the coed high school dropped out. 
17 

Characteristics of Public Single-Sex Schooling 

The study team analyzed survey data from 19 single-sex schools and 150 coed comparison 

schools to examine demographic and background characteristics of the schools, principals, 

teachers, and students. Interviews and observation data from the school site visits provided more 

detail on staff and student characteristics, school programs, beliefs about single-sex schooling, 

school climate, student interactions, academic achievement, and extracurricular activities. The 

findings from these data sources describe characteristics of single sex schools that could be 

considered a potential source of hypotheses for further investigations that utilize experimental or 

quasi-experimental designs. 

Staff and Student Characteristics 

Principals and Teachers 

The principals of the public single-sex schools were similar to the principals of the coed 

comparison schools in terms of ethnic background and educational credentials. Teachers in 

the single-sex schools were more likely than teachers in the comparison schools to have 

earned certification beyond a master’s degree but less likely to have standard certification. 

On average, teachers from single-sex schools had fewer years of experience in the 

classroom. 

Like their students, the majority of the school principals were African-American. However, the 

majority of the teachers in both single-sex and comparison schools were white (see Exhibit 4). 

The most common educational attainment for both single-sex and comparison school principals 

was a master’s degree. On average, the single-sex school and comparison school principals were 

similar in terms of their years of experience. 

There were several statistically significant differences between the single-sex school teachers 

and the comparison school teachers on background characteristics including race, educational 

attainment, years teaching at their current school, total years of teaching experience, and 

certification levels. Although teachers at the single-sex and comparison schools were equally 

likely to have a master’s degree, a greater percentage of single-sex school teachers had earned 

certification beyond a master’s degree. However, teachers at single-sex schools had fewer years 

of teaching experience (See Exhibit 5). 

Teacher credential data also differed between the single-sex and comparison schools. Single-sex 

school teachers were more likely than comparison school teachers to have probationary 

certification, temporary certification requiring additional course work, or emergency 

certification. Differences in certification between single-sex and coed school teachers may partly 

be a function of the fact that three of the single-sex schools (16 percent) are charter schools. Only 

51 percent of the single-sex charter school teachers were fully certified compared to 75 percent 
18 

of the single-sex non-charter school teachers. (Note that this information was collected prior to 

the NCLB deadline for meeting Highly Qualified Teacher requirements). 

Exhibit 4 

Racial and Ethnic Background of Survey Respondents 

 Principals Teachers 

Race/Ethnicity SS Schools Coed Schools SS Schools Coed Schools 

White 28% 36% 60% 54% 

Black or African American 72% 63% 34% 40% 

Asian or Pacific Islander 0% 1% 4% 6% 

American Indian or Alaska 

Native 

6% 0% 2% 2% 

Hispanic Origin 0% 6% 6% 4% 

Note: The single-sex school teacher survey findings are based on responses from 92 elementary, 187 middle, and 

199 high school teachers (N = 478), and comparison school teacher survey findings are based on responses from 151 

elementary, 206 middle, and 366 high school teachers (N = 723). 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-eight percent of the single-sex school principals, 36 percent of the 

coed school principals, 60 percent of the single-sex school teachers, and 54 percent of 

the coed school teachers were white. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Principal and Teacher Surveys; SASS 

Surveys. 

According to site visit interviews, the principals of the single-sex schools acquired their positions 

by applying for a leadership position in the school, being assigned to the school by the district, or 

by remaining in the principal position when the school transitioned from a coed school to a 

single-sex school. In all but one instance the principals embraced the single-sex school concept 

and articulated a vision that included modifying instruction to address the predominant learning 

styles of boys or girls, although site teams observed no major modifications to curricula in the 

classrooms. As part of this vision, principals cited fostering a school climate that minimizes 

instructional distractions resulting from interaction with the other sex in the classroom and 

creating a supportive school community. 
19 

Exhibit 5 

Educational Background and Experience of Survey Respondents 

 Principals Teachers 

Education or Experience Level SS Schools Coed Schools SS Schools Coed Schools 

Bachelor’s degree 6% 0% 40% 47% 

Master’s degree 44% 47% 44% 45% 

Education specialist or certification 28% 43% 11% 5% 

Doctorate or professional degree 22% 10% 3% 1% 

Standard teacher certification — — 72% 80% 

Years of teaching experience 13.5 14.7 11.2 15.1 

Years of principal experience 7.0 6.6 — — 

Years as principal or teacher in this

school 

3.6 4.0 5.2 7.7 

Exhibit reads: Six percent of the single-sex school principals had no education beyond a 

bachelor’s degree, but all of the coed school principals had at least a master’s degree. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Principal and Teacher Surveys; SASS 

Surveys. 

Students 

Overall, the single-sex public schools served student populations similar to those in 

comparable coed public schools, although fewer students with disabilities attended singlesex elementary and high schools. 

Student racial breakdowns varied by school level. In the single-sex schools the largest racial 

classification at all three levels was African-American (86 percent of elementary; 50 percent of 

middle; and 71 percent of high school students). African-Americans also composed the majority 

of the student population in the comparison schools (92 percent of elementary, 69 percent of 

middle, and 69 percent of high school students). 

Compared to coed schools, a smaller percentage of elementary, middle, and high school students 

attending single-sex public schools were eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Average daily 

attendance was similar for single-sex and comparison schools at all school levels. Single-sex 

elementary and middle schools had slightly lower percentages of students with special education 

individualized education programs (IEPs) and slightly higher percentages of students who were 

limited English proficient than the coed comparison schools. Single-sex high schools had a 

slightly higher percentage of students with IEPs compared to coed schools (see Exhibit 6). 
20 

Exhibit 6 

Student Background by School Level 

Mean Percentage of Students 

Elementary Middle High 

Characteristic SS Coed SS Coed SS Coed 

Eligible for free or reduced-price meals 65 89 67 84 65 74 

Attending daily 95 94 86 92 87 89 

With IEP 6 11 13 19 22 14 

Limited English proficient 12 5 18 10 1 4 

Note: Single-sex school sample size: 19. Coed comparison school sample size: 150. 

IEP = individualized education program. 

Exhibit reads: At the elementary school level, 65 percent of students in single-sex schools 

were eligible for free or reduced-price meals, compared to 89 percent of coed school 

students. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Principal Survey, 2005. 

School Programs 

Overall, single-sex schools were more likely to receive Title I funds and to offer more 

extended day and parent involvement programs. Coed schools were more likely to offer 

programs for limited English proficient students. 

According to the principals surveyed, the single-sex elementary and middle schools were more 

likely than the comparison schools to receive Title I funds; all of the single-sex elementary 

schools, 86 percent of the middle schools, and 43 percent of the high schools received Title I

funds, but only 76 percent, 48 percent, and 48 percent, respectively, of the coed schools did. In 

contrast, the coed schools were more likely to offer programs for limited English proficient 

students. Although the differences between the single-sex and comparison schools at the middle 

and high school levels were few, at the elementary school level single-sex schools were less 

likely than comparison schools to have any type of formal school improvement plan (75 percent 

versus 96 percent). 

The single-sex schools were asked several questions about school programs that did not appear 

on the SASS survey. 

 Among the single-sex schools, 25 percent of the elementary, 86 percent of the middle, 

and 29 percent of the high schools had been identified for school improvement under No 

Child Left Behind. 

 Twenty-five percent of the elementary single-sex schools and 43 percent of the single-sex 

schools at the middle and high school levels were implementing a specific school reform 

model. 
21 

 The majority of the teachers in the single-sex schools used state or district standards to 

guide instruction to a moderate or great extent (88 percent at the elementary, 79 percent 

at the middle, and 72 percent at the high school level). 

 In-class instruction in small groups, pullout instruction during school hours, and 

individual tutoring outside of class time were the most common supplemental services 

provided to students with additional learning needs in the single-sex schools. 

 Most of the single-sex schools (89 percent) offered before- or after-school enrichment 

programs. 

 Many of the single-sex schools offered parent education workshops or courses 

(61 percent), written contracts between school and parents (94 percent), and opportunities 

for parents to serve as volunteers in the school on a regular basis (89 percent). 

 Almost half of the single-sex schools (47 percent) had formal adult-student mentoring

programs, and 33 percent had formal peer mentoring programs. 

 Sixty-seven percent of single-sex schools offered alcohol, drug, or tobacco prevention 

programs and 61 percent offered violence prevention programs. 

Curriculum and Instruction 

The site visit teams found little evidence of substantive modifications to curricula to 

address the specific needs of either boys or girls, although some teachers provided 

examples of using support materials specific to the interests of girls. At one all girls’ high 

school, teachers stated that they taught the same as they would if they were teaching boys or a 

coed class. Direct instruction with student interaction was the predominant pedagogical approach 

in all of the single-sex schools. 

In both the elementary and middle school samples, more positive academic and behavioral 

interactions between teachers and students (both boys and girls) were observed in the 

single-sex schools than in the coed comparison schools. Boys’ and girls’ academic time on 

task at both the elementary and middle school levels was also higher in the single-sex schools. 

Exhibits A1 and A2 in Appendix A display evidence that the observed instructional interactions 

between teachers and students in the single-sex schools differed from the interactions observed 

in the two coed comparison schools. The site visit teams rated the single-sex elementary schools 

higher than the coed comparison schools in the areas of setting high academic expectations, 

showing sensitivity to sex differences in learning or maturity, maintaining order and control, and 

providing opportunities for non-sex stereotyped activities (see Exhibit A1). At the middle school 

level there were fewer differences between the single-sex and comparison schools (see 

Exhibit A2). Exhibit A3 displays similar data for the two single-sex high schools observed, 

although no comparisons with coed classes were possible. The counts of positive academic 

interactions between teachers and students in these high schools are lower than those in the 

elementary and middle schools observed. 
22 

Professional Development 

The survey data revealed few differences in the numbers of teachers and principals who 

participated in various types of professional development. The principals of single-sex 

schools were, however, more likely to participate in professional development with their 

teachers than were the principals of coed schools (100 percent and 87 percent, 

respectively). 

The study team compared data from the single-sex school principal and teacher surveys with 

SASS data on professional development and found small differences between these groups. The 

principals of both single-sex and coed comparison schools were equally likely to participate in 

university courses, observational visits to other schools, and research on topics of professional 

interest. The principals of coed schools were more likely to participate in a principal network, 

but the principals of single-sex schools were more likely to present at workshops and 

conferences. Teachers in the single-sex schools were equally likely as teachers in the coed 

comparison schools to take university courses related to teaching, make observational visits to 

other schools, attend conferences, and present at conferences (see Exhibit 7).

At the elementary level single-sex school teachers were most likely to participate in professional 

development activities related to reading (62 percent) and mathematics (58 percent). At the 

middle school level the most common professional development topics were reading (65 percent) 

and student discipline (51 percent), and at the high school level the most common topics were 

student assessment (50 percent) and reading (44 percent). The single-sex school teachers at the 

elementary level were the most likely to receive professional development on single-sex 

education (33 percent), followed by middle school teachers (24 percent) and high school teachers 

(15 percent). 

In the site visits, one of the girls’ high schools and most of the dual academies said they provided 

professional development for teachers specifically related to single-sex schooling, although in 

most instances the listed offerings occurred only once or twice. Staff at the all-girls’ elementary 

school participated in professional development on how girls learn, and discussed JoAnn Deak’s 

book, Girls Will Be Girls: Raising Confident and Courageous Daughters. All School D teachers 

were required to read Mychal Wynn’s Empowering African-American Males: Teaching, 

Parenting, and Mentoring Successful Black Males. At School J, which had the most 

comprehensive professional development on single-sex education, teachers annually attended 

talks given by experts in the field and were involved in book discussion groups related to girls’ 

education. In this school, teachers spoke of the ways in which they modify their materials and 

pedagogy to meet the specific needs and interests of girls. 
23 

Exhibit 7 

Participation in Professional Development Over Past 12 Months 

Percent Participating 

Principals Teachers 

Type of Professional Development SS Coed SS Coed 

University courses related to role 44 39 47 42 

Observational visits to other schools 83 74 27 25 

Observational visits to other classrooms in own 

school 

— — 50 — 

Individual or collaborative research on a topic of 

professional interest 

67 82 — — 

Mentoring or coaching of principals as part of a 

formal arrangement supported by the school district

72 60 — — 

Participation in a principal network (e.g., a group of 

principals organized by an outside agency or through 

the Internet) 

39 64 — — 

Reading professional articles or books related to 

education 

— — 83 — 

Presenting at workshops or conferences 72 49 30 31

Attending workshops or conferences as a participant

only 

89 94 91 88 

Note: Single-sex schools: N = 19. Coed schools: N = 150. Dashes indicate that the question was not included on that survey. 

Exhibit reads: Forty-four percent of principals and 47 percent of teachers in single-sex 

schools attended a university-level course related to their role, whereas 39 percent of

principals and 42 percent of teachers in coed schools said they received this type of 

professional development. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Principal and Teacher Surveys, 2005; SASS 

Surveys. 

Single-Sex Schooling 

Results from the principal surveys show that the most common admission criterion for 

single-sex schools was residence in the attendance area (53 percent), followed by student 

academic records (47 percent), special student needs (41 percent), and parental 

involvement or commitment (41 percent).

One elementary school and two high schools in the site visit sample (Schools A, I, and J) had 

admission procedures that may have resulted in populations that were not identical to the general 

school population. The selection criteria included prior academic performance, 

recommendations, and interviews. At least one site visit school (School B) had a declining 

student population and inadequate numbers of applicants. One school (School C) noted that girls
24 

who did not fulfill its behavioral expectations were asked to transfer out; others (Schools A and 

I) required adequate academic progress for students to remain enrolled. 

Reasons for Establishing Single-Sex Schools 

According to the 18 principal survey respondents, the primary reasons for establishing 

single-sex schools were to increase the focus on academics (53 percent), to better address 

individual student needs (29 percent), and to reduce discipline issues or dropouts 

(18 percent). 

Almost half (47 percent) of the schools were coed before becoming single-sex schools. About 

one-fourth of the principals and teachers had been at their school before it had become a singlesex school; most of these teachers (83 percent) and principals (73 percent) supported the 

conversion to single-sex schooling. 

Perceived Benefits of Single-Sex Schooling 

Principals and teachers perceived that the main benefits of single-sex schooling were 

decreased distractions to learning, improved student achievement, and the opportunity to 

address the unique learning styles and interests of boys and girls.9

The study team collected data on the perceived advantages of single-sex schooling through the 

principal and teacher surveys and the site visits. The study team developed items for the principal 

and teacher surveys using the 14 theoretical benefits of single-sex education that emerged from 

the literature review. Exhibit 8 illustrates the order of importance respondents placed on these 14 

benefits. 

Teachers in the site visit sample focused on the ways in which single-sex classrooms decrease 

distractions to learning. Teachers in some schools said that single-sex classes enable them to deal 

separately with “emotional” girls or “aggressive” boys. Teachers dealing with at-risk and 

challenging students stated that single-sex classrooms reduce the complexity of the environments 

they manage. 

 

9

 The Title IX regulations prohibit recipients from offering single-sex classes or extracurricular activities that are based on the 

overbroad generalizations of the different talents, capacities, or preferences of either sex. 
25 

Exhibit 8 

Perceived Benefits of Single-Sex Schooling 

Percent of Teachers Percent of Principals 

Benefit 

Most 

Important 

Included 

in Top 5 

 Most 

Important 

Included 

in Top 5 

Single-sex schooling . . . 

Decreases distractions to learning. 32 72 29 76 

Improves student achievement. 15 53 41 82 

Addresses the unique learning styles and 

interests of boys or girls. 

14 55 6 59 

Improves student self-esteem. 7 49 0 41 

Decreases the academic problems of low 

achieving students. 

6 24 0 35 

Reduces student behavior problems. 4 40 0 47 

Allows for more opportunities to provide 

social and moral guidance. 

4 33 6 24 

Provides choice in public education. 4 31 12 29 

Provides more leadership opportunities. 4 30 6 35 

Decreases sex role stereotyping. 3 21 0 18 

Decreases sex bias in teacher-student 

interactions. 

3 20 0 12 

Reduces sexual harassment among 

students. 

2 21 0 18 

Promotes a sense of community among 

students and staff. 

1 16 0 12 

Provides more positive student role models. 0 14 0 0 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-two percent of the teachers and 29 percent of the principals ranked 

“decreases distractions to learning” as the most important benefit of single-sex schools; 

72 percent of the teachers and 76 percent of the principals ranked this benefit in their top 

five benefits. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Principal and Teacher Surveys, 2005. 

Sex Differences in the Perceived Benefits of Single-Sex Schooling 

The principals and teachers who responded to the surveys rated the extent to which they agreed 

or disagreed with 10 of the 14 theoretical benefits of single-sex schooling. Internal consistency 

reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) were calculated for only 10 of the benefit subscales because there 

were insufficient numbers of items to constitute real subscales for four of these rationales or 
26 

explanatory categories (see Exhibit 9). The reliabilities ranged from .56 to .89.10 Teachers 

responded to the same set of survey items for both boys and girls if they taught both sexes. If 

they taught only one sex, they responded to the survey items for that sex only. 

Exhibit 9 

Perceived Differences Between Boys and Girls on Explanatory Category Scores 

From Teachers Who Instruct Both Sexes 

Mean 

Benefit Girls Boys t p 

1. Diminished strength of youth culture values 

(diminished emphasis on sex, sports, antiacademic values and behaviors) 

2.32 2.32 0.29 .776 

2. Greater emphasis on academic behaviors 2.71 2.38 7.28 < .001 

3. Greater degree of order and control 2.90 2.74 6.86 < .001 

4. More successful same sex student and teacher 

role modelsa

3.46 3.46 

5. Better peer interactions (e.g., less teasing, less 

dominance) 

3.11 2.70 8.88 < .001 

6. More leadership opportunities 1.89 1.73 2.80 .006 

7. Greater sensitivity to sex differences in learning 

and maturation 

3.10 3.10 0.13 .900 

8. Less sexual harassment, violence, delinquency, 

drugs, and predatory behavior 

3.28 3.22 3.47 .001 

9. Requirement of pro-academic parent and 

student choice 

2.37 2.21 3.10 .002 

10. Greater socio-emotional benefits (e.g., selfefficacy, confidence) 3.01 2.71 5.67 < .001 

Note: n = 136 (teachers who responded for both boys and girls). Mean ratings are based on a scale from 1 (strongly 

disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A scale mean of 2.5 or higher indicates that, on average, the respondents agreed that the 

benefit was applicable. 

aBecause items on this scale were not asked separately for teachers of boys and teachers of girls, no t test was conducted. 

Exhibit reads: The exhibit presents the mean scale scores for 10 theoretical benefits of 

single-sex schooling for teachers who taught both sexes separately. The t-values 

represent the magnitude of the differences between teacher perceptions of the benefits for 

boys and girls. The p-values indicate whether or not these differences are statistically 

significant. For the first benefit, diminished strength of youth culture values, the mean 

rating for both boys and girls was approximately 2.32, so the difference was not 

statistically significant. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Teacher Survey, 2005. 

 

10Alphas were greater than .65 in all but two of the explanatory categories; these alphas were lower (.56 and .62) because these 

scales were limited to two items. 
27 

Teachers reported significantly greater benefits of single-sex schooling for girls than for 

boys in five of the 10 benefit categories. That is, teachers believed that girls benefit more than 

boys from better peer interactions, a greater emphasis on academic behaviors, a greater degree of 

order and control, socio-emotional benefits, and safe behavior. Teachers believed that both sexes 

benefit equally from single-sex education in terms of a greater sensitivity to sex differences in 

learning and maturation. One purported benefit, the provision of more leadership opportunities, 

was clearly not supported by the teachers in this sample. 

There are some important differences in how teachers valued the 10 theoretical benefits of 

single-sex education for boys and girls and also some important similarities. The decrease in 

sexual harassment and violence appears to be one of the greatest advantages of single-sex 

schooling for both boys and girls, according to teachers. Teachers also perceived that students 

benefit from better peer interactions, greater teacher sensitivity to sex differences in learning and 

maturation, and from having same-sex student and teacher role models.11

School Climate 

Overall, teachers in single-sex high schools rated problems with student behavior as less 

serious than teachers in coed schools, but the opposite was true at the middle school level. 

There were no differences between single-sex and coed school teachers’ ratings of problems 

at the elementary level. 

School climate refers to the sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and organizational 

structures within a school and their effects on students (McBrien and Brandt, 1997). The study 

team examined school climate through both the survey results and the site visits because 

previous research has shown positive correlations between school climate and student 

achievement (Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer, and Wisenbaker, 1977; Bulach and Malone, 

1994; Rutter, 1981; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, and Smith, 1979; Wynne, 1980). 

Hoyle, English, and Steffy (1985) stated, “School climate may be one of the most important 

ingredients of a successful instructional program. Without a climate that creates a harmonious 

and well functioning school, a high degree of academic achievement is difficult, if not downright 

impossible to obtain” (p. 15). 

The study team compared school climate-related data from 11 items on the single-sex schools 

surveys with data from similar items in the SASS database. These data addressed problems 

related to student behavior, parent involvement, and teacher behavior, and teachers rated the 

extent to which they perceived these areas to be problems in their school (scale reliability is .87). 

Exhibit 10 shows that the single-sex school teachers rated all of the 11 problems as less serious 

than the coed school teachers rated them. The study team developed an 11-item problem scale to 

determine whether the single-sex school teachers differed from the comparison school teachers 

on their perceptions of problems as a whole. Findings indicated that, as a whole, teachers from 

single-sex schools perceived problems to be less serious than did comparison school teachers 

(Ms = 2.50 and 2.71 for single-sex and comparison schools, respectively, t = 6.16, p < .001). 

 

11 None of the schools in this study hired or assigned teachers on the basis of sex, which would be illegal under Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972 and other employment laws. 
28 

Teachers in the single-sex high schools (M = 2.42) believed school climate problems overall to 

be less serious than the teachers in the coed high schools (M = 2.99). In contrast, single-sex 

middle school teachers reported problems overall to be more serious (Ms = 2.74 and 2.56, 

respectively). Elementary single-sex and coed school teachers rated problems similarly 

(Ms = 2.18 and 2.26, respectively). (See Exhibits A4, A5, and A6). 

Exhibit 10 

Teacher Perceptions of School Climate Problems 

 Teachers’ Mean Rating 

Problem Area SS Coed 

Student tardiness 2.90 3.02 

Student absenteeism 2.81 3.00 

Student class cutting 2.21 2.48 

Student pregnancy 1.90 1.98 

Students dropping out 1.62 2.11 

Student apathy 2.72 2.87 

Lack of parental involvement 2.98 3.24 

Students unprepared to learn 3.14 3.41 

Poor student health 2.31 2.44 

Teacher absenteeism 1.84 2.05 

Poverty 3.14 3.24 

Note. Single-sex schools n = 478; coed schools n = 723. Mean ratings 

are based on a scale from 1 (not a problem) to 4 (serious problem). 

Exhibit reads: Teachers in coed schools rated student tardiness a more serious problem 

than teachers in single-sex schools. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Teacher Survey, 2005; SASS, 2004. 

Teachers also rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements 

related to school climate. The study team combined related survey items to develop three climate 

constructs for leadership, student misbehavior, and instructional support (see Exhibit A7 for 

construct items and scale reliabilities). Mean differences between the ratings made by the singlesex school teachers and coed teachers on these climate scales are presented in Exhibit 11. 

Teachers in single-sex high schools reported significantly greater instructional support and less 

student misbehavior than the coed school teachers (p < .001). In contrast, single-sex middle 

school teachers indicated that there was significantly less instructional support and more student 

misbehavior than the coed school teachers (p < .001). There were no significant differences 

between single-sex and coed elementary school teachers on these factors. 
29 

Exhibit 11 

Teacher Perceptions of School Climate 

Teachers’ Mean Rating 

Elementary Middle High School Climate 

Construct SS Coed SS Coed SS Coed 

Leadership 3.38 3.23 3.04 3.16 3.13 3.18 

Student misbehavior 2.29 2.34 2.98* 2.53 2.36* 2.78 

Instructional support 2.72 2.58 2.38* 2.53 2.68* 2.49 

Number of respondents 91 151 187 206 198 366 

Note. Single-sex schools n = 475; coed schools n = 723. Rating scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 

4 = strongly agree. 

* Difference between single-sex and coed teacher ratings statistically significant at p < .001.

Exhibit reads: The exhibit compares the mean ratings of single-sex and coed elementary, 

middle, and high school teachers on three school climate constructs: leadership, student 

misbehavior, and instructional support. There were no differences between single-sex 

and coed teachers at any school level on student leadership. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Teacher Survey, 2005; SASS, 2004. 

The study team also analyzed the mean differences between the ratings of the single-sex school 

teachers and the comparison school teachers on the series of statements related to school climate 

(See Exhibit 12). 
30 

Exhibit 12 

Teacher Ratings of School Climate 

 Teachers’ Mean Rating 

School Climate Statement SS Coed 

a. There is a great deal of cooperative effort among 

the staff members. 

3.05 3.05 

b. I make a conscious effort to coordinate the 

content of my courses with that of other teachers. 

2.96 3.08 

c. I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to do

my best as a teacher. 

1.64 1.62 

d. I am generally satisfied with being a teacher. 3.24 3.29 

e. I am satisfied with my teaching salary. 2.20 2.20 

f. I worry about the security of my job because of 

the performance of my students on state and/or 

local tests. 

2.18 2.21 

Note: Single-sex schools n = 475; coed schools n = 723. Rating scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 

4 = strongly agree.

Exhibit reads: The exhibit shows the extent to which single-sex and coed school teachers 

agreed or disagreed with each statement about school climate. There were no differences 

between single-sex and coed school teachers on their perceptions of cooperative effort 

among staff members. 

Source: RMC Research, Single-Sex School Teacher Survey, 2005; SASS, 2004. 

Teachers in coed schools reported significantly more coordination of the content of courses with 

other teachers than the teachers in single-sex schools. No statistically significant differences 

were evident in the teachers’ responses to the other statements. Teacher ratings disaggregated by 

school level appear in Exhibits A8, A9, and A10. 

In conclusion, survey data from 478 teachers in 19 single-sex schools and similar data from a 

subsample of 723 coed school teachers selected from the SASS database suggest that school 

climate is somewhat more positive in single-sex schools than in coed schools. Data from the 

middle school sample do not, however, follow the same positive trends observed in the 

elementary and high school samples. In contrast to single-sex elementary and high school 

teachers, single-sex middle school teachers perceived there were more serious problems, more 

student misbehavior, and less instructional support. 

Student Interactions and Behaviors 

Overall, the site visit teams observed more positive student interactions in the single-sex 

schools than in the coed comparison schools in the sample. 

Students in the single-sex elementary and middle schools in the site visit sample exhibited a 

greater sense of community, interacted more positively with one another, showed greater respect 
31 

for their teachers, were less likely to initiate class disruptions, and demonstrated more positive 

student role modeling than students in the coed comparison school sample. Single-sex middle 

school students were slightly more likely to engage in leadership activities than their coed 

comparison school counterparts. Students in the two single-sex high schools exhibited high 

levels of sense of community, positive interactions with one another, respect for teachers, 

positive student role modeling, and engagement in leadership opportunities and low levels of 

class disruptions. Exhibit 13 shows the site visitors’ mean ratings of each of several student 

interactions and behaviors in the eight single-sex and two coed comparison schools visited. 

Exhibit 13 

Classroom Observation Summary: Student Interactions 

Observers’ Mean Rating 

Elementary Middle High 

Student Characteristic SS Coed SS Coed SS 

Exhibit a sense of community 2.98 2.55 2.31 2.04 3.18 

Interact positively with each other 3.34 3.00 2.63 2.41 3.45 

Show respect for the teacher 3.55 3.14 3.39 3.00 3.36 

Initiate class disruptions 1.74 2.60 1.63 1.82 1.63 

Exhibit positive role modeling 2.82 1.86 1.88 1.57 3.06 

Engage in leadership opportunities 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.85 2.65 

Number of classroom observations 16.5 17 27 28 21

Note. Rating scale: 1 = very little, 4 = extensive. 

Exhibit reads: The exhibit shows the observers’ mean ratings for single-sex and coed 

elementary, middle, and high schools on several student characteristics. The last row of 

the table indicates the average number of classrooms that were observed at each school 

level. 

Source: RMC Research, Classroom Observations, 2005. 

Elementary Schools. The site visitors observed consistently positive interactions in the four 

single-sex elementary schools. During focus group sessions, girls in the single-sex elementary 

schools expressed feeling a greater sense of community in their current school than they had in a 

coed setting. Girls said that making friends and learning without boys around is easier. Parents at 

one school cited increased confidence and assertiveness in their daughters, which they attributed 

to the girls’ school experience. They also believed that their daughters have more leadership 

opportunities in a single-sex setting. Parents of the boys in another school said that their sons are 

more eager to learn and compete academically than they had been in the coed setting. The site 

visitors did, however, observe more positive boy-girl interactions in the coed comparison school 

than in the dual academies when boys and girls interacted, such as between classes. 

Middle Schools. The site visitors noted predominantly respectful interactions between students

and teachers at one single-sex middle school but fewer positive interactions at the other. Peer 
32 

interactions were generally healthy. In both single-sex middle schools girls tended to have more 

positive same-sex peer interactions than boys. The site visitors found that the interactions 

between students and teachers in the coed middle school ranged from positive to troubling. Peer 

interactions were positive in the comparison middle school, and as in the single-sex schools the 

site visitors observed more positive same-sex peer interactions between girls than boys. 

High Schools. Girls in the two single-sex high schools that were visited said they felt close to one 

another and to the teachers; students, teachers, and parents believed that a high level of support 

was available to the students12. Peer and student-teacher interactions in the classroom were 

positive, and the site visitors observed that interactions in the hall and the cafeteria at both 

schools were lively but orderly. Students and parents stated that higher quality teacher and 

student interactions are possible because the girls are not distracted by boys. Students described 

an increase in self-esteem since attending the single-sex school, and parents and administrators 

also suggested that single-sex schooling had increased the girls’ confidence. Parents also asserted 

that single-sex schooling had provided their daughters’ leadership skills and maturity. The 

availability of peer and adult role models was another benefit cited by multiple stakeholders. The 

girls admired their peer role models for their academic achievement and leadership skills and 

received social and moral guidance from teachers (male and female) in a way that they believed 

would not be possible in a coed setting. 

Student Academic Achievement and Behaviors 

Academic achievement outcomes for single-sex schools in the site visit sample were mixed, 

which may reflect differences in the populations they serve. Site visitors observed that 

students at single-sex schools were engaged in academic activities and tended to complete 

their homework. 

The principal survey results indicate that student achievement in the single-sex schools was 

lowest at the middle school level: 28 percent of the students were at or above proficient in 

reading and 22 percent were at or above proficient in mathematics. At the elementary school 

level these figures are 49 percent and 35 percent respectively, and at the high school level they 

are 54 percent and 46 percent respectively. 

The site visitors collected data on student achievement on state assessments, high school 

graduation rates, and college acceptance rates. Data on state assessments appear in Exhibits A11, 

A12, A13, and A14. None of the single-sex or coed elementary schools visited performed as well 

as their respective state averages. However, School C, an academy for girls, was above the 

district average in Grades 3 and 6 reading and in Grade 6 mathematics, even though 92 percent 

of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals compared to a district average of 58 

percent. 

Students in School F, a middle school dual academy, performed at or above the state averages in 

both reading and mathematics in all three grades served. Students in the other dual academy and 

the coed middle school performed well below the state averages. Only 19 percent of the students 

 

12 No all boy high schools were visited for this study. 
33 

at the higher performing dual academy were eligible for free or reduced-price meals compared to 

92 percent at the other dual academy and 71 percent at the coed school. Also, all of the singlesex elementary and middle schools were only in their third, fourth, or fifth year of operation at 

the time of the site visits. The single-sex high schools, by contrast, had been operating between 

nine and 150 years. 

At the high school level School I performed higher than both the district and state averages for 

both Grade 10 reading and mathematics. Scores in Grade 11 and 12 reading and mathematics 

were available for School J and its district. This girls’ high school performed above the district 

average in Grade 11 reading and Grade 12 reading and mathematics. Both girls’ high schools 

reported high graduation rates (89 percent and 97 percent) and nearly 100 percent college 

acceptance for the previous year’s graduating classes. 

The site visitors observed academic behaviors in 164 single-sex classrooms and 45 coed 

classrooms in the single-sex and coed schools visited (see Exhibit 14). Students in the single-sex 

elementary schools were more likely to complete homework than were students in the coed 

comparison elementary school, but they did not differ from students in the comparison school on 

engagement in academic activities. Students in the single-sex middle schools were more likely to 

be engaged in academic activities and more likely to complete homework than students in the 

comparison middle school. Students in the single-sex high schools exhibited high levels of

engagement in academic activities and homework completion. The study did not include a 

comparison high school. 

Exhibit 14 

Classroom Observation Summary: Academic Behaviors 

Observers’ Mean Rating 

Elementary Middle High 

Student Characteristic SS Coed SS Coed SS 

Engaged in academic activities 3.40 3.40 3.26 2.93 3.49 

Completed homework 3.00 1.33 3.35 2.25 3.92 

Number of classroom observations 16.5 17 27 28 21

Note. Rating scale: 1 = very little, 4 = extensive. 

Exhibit reads: The exhibit shows the observers’ mean ratings for single-sex and coed 

elementary, middle, and high schools on two academic behavior characteristics. The last 

row of the table indicates the average number of classrooms that were observed at each 

school level. Observers in elementary school classrooms found no difference between 

single-sex and coed schools on engagement in academic activities, but observers at 

middle schools rated single-sex school students higher than coed school students. High 

school students were rated the highest among the three school levels on academic 

engagement. 

Source: RMC Research, Classroom Observations, 2005. 
34 

Student Extracurricular Activities 

Extracurricular activities in the single-sex elementary schools visited were limited, and 

extracurricular activities at the middle and high school levels varied by school size.

The girls’ elementary school offered after-school basketball and cheerleading in the 2004–05 

school year, but the students were unsure whether those opportunities would be available again 

in 2005–06. Some students said they participated in after-school activities at the YMCA. The 

boys’ school did not offer extracurricular activities but did receive some support from a local 

men’s fraternity whose members took students to visit a local college campus and acted as 

mentors. One dual academy, which had offered choir, band, drama club, cheerleading, and dance 

prior to budget reductions, no longer offered those activities (although the neighboring YMCA’s 

after-school program included several athletic, academic, and art activities). The other dual 

academy offered Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and a school-sponsored after-school program. Parents 

believed, however, that the after-school program lacked structure and enrichment opportunities. 

In contrast, the coed elementary school visited by the study team offered several extracurricular 

activities for its students including several that were for one sex only. For girls the school offered 

Girl Scouts, cheerleading, basketball, and a social club. For boys the school offered Boy Scouts, 

basketball, and a social club. Students could also participate in the student council and be 

selected for the Principal’s Club. In addition, the school provided a structured, comprehensive 

after-school program that offered dance, soccer, chess club, bake sales, swimming, and fashion 

shows through a partnership with a local community center. Students and parents noted that this 

school offered more academic and extracurricular choices than other public elementary schools. 

Students in one single-sex middle school reported ample extracurricular activities and cited few 

sex-related differences in access to these activities. Most extracurricular activities were coed, 

with the exception of volleyball and cheerleading, which were open to girls only; flag football, 

which was open to boys only; and basketball, which had separate teams for boys and girls. 

Athletic team captainship and a student council offered leadership opportunities. Most of the 

student council leadership positions were filled by girls, although each grade level had a boy and 

girl representative. 

The other single-sex middle school visited had fewer opportunities for participation in 

extracurricular activities. The school offered a few athletic activities, art, STARS13 Club, and 

chess, but students were unsure about how to access the STARS Club. Additionally, the school 

had a student council that allocated an equal number of positions to boys and girls and separate 

leadership positions for boys and girls at each grade level. The school provided the site visitors 

with data on four athletic activities: dance, boys’ basketball, girls’ basketball, and cheerleading. 

Boys were involved in only one of these activities. 

Of the three middle schools visited, the coed school offered the widest range of extracurricular 

opportunities including 11 non-athletic and seven athletic activities. Students and parents 

indicated that extracurricular activities were accessible and ample and that leadership 

 

13 STARS stands for Students Taking Action to Reach Society. 
35 

opportunities were open to both boys and girls. The athletic teams were coed, with the exception 

of one sport (basketball), for which the school offered separate teams for boys and girls. 

Both of the single-sex high schools visited offered extracurricular activities that served a range of 

interests. The larger of the two high schools offered 35 activities, and the other high school 

offered 21. Staff in both schools believed that the activities provided leadership opportunities and 

allowed students to deepen friendships while pursuing their interests. The students stated that 

they were more willing to try to become activity leaders because they did not compete with boys 

to do so. 

37 

Implications for Further Study 

The 19 single-sex schools studied for this evaluation varied greatly in terms of their organization 

and operation. Eight of the single-sex-schools were dual academies that served both boys and 

girls but separated students for all classes. Of the remaining 11 schools, three served only boys 

and eight served only girls. Thirteen of the 19 schools were the only single-sex or dual 

academies in their districts; the remaining six schools were three pairs of matched boys’ and 

girls’ schools. This study did not include schools that had only a few of their classes separated by 

sex; thus no generalizations should be made from this study to that type of school program. 

The number of single-sex schools has increased substantially in recent years as a result of 

language in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which authorizes school districts to use local 

or innovative program funds to offer single-sex schools and classrooms consistent with existing 

laws. In addition, in 2006 the U.S. Department of Education published amendments to the 

regulations for implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which provide 

school districts additional flexibility to offer nonvocational single-sex classes, extracurricular 

activities, and schools at the elementary and secondary levels. 

This study sought to identify what is currently known from scientific research on the effects of 

single-sex schooling on academic achievement and other student outcomes, to summarize the 

characteristics of the public single-sex schools that were in operation in the United States in 

2003, and to suggest future studies that could advance the knowledge base in the field. To 

achieve these purposes the study team conducted a systematic review of rigorous studies, a 

survey of principals and teachers in 19 of the 20 single-sex schools operating in 2003, and site

visits to a sample of eight of these 19 schools. 

The literature review identified approximately 14 theoretical benefits of single-sex schooling, 

and many of the survey and site visit interview questions were designed to explore staff beliefs 

about these purported benefits. Compared to a national sample of demographically similar coed 

schools, single-sex elementary and high schools reported a more positive school climate. Singlesex middle schools reported a more negative school climate than the national sample of coed 

middle schools. 

Findings from site visits to two single-sex schools in the same district suggested that simply 

turning two schools into single-sex schools is not sufficient for improving student achievement. 

In this pair of schools, the girls’ school made substantial improvements in student achievement, 

but the boys’ school did not. The girls’ school staff spent more time planning and researching 

how to best serve the needs of girls, enjoyed more stability in school leadership, and fostered 

more positive staff attitudes toward single-sex schooling. Staff at the girls’ school also put more 

effort into recruiting families and marketing their school as a positive academic choice for girls. 

The girls had female role models at their school, whereas all of the teachers at the boys’ school 

were female. 
38 

Future Studies of Single-Sex Schooling 

The present study14 was descriptive in nature and not designed to address questions of impact. To 

better understand the differences between single-sex schools and coed schools in terms of their 

impact on student outcomes, a series of experimental studies or strong quasi-experimental 

studies need to be conducted in public single-sex schools in the United States. None of the 

studies included in the systematic literature review were conducted on public schools in this 

country. 

Conducting good experimental research on single-sex schooling is difficult and two issues are 

particularly troublesome: random assignment and the multilevel nature of schooling. In all 

experiments in the social sciences, understanding the effect of some intervention requires an 

understanding of what would have happened in the absence of the intervention. Without random 

assignment, however, it is impossible to separate the effects of the intervention (single-sex 

schooling) from other omitted variables (e.g., family background, motivation, teacher quality, 

school climate) that might also affect the observed outcome. Randomly assigning students may 

violate the Equal Educational Opportunities Act,15 unless all assigned students are willing to 

attend either type of school. Also, under Title IX and other employment laws, it would be illegal 

to assign teachers to particular classes based on the teachers’ sex. In addition, random 

assignment of students may meet with political and community resistance and therefore be 

difficult to implement. 

The second problem in education experiments is that schooling is, by nature, a multilevel

statistical problem. Students attend school in classrooms and classrooms are grouped by school 

building, and this reality must be taken into account. Failure to do so will result in a potentially 

serious underestimation of the standard error of the test statistic (e.g., a t-test or F-test). Put more 

simply, ignoring the multilevel structure of the data would cause probability values from the 

statistical tests to be too small, which in turn could lead a researcher to erroneously conclude that 

one condition is better than the other when in reality the conditions did not differ. Thus, the 

multilevel nature of schooling increases the statistical power requirements for studying the 

effects of single-sex schooling. 

Options for Conducting Experimental Research on Single-Sex Schooling 

Several potential models could be employed to study the relative effects of single-sex schooling. 

In each model, the assumed reason for conducting the study is to answer the question “What are 

the effects of attending a single-sex school relative to attending a comparable coed school?” The 

intent is to isolate the effects of single-sex schooling from other variables that might also affect 

student outcomes such as teacher quality, student background characteristics, principal 

leadership, and so on. 

Although randomized assignment can eliminate selection bias, it is difficult to implement in a 

school setting. First, parents must agree to allow their children to be randomly assigned to either 

 

14 This section is derived from a paper written by Jeffrey Valentine (2006). 

15 See 20 U.S.C. §1703(c). 
39 

the treatment or control group. Teachers must also agree to random assignment and be prepared 

to teach a single-sex or coed class. In addition, the study must take into consideration students 

who decide to opt out of the program before completion. Attrition biases the results of the study, 

often overestimating the effect of the intervention due to the premature loss of students who are 

dissatisfied with the program. Finally, researchers would need to recruit at least three schools 

located in close proximity to each other to participate in the study: one all boys’, one all girls’, 

and one coed school. A high-quality randomized controlled experiment would include several 

multiples of three to reduce the chances that the study is measuring a localized effect. 

Longitudinal study of single-sex schooling. Another possibility for studying single-sex schooling 

involves a longitudinal approach that follows a sample of students over an extended period of 

time to measure pre and post trends. This type of study uses student background information in 

conjunction with a detailed academic history to arrive at relatively precise estimates of what 

school achievement might have been had single-sex schooling not been implemented. Although 

such a design would not yield an unambiguous answer to the question “What are the effects of 

attending a single-sex school relative to attending a coed school?” it does represent a reasonable 

step in the research process. 

Analyses of large datasets. The federal government and many states maintain extensive 

databases of information on student background, academic achievement, and school behavior, 

among other variables. If public single-sex schooling grows, it should be possible to utilize these 

databases to address the question of how single-sex schools affect the achievement of the 

students who attend them. The great strength of these databases is their comprehensiveness and 

relative accessibility. Relying on aggregated school- or district-level data found in these large 

datasets—even if they include some information about individual students—increases the chance 

that omitted variables may bias the results of the evaluation. The analyses tend to be sensitive to 

beginning assumptions, which if altered slightly may have a notable impact on the study’s 

conclusions. Critics may reasonably disagree about which analysis is the right one (e.g., see the 

debate between Lee and Bryk [1986] and Marsh [1989] on the effects of single-sex schooling). 

In addition, analysis of these types of datasets is likely to yield little insight into the question of 

whether practices in single-sex schools differ from those in coed schools. Despite these 

limitations, analysis of existing datasets would contribute to the discussion about the effects of 

single-sex schools. 

Other models of single-sex schooling. Although this section has focused only on experimental 

designs in which boys and girls attend school in separate buildings, other models could also be 

studied. Of the 19 schools that participated in the survey portion of the current study, eight 

(including all of the middle schools) were organized as dual academies. This model could also be 

examined in future studies, but the findings from this study suggest that these schools provide 

qualitatively different experiences to students than schools that serve only one sex. 

Treatment definition and intensity. Several of the schools visited for the current study did very 

little to prepare teachers to teach in a single-sex setting. If the U.S. Department of Education 

funds future research studies of single-sex schools, the study team suggests that a training and 

technical assistance component for grantees be included to ensure that the treatment is more than 

the segregation of boys and girls. If proven strategies exist, they should be shared with teachers 

in both single-sex and coed conditions. Doing so would enable researchers to determine whether 
40 

the absence of the other sex is key to improving academic achievement or whether sex-specific 

strategies can be applied equally effectively in coed classrooms. 

Summary 

Although random assignment would help researchers untangle the complex relationships in a 

study of single-sex schooling, faithful implementation of a randomization scheme is likely not 

viable. The realities are such that a randomization scheme would nearly certainly be undermined, 

probably to a significant extent. Three strategies for dealing with these problems seem most 

sensible. First, researchers should design a qualitative component to the experimental study that 

is geared to understanding why the randomization mechanism was undermined. This aspect of 

the research will be essential. Absent a good understanding of the processes leading to a 

breakdown of random assignment, researchers will be unable to address this problem 

analytically. In addition, researchers should use prior empirical work (both qualitative and 

quantitative) to identify variables that should be measured and potentially used as statistical 

controls (similar to the manner in which one would conduct a quasi-experimental study on 

single-sex schooling). Researchers should plan on following the study participants over a 

relatively long period of time because a longitudinal study will yield data that researchers can 

use to evaluate both the effects of the randomization failure and the relative effects of attending a 

single-sex school. 

Ultimately, the problems of the likely undermining of the randomization scheme and the

difficulties inherent in conducting field-based research of this magnitude mean that any single 

study is not likely to provide a satisfactory answer to the question “Do single-sex schools raise 

student achievement more than coed schools?” Instead, that answer will emerge slowly from 

relatively small experiments that are informed by the lessons learned in previous studies. 
41 

References 

Brookover, W.B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., and Wisenbaker, J. (1977). Schools can 

make a difference: A study of elementary school social systems and school outcomes. 

Paper prepared for Michigan State University, Center for Urban Affairs.

Bulach, C.R. and Malone, B. (1994). The relationship of school climate to the implementation of

school reform. ERS Spectrum, 12 (4), 3–8. 

Deak, J. (2002). Girls will be girls: Raising confident and courageous daughters. New York: 

Hyperion. 

Hoyle, J.R., English, F.W., and Steffy, B.E. (1985). Skills for successful leaders. Arlington, Va.: 

American Association of School Administrators. 

Hubbard, L. and Datnow, A. (2002). Are single-sex schools sustainable in the public sector? In 

A. Datnow and L. Hubbard (eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on singlesex and coed schooling. New York: Routledge Falmer Press. 

Lee, V.E. and Bryk, A.S. (1986). Effects of single-sex schools on student achievement and 

attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 381–395. 

Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., and Smith, M. (2005a). Single-sex versus coed 

schooling: A systematic review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

Available from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/index.html. 

Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., and Smith, M. (2005b). Theoretical arguments for 

and against single-sex schools: A critical analysis of the explanations. Washington, D.C.: 

American Institutes for Research. 

Marsh, H.W. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coed high schools on achievement, 

attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 70–85. 

McBrien, J.L. and Brandt, R.S. (1997). The language of learning: A guide to education.

Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Schools and Staffing Survey. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education. Available from www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass. 

Richardson, J. (1995). Troubled NJ school turns to single-sex classes. Education Week, 14, 24, 

10. 

Riordan, C. (1990). Girls and boys in school: Together or separate? New York: Teachers 

College Press. 
42 

Riordan, C. (2002). What do we know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private 

sector? Implications for public schools. In A. Datnow and L. Hubbard (eds.), Gender in 

policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coed schooling. New York: 

Routledge Falmer Press. 

Rutter, M. (1981). School effects on pupil progress: Research findings and policy implications. 

Paper prepared for the National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Education. 

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., and Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand 

hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University Press. 

Walsh, M. (1996). Educators debate impact of ruling on single-sex classes. Education Week 15 

(40), 1, 31. 

Wynn, M. (2005). Empowering African-American males: Teaching, parenting, and mentoring 

successful black males. Marietta, Ga.: Rising Sun Publications. 

Wynne, E.A. (1980). Looking at schools: Good, bad, and indifferent. Lexington, Mass.: Heath. 
Appendix A: 

Supplementary Exhibits 

45 

Exhibit A1 

Classroom Observation Summary: Elementary Schools 

Observers’ Ratings by School 

Measure A B C D SS Mean E 

Number of Classroom Observations 13 24 3 28 16.5 17 

Teacher Characteristics 

Sets high academic expectations 3.54 3.25 3.33 3.32 3.34 3.00 

Shows sensitivity to sex differences in 

learning or maturity 

3.57 2.88 3.00 2.89 3.00 2.57 

Maintains order and control 3.54 3.30 3.67 3.40 3.41 3.29 

Reinforces sex role stereotypes — — 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.29 

Promotes students' self-esteem 3.38 2.71 3.67 2.50 2.84 2.85 

Provides opportunities for non-sex 

stereotyped activities 

3.86 3.67 — 3.67 3.72 2.83 

Positive Interactions With Boys 

Academic 17.00 19.92 — 17.71 18.74 4.82 

Behavioral 8.67 4.83 — 4.47 5.19 2.35 

Other 0.83 0.17 — 0.00 0.19 0.12 

Negative Interactions With Boys 

Academic 0.00 1.29 — 4.12 2.15 2.59 

Behavioral 8.67 2.04 — 8.53 5.23 7.00 

Other 0.00 0.04 — 0.00 0.06 0.06 

Positive Interactions With Girls 

Academic 21.71 — 40.33 17.24 20.96 5.35 

Behavioral 6.86 — 2.67 1.88 3.26 3.12 

Other 0.29 — 0.00 0.12 0.15 0.12 

Negative Interactions With Girls 

Academic 0.00 — 0.33 2.88 1.85 2.41 

Behavioral 5.43 — 1.33 4.76 4.56 4.65 

Other 0.00 — 0.00 0.18 0.11 0.59 

Boys’ Academic Time on Task 

81–100% 82% 70% — 53% 66% 59% 

61–80% 10% 16% — 27% 20% 25% 

41–60% 8% 9% — 9% 8% 8% 

 exhibit continues
46 

Exhibit A1 (continued) 

A B C D SS Mean E* 

Girls’ Academic Time on Task 

81–100% 91% — 82% 73% 80% 62% 

61–80% 9% — 9% 12% 11% 25% 

41–60% 0% — 5% 9% 5% 4% 

* School E is the coed comparison school for School A. 

Note: Rating scale: 1 = low, 4 = high. Interaction scores represent counts of relevant teacher-student interactions. Dashes indicate 

that data were not available. 
47 

Exhibit A2 

Classroom Observation Summary: Middle Schools 

Observers’ Rating by School 

Measure F G 

SS 

Mean Ha

Number of Classroom Observations 30 24 27 28 

Teacher Characteristics 

Sets high academic expectations 2.77 2.48 2.63 2.75 

Shows sensitivity to sex differences in 

learning or maturity 

2.11 2.21 2.16 2.00 

Maintains order and control 3.33 2.96 3.17 3.11 

Reinforces sex role stereotypes 1.40 1.00 1.29 1.00 

Promotes students’ self-esteem 2.58 2.33 2.47 2.21 

Provides opportunities for non-sex stereotyped 

activities 

3.25 2.71 3.00 3.27 

Positive Interactions With Boys 

Academic 25.59 10.64 19.71 5.00 

Behavioral 2.41 1.91 2.21 0.89 

Other 1.47 1.55 1.50 1.43 

Negative Interactions With Boys 

Academic 1.76 0.55 1.29 0.57 

Behavioral 4.53 2.45 3.71 1.86 

Other 0.35 0.00 0.21 0.14 

Positive Interactions With Girls 

Academic 17.60 7.77 13.04 4.04 

Behavioral 1.53 1.23 1.39 0.43 

Other 1.80 1.38 1.61 0.96 

Negative Interactions With Girls 

Academic 1.07 0.69 0.89 0.29 

Behavioral 2.00 5.38 3.57 1.07 

Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 

Boys’ Academic Time on Task 

81–100% 77% 51% 64% 44% 

61–80% 16% 35% 24% 38% 

41–60% 6% 10% 9% 12% 

exhibit continues
48 

Exhibit A2 (continued) 

Girls’ Academic Time on Task F G 

SS 

Mean Ha

81–100% 85% 49% 64% 52% 

61–80% 12% 17% 15% 34% 

41–60% 2% 19% 14% 11% 

a

School H is the coed comparison school for School F.

Note: Rating scale: 1 = low, 4 = high. 

Exhibit A3 

Classroom Observation Summary: High Schools 

Observers’ Rating by School 

Measure I J Mean 

Number of classroom observations 20 22 21 

Teacher Characteristics 

Sets high academic expectations 3.06 3.00 3.03 

Shows sensitivity to sex differences in 

learning or maturity 

— 2.00 2.00 

Maintains order and control 3.30 3.27 3.29 

Reinforces sex role stereotypes — — — 

Promotes students’ self-esteem 2.77 2.89 2.84 

Provides opportunities for non-sex stereotyped 

activities 

— — — 

Positive Interactions With Girls 

Academic 8.25 8.59 8.43 

Behavioral 0.20 0.55 0.38 

Other 0.00 0.73 0.38 

Negative Interactions With Girls 

Academic 1.10 0.95 1.02 

Behavioral 2.30 1.91 2.10 

Other 0.00 0.27 0.14 

Girls’ Academic Time on Task 

81–100% 70% 69% 68% 

61–80% 25% 25% 25% 

41–60% 5% 6% 6% 

Note. Rating scale: 1 = low, 4 = high. 
49 

Exhibit A4 

Perceptions of School Problems: Elementary Schools 

Teachers’ Mean Rating 

Problem Area SS Coed 

Student tardiness 2.46 2.71 

Student absenteeism 2.45 2.58 

Student class cutting 1.27 1.40 

Student pregnancy 1.03 1.05 

Students dropping out 1.07 1.09 

Student apathy 2.37 2.27 

Lack of parental involvement 3.13 3.14 

Students unprepared to learn 3.11 3.19 

Poor student health 2.47 2.39 

Teacher absenteeism 1.25 1.81 

Poverty 3.46 3.24 

Number of respondents 92 151 

Note. Rating scale: 1 = not a problem; 4 = serious problem.
50 

Exhibit A5 

Perceptions of School Problems: Middle Schools 

Teachers’ Mean Rating 

Problem Area SS Coed 

Student tardiness 3.07 2.77 

Student absenteeism 3.11 2.73 

Student class cutting 2.60 2.34 

Student pregnancy 1.77 1.54 

Students dropping out 1.67 1.64 

Student apathy 2.97 2.72 

Lack of parental involvement 3.35 3.16 

Students unprepared to learn 3.57 3.44 

Poor student health 2.45 2.33 

Teacher absenteeism 2.30 2.14 

Poverty 3.29 3.30 

Number of respondents 187 206 

Note. Rating scale: 1 = not a problem; 4 = serious problem.
51 

Exhibit A6 

Perceptions of School Problems: High Schools 

Teachers’ Mean Rating 

Problem Area SS Coed 

Student tardiness 2.93 3.30 

Student absenteeism 2.70 3.33 

Student class cutting 2.27 3.01 

Student pregnancy 2.41 2.61 

Students dropping out 1.82 2.81 

Student apathy 2.64 3.21 

Lack of parental involvement 2.55 3.33 

Students unprepared to learn 2.74 3.48 

Poor student health 2.11 2.52 

Teacher absenteeism 1.68 2.10 

Poverty 2.86 3.22 

Number of respondents 199 366 

Note. Rating scale: 1 = not a problem; 4 = serious problem.
52 

Exhibit A7 

Climate Constructs and Scale Reliabilities 

Construct Cronbach’s a

Leadership .87 

The principal lets staff members know what is expected of them. 

The school administration’s behavior toward the staff is supportive 

and encouraging. 

My principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs 

me up when I need it. 

Rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in 

this school, even for students who are not in their classes. 

Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the 

central mission of the school should be. 

The principal knows what kind of school he/she wants and has 

communicated it to the staff. 

In this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done. 

Student misbehavior .66 

The level of student misbehavior in this school interferes with my 

teaching. 

The amount of student tardiness and class cutting in this school 

interferes with my teaching. 

Instructional support .59 

Necessary materials such as textbooks, supplies, and copy 

machines are available as needed by staff. 

Routine duties and paperwork interfere with my job of teaching. 

I am satisfied with my class size. 

I am given the support I need to teach students with special needs. 

I receive a great deal of support from parents for the work I do. 
53 

Exhibit A8 

School Climate: Elementary Schools 

 Teachers’ Mean Rating 

School Climate Item SS Coed 

a. There is a great deal of cooperative effort among 

the staff members. 

3.24 3.17 

b. I make a conscious effort to coordinate the 

content of my courses with that of other teachers. 

3.22 3.28 

c. I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to do

my best as a teacher. 

1.42 1.42 

d. I am generally satisfied with being a teacher. 3.45 3.33 

e. I am satisfied with my teaching salary. 2.20 2.08 

f. I worry about the security of my job because of 

the performance of my students on state and/or 

local tests. 

2.53 2.26 

Note. Rating scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree. 

Exhibit A9 

Teacher Ratings of School Climate: Middle Schools 

 Teachers’ Mean Rating 

School Climate Item SS Coed 

a. There is a great deal of cooperative effort among 

the staff members. 

2.89 2.97 

b. I make a conscious effort to coordinate the 

content of my courses with that of other teachers. 

2.95 3.03 

c. I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to do

my best as a teacher. 

1.81 1.64 

d. I am generally satisfied with being a teacher. 3.05 3.18 

e. I am satisfied with my teaching salary. 2.10 2.06 

f. I worry about the security of my job because of 

the performance of my students on state and/or 

local tests. 

2.28 2.30 

Note. Rating scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree.
54 

Exhibit A10 

Teacher Ratings of School Climate: High Schools 

 Teachers’ Mean Rating 

School Climate Item SS Coed 

a. There is a great deal of cooperative effort among 

the staff members. 

3.12 3.04 

b. I make a conscious effort to coordinate the 

content of my courses with that of other teachers. 

2.85 3.01 

c. I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to do

my best as a teacher. 

1.60 1.70 

d. I am generally satisfied with being a teacher. 3.32 3.33 

e. I am satisfied with my teaching salary. 2.28 2.32 

f. I worry about the security of my job because of 

the performance of my students on state and/or 

local tests. 

1.92 2.15 

Note. Rating scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree. 
55 

Exhibit A11 

Dual Academy Elementary Schools: 

Students At and Above the Proficient Level 

 Percent of Students Proficient and Above in 2003–04 

State Test Indicator School D State Average School E State Average 

Grade 4 Reading 50.0 79.5 29.0 63.0 

Grade 4 Mathematics 30.6 60.8 48.0 79.0 

Note. Achievement test data for School A was not available. School E is a comparison school for School A. 

Exhibit A12 

Single-Sex Elementary Schools: 

Students At and Above the Proficient Level 

 Percent of Students Proficient and Above in 2004–05 

State Test Indicator School B School C 

District 

B and C 

Similar 

Districts State B and C 

Grade 3 Reading 41.9 68.3 66.4 63.8 77.3 

Grade 3 Mathematics 22.6 39.0 47.8 48.6 70.4 

Grade 4 Reading 50.0 35.7 62.9 58.6 76.6 

Grade 4 Mathematics 31.3 26.2 49.6 49.7 65.5 

Grade 5 Reading 39.3 53.3 59.5 56.2 76.9 

Grade 6 Reading 12.9 89.4 60.6 52.3 69.8 

Grade 6 Mathematics 6.5 59.6 46.8 43.0 62.5 

Note. The state requirement is for 75 percent of students to be at or above the proficient level. 

Exhibit A13 

Middle Schools: Students At and Above the Proficient Level 

 Percent of Students Proficient and Above in 2004–05 

State Test Indicator School G 

State 

Average G School F School H 

State Average 

F and H 

Grade 6 Reading 65 55 65 

Grade 6 Mathematics 49 38 49 

Grade 7 Reading 17 60 65 52 

Grade 7 Mathematics 53 22 

Grade 8 Reading 77 57 

Grade 8 Mathematics 10 33 51 27 

Note. School H is a comparison school in the same district as School F. State scores reported for Schools F and H are the 

average of Grades 6–8. 
56 

Exhibit A14 

High Schools: Students At and Above the Proficient Level 

 Percent of Students Proficient and Above in 2003–04 

State Test Indicator School I 

District 

Average-I 

State 

Average-I School J 

District 

Average-J 

Grade 10 Reading 76.4 46.4 67.6 

Grade 10 Mathematics 37.8 36.0 57.5 

Grade 11 Reading 80.0 53.8 

Grade 11 Mathematics 48.6 52.8 

Grade 12 Reading 81.0 29.2 

Grade 12 Mathematics 59.5 55.5 
Appendix B: 

Site Visit Reports 

59 

Dual Academy Elementary Schools 

A team of educational researchers conducted three-day site visits at three elementary schools 

during October and November 2005. The data in this report were gathered in interviews, 

observations, and focus groups with the schools’ leaders, founding members, teachers, staff, 

students, and parents. Additional information was gathered from the schools’ state report cards, 

Web sites, and charter applications. (For more information, see Data Sources and Methodology 

section). 

School Overview 

The study team visited two dual academy elementary schools and one coed comparison school. 

All of the schools were located in high-poverty, urban communities and served predominately 

African-American, at-risk students. All of the schools required student uniforms. Enrollment at 

the three schools ranged from 237 to 840 students, and the percentage of students who qualified 

for free or reduced-price meals ranged from 50 percent to 100 percent. Exhibit B1 displays 

descriptive data for each of the three schools. 

School 1 was a kindergarten through Grade 4 charter school located in a midsized city in the 

northeastern United States. The school was divided into two distinct charter schools—an all 

girls’ school and an all boys’ school—but they functioned as a single school, sharing the same 

facilities, principal, teachers, staff, and educational program. 

School 2 was a prekindergarten through Grade 5 district school located in a large city in the 

Northwest. The school transitioned from a coed to a single-sex school in 2001. Initially, all of the 

classes were single-sex, but at the time of the site visit several classes had reverted to coed in an 

effort to equalize class sizes. 

School 3 was a kindergarten through Grade 6 charter school located in the same city as School 1. 

This coed school, which was managed by Edison Schools, Inc., served as a comparison school 

for this study. 
60 Dual Academy Elementary Schools 

Exhibit B1 

Descriptive Data on the Observed Elementary Schools 

Variable School 1 School 2 School 3 

Year established 2002 2001 1999 

Charter or District 2 Charter 

(1 for girls, 1 for boys) 

District Charter 

Type Dual academy Dual academy Coed 

Grades K–4 Pre-K–5 K–6 

Enrollment 237 297 840 

Percent Receiving Free or 

Reduced-Price Meals 

100% 93% 49% 

2003–2004 demographics  86% African-American 

 3% Caucasian 

 10% Hispanic 

 1% Middle Eastern 

 63% African-American 

 19% Hispanic 

 15% Asian 

 2% Caucasian 

 93% African-American 

 6% Hispanic 

 Less than 1% Caucasian 

and Native American 

Leadership 1 Principal for both charter 

schools 

1 Business manager 

1 Principal 1 Principal 

2 Academy directors 

Educational Program 

The principals at these schools had primary responsibility for making personnel decisions, 

although selection committees at each school also played a role in hiring new teachers. Most of 

the teachers were white and female. Two of the three schools noted high teacher turnover rates. 

An administrator at School 3 (the coed comparison school) cited a yearly turnover rate of about 

75 percent. School 2 had a similarly high turnover rate, which the principal primarily attributed 

to a reduction in staff allocations. School 3’s principal commented that it was difficult for his 

school to match the district’s union benefits, tenure, and contract systems and, consequently, to 

attract highly qualified teachers. In contrast, School 1 had relatively low teacher turnover rates, 

which a founding member attributed to teacher pay that is higher than the union wage scale, the 

same benefits package that district teachers receive, and a nonunion environment in which 

concerns are addressed immediately. School 1 teachers more often stated that the school had 

actively recruited them. 

While the curriculum and instructional materials at each school differed, all three followed a 

standard curriculum and required teachers within each grade level to use the same instructional 

materials. The charter schools (Schools 1 and 3) had more autonomy over their curriculum and 

instructional materials. School 1, a single-sex charter school, had selected Core Knowledge 

Standards, Accelerated Math, Saxon Math, Accelerated Reader, Write One Source (writing and 

penmanship), and Open Court (language arts). Students at School 1 also participated in a visual 

and performing arts program, physical education, and computer classes. School 2 had selected 

Addison-Wesley and Turk Investigations for mathematics and Houghton-Mifflin for reading and 

language arts, from a district list of approved materials. In general, School 2’s curriculum was 
61 

the same as it had been prior to the conversion to single-sex classrooms. Students at School 2 

also participated in computer science and physical education classes. School 3, the coed charter 

school, used Chicago Mathematics and Success for All for reading and language arts. School 3 

received a Reading First grant that supports intensive reading instruction for students in 

kindergarten through Grade 3 and professional development for the teachers. Students at 

School 3 also participated in physical education, music, and art classes. 

All three schools had provided staff with general training on such topics as the curriculum, 

academic expectations, and cultural issues. Both single-sex schools said they provided training or 

staff development specifically geared toward single-sex schooling. School 2 required its teachers 

to read the book Empowering African-American Males by Mychal Wynn. Administrators and 

teachers at both single-sex schools expressed a need and desire for professional development on 

teaching and learning in single-sex environments. 

School 1’s administrators, teachers, and parents expressed the most satisfaction with their 

school’s effectiveness. A founding member attributed the school’s success in part to its 

leadership approach: the principal served as the academic leader and a business manager was 

responsible for fiscal matters. School 1 hired consultants to assist with the design of the building 

and hired subject-based teachers for all grades, including two certified classroom teachers for 

each lower grade classroom. Administrators at School 2 unanimously asserted that the lack of 

resources to support music, art, and extracurricular activities had negatively impacted the 

school’s effectiveness. An administrator who participated in a leadership team focus group at 

School 3 commented, “This school has the opportunity to be extremely successful and we have 

the tools. We shoot ourselves in the foot time and time again.” 

Student Interactions and Behaviors 

Interview, focus group, and observational data consistently indicated positive teacher-student and 

student-student interactions at the single-sex schools. The majority of students who participated 

in focus groups believed that fellow students were supportive and positive role models, making

friends was easy, and less teasing and fighting occurred in their schools than in other public 

schools. Students did mention bullies and cliques, but suggested that their presence was minimal. 

Students—regardless of sex—expressed a preference not to be required to wear a school

uniform. Most students complained that uniforms limit their freedom of expression, but some 

cited practical problems such as white shirts that easily show dirt. 

The observational data revealed that teachers and staff more often responded to students 

positively than negatively. School 1 had the highest mean score on all items related to positive 

teacher-student interactions and demonstrating sensitivity to sex differences in learning or 

maturation. The majority of the teachers in School 1 thought that boys and girls learn differently 

and should be separated into single-sex classes to address those differences. Only one teacher in 

this school said that her interactions with students were based on abilities—not sex. In focus 

groups, teachers in Schools 1 and 2 (the single-sex schools) exhibited more sensitivity to 

perceived sex differences in learning and maturation. School 2 teachers remarked that boys need 

more time to learn and complete reading, writing, and thinking tasks and girls need more 

prompting. They believed that boys compete to answer questions as quickly as possible—

regardless of whether the answer is right or wrong—but girls want to give only correct answers. 
62 Dual Academy Elementary Schools 

The teachers also stated that boys want to be praised for working hard, whereas girls want to be 

praised for doing what the teacher asks of them. The teachers also described boys as more 

physical and having shorter attention spans than girls. 

In contrast, teachers in School 3 were less likely to mention sex differences, describing instead 

individual needs and how they address them. A few teachers did, however, comment that boys

are more aggressive and girls tend to “respond more emotionally.” 

Teachers at all three schools believed that boys are more difficult to control in the classroom 

because they are more active than girls. A teacher in School 2 asserted that in coed classes girls 

counteract the competitive nature of the boys, which makes the classes more manageable. 

Teachers in all three schools repeatedly said that classroom disruptions caused by boys tend to be 

more physical and distracting than the disruptions caused by girls, which tend to be the result of 

chattiness. Staff members and parents in School 3 suggested that the lack of a playground and 

recess period negatively impacted student behavior. Stakeholders at all three schools believed 

that lack of teaching experience or large class sizes diminished teachers’ ability to maintain 

classroom order. 

The site visit teams observed more aggressive behavior in boys than girls across the schools. 

Boys in School 2 received the lowest mean score on aggressiveness and boys in School 1 

received the highest score. No aggressive behavior was observed among the girls in School 2 and 

minimal aggression was observed among the girls in Schools 3 and 1. Girls also were observed 

teasing other students less than boys. 

Observation of teachers’ interactions with students in the classroom revealed that teachers 

engaged in more positive academic interactions with girls than boys—with the exception of 

School 2, where the opposite was true. In all cases, girls had fewer behavioral interactions with 

teachers than boys. Teachers at Schools 1 and 2 believed that same-sex teachers are important 

role models for students, particularly boys. The principal stated, “Classroom climate and 

character changes when [boys] have a male leader.” 

Student Achievement and Behaviors 

School leaders, teachers, and parents in all of the schools described their students as achievement 

oriented. They also described girls as more academically oriented and better behaved than boys. 

Teachers in all three schools were observed setting high academic expectations, though 

Schools 1 and 2 (the single-sex schools) received higher scores than School 3 on this item. 

Students expressed an awareness of their school’s academic expectations and believed that their 

teachers want them to succeed. They also articulated an understanding of the relationship 

between academic achievement and future success. Teachers, parents, and students all mentioned 

the importance of incentives for academic achievement: all three schools offered students various 

rewards for academic success and good behavior. 

Exhibit B2 displays overall fourth-grade state achievement data for Schools 2 and 3 (School 1 

lacked a fourth-grade class the year of the test administration). For both schools, the percentages 

of students who performed at or above proficiency in reading and mathematics were lower than 

their state averages. State achievement data were not available for other grades. 
63 

Exhibit B2 

Students At and Above the Proficient Level 

 Percent in 2003–2004 

State Test Indicator School 2 State 2 School 3 State 3 

Grade 4 Reading 50.0 79.5 29.0 63.0 

Grade 4 Mathematics 30.6 60.8 48.0 79.0 

Note. Data for School 1 not available. School 2 is a comparison school for School 1. 

Across the schools, the teachers’ instructional approach was primarily interactive whole class 

direct instruction. Small-group instruction, heterogeneous small-group activities, independent 

work, and experiential activities were observed most often in School 2. The learning objectives 

for lessons were most clear in School 1 and least clear in School 3. During the classroom 

observations, students in School 1 were engaged in academic activities more than students in the 

other schools. Parents in all of the schools expressed satisfaction with their children’s level of 

academic engagement. Across the schools teachers remarked on the critical role parents play in 

ensuring that students satisfactorily complete homework, and students in School 1 were rated 

highest in terms of homework completion. Teachers generally described parents’ expectations 

regarding their children’s academic achievement as average, though slighter more parental 

involvement was reported at School 1. Parents stated that they were very involved and interested 

in their children’s academic success. 

To track student achievement, all of the schools regularly test their students. School 1 tested its 

students on particular benchmarks every 6 weeks. School leaders and teachers received the 

results within 48 hours of test administration, and teachers adapted their instruction to students’ 

individual needs. School 3 closely followed Edison’s monthly benchmarks in language arts, 

reading, mathematics, social studies, and science to monitor student achievement. Stakeholders 

in all of the schools noted that the girls were achieving at higher levels than the boys on 

standardized and curriculum-based tests. Girls’ achievement at School 2 had increased steadily 

since the school converted to single-sex classrooms. The boys’ scores increased initially but 

steadily decreased in recent years. One teacher in School 3 asserted that the girls are more 

focused on academics than the boys, and girls take the benchmarks more seriously. 

Longitudinal data on School 1 show distinct differences between girls’ and boys’ reading and 

mathematics achievement. Upon entering the school, the girls were in the 50th percentile in 

reading and improved to the 69th percentile. In contrast, the boys entered at the 20th percentile in 

reading and had improved each year but were still below the achievement level of the girls. 

However, the boys entered the school with much higher mathematics scores than the girls. 

School leaders contended that single-sex classrooms allowed teachers to address the distinct 

remediation needs of girls and boys in these subjects. 

In all three schools girls were observed on task more than boys (60 percent and 53 percent of the 

time or more, respectively). Students of both sexes spent more time on task in School 1 than in 

the other two schools. Students who participated in the focus groups at Schools 1 and 2 said they 

learned better in single-sex classes. Girls stated that boys interfere with learning by teasing and 
64 Dual Academy Elementary Schools 

frustrating them in class. Boys described girls as loud, overly talkative, and distracting. Both 

boys and girls expressed a strong preference for single-sex schools and for their own school. 

Student Extracurricular Activities 

School 2 offered the fewest extracurricular activities. Prior to budget reductions, the school’s 

offerings had included choir, band, drama club, a dance group, cheerleading, and other activities. 

At the time of the site visit School 2 students could participate in computer activities, gym, art, 

soccer, football, basketball, and kickball through a neighboring YMCA’s after-school program. 

School 1 offered Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and an after-school program from 4 until 6 pm. 

Parents stated that the after-school program could be better and suggested hiring trained 

professionals to operate the program (rather than classroom teachers). They also believed that the 

after-school program lacked structure and opportunities for enrichment. A parent whose child 

transferred to School 1 from School 3 commented that School 3 had a better after-school 

program. 

In contrast to the single-sex schools observed, School 3 listed the most extracurricular activities 

for students including some single-sex activities. For girls the school offered Girl Scouts, 

cheerleading, basketball, and the Delicate Diamonds social club. For boys the school offered Boy 

Scouts, basketball, and the Distinguished Gentlemen social club. Girls and boys could also 

participate in the Student Council or be selected for the Principal’s Club. The school also offered 

a structured, comprehensive after-school program that partnered with a community center to 

offer dance, soccer, chess club, bake sales, swimming, and fashion shows. Students and parents 

in School 3 remarked that the school offered more academic and extracurricular choices than 

other public schools. 

Conclusion 

The schools described in this report all served low-income predominately minority students, but 

they were distinct in terms of their educational programs, extracurricular opportunities, and 

student achievement. The schools used various curricular and instructional materials, but the 

charter schools had more control over their materials. Staff at all of the schools expressed a 

strong desire for more training and professional development on single-sex education—two of 

the schools had not received any training on the different learning styles of boys and girls. 

The data on student interactions and behaviors revealed that teachers more often engaged in 

positive academic and behavior interactions with girls than with boys. In terms of achievement, 

the girls outperformed the boys, particularly in reading. In the case of School 1 the achievement 

gap between the sexes was decreasing and in the case of School 2 the gap was increasing. 

Finally, the schools varied in their extracurricular offerings. Due to budget cuts, School 2 offered 

very few extracurricular activities, whereas School 3 offered many—including single-sex 

opportunities. 
65 

Single-Sex Elementary Schools 

A team of educational researchers conducted three-day site visits at two elementary schools in 

the same district during October and November 2005. The data in this report were gathered in 

interviews, observations, and focus groups with the schools’ leaders, founding members, 

teachers, staff, students, and parents. Additional information was gathered from the schools’ state 

report cards and Web sites. 

This pair of elementary schools is discussed separately from the other three elementary schools 

visited because they represent a unique model in terms of the origin of single-sex schooling. In 

this district, the superintendent announced in the spring of 2003 that two of the district’s 

elementary schools would become single-sex the next year: one would become an all girls’ 

academy and the other would become an all boys’ academy. The superintendent hoped to appeal 

to the population that the district was losing to charter schools and wanted to offer two more 

academically focused schools. School staff were not consulted in this decision, and the staff at 

each school addressed the change in markedly different ways. By the fall of 2005 the girls’ 

school had increased enrollment and student achievement, whereas these same measures 

declined markedly at the boys’ school. 

School Overview 

The girls’ and boys’ academies were both central city elementary schools that were housed in 

older buildings in African-American neighborhoods. Any student in the district could choose to 

attend these schools and the district provided transportation. Nearly all of the students qualified 

for free or reduced-price meals. The schools competed for students with over 50 charter schools, 

and over half of the students at each school lived outside of their school’s attendance area. In fall 

2005 the girls’ school enrolled 340 students, and the boys’ school enrolled only 150 students. 

The boys’ school had had three principals in the 21⁄2 years prior to the site visit and was to have a 

fourth principal before the 2005–06 school year ended. In contrast, the girls’ school had had the 

same principal for several years. Both schools had experienced some staff turnover in recent 

years because the district’s declining enrollment had forced layoffs of less senior teachers. 

The two schools differed in ways beyond the stability of the leadership. The teachers and 

administrators at the girls’ school supported the change to an all girls’ school and had spent 

many hours over the summer of 2003 planning. Staff decided to raise the bar on attendance, 

discipline, academics, and parent involvement and to require students to wear uniforms—the first 

school in the district to do so. Staff actively marketed the school through an attractive brochure, 

yard signs, newspapers, television, radio, churches, civic organizations, and word of mouth. In 

contrast, staff at the boys’ school had spent little time preparing to teach in an all boys’ setting 

and believed their school was perceived as the place to send problem boys. The sharp decline in 

enrollment at the boys’ school was attributed to its low level of academic achievement, the fact 

that the school was on a list of schools that might close in the near future, and the district’s lack 

of support for the school. 
66 Single-Sex Elementary Schools 

Educational Program 

The girls’ academy served students in kindergarten through Grade 7 in two classrooms at each 

grade level, except for Grade 1, which had three classrooms, and Grade 7, which had one 

classroom. The boys’ academy served students in kindergarten through Grade 6 in two 

classrooms per grade level, except for kindergarten and Grades 5 and 6, which had only one

classroom each. In addition, the schools had two special education classrooms: one at the 

primary level and one at the intermediate level. Students benefited from a variety of teacher 

specialist offerings each week: art, music, mathematics, physical education, computer lab, and 

band and orchestra for Grades 5 through 7. Other part-time staff included counselors, school 

psychologists, nurses, and speech therapists. Most of the staff at the two schools were female, 

but the principal and two of the intermediate grade teachers at the girls’ school were male. 

Teacher hiring was handled at the district level, and declining enrollment across the district 

resulted in teachers with more seniority displacing two of the newer teachers at the girls’ school 

in 2005. A sharp drop in enrollment at the boys’ school in fall of 2005 resulted in the loss of a 

kindergarten and Grade 5 teacher. In spite of the lack of control over hiring decisions, the girls’ 

school administration had maintained a cohesive staff with positive attitudes about their school. 

In contrast, two of the teachers at the boys’ school expressed very negative attitudes toward 

teaching at an all boys’ school but had been unable to transfer to another school. All of the staff 

at both schools were fully certified to teach at the elementary level, and about 40 percent of 

teachers at the girls’ school and 33 percent of teachers at the boys’ school had masters’ degrees. 

Staff at the girls’ school had worked hard to accommodate the learning needs of the girls. JoAnn 

Deak provided an in-service training on how girls learn, and staff read and discussed her book, 

Girls Will Be Girls. Staff spent many hours in the summer of 2003 planning the school’s new 

policies and procedures. Staff also participated in professional development on the state’s 

learning standards, assessment strategies in mathematics and reading, the computer curriculum 

software, differentiated learning, and interactive decision making. Regular grade level meetings 

provided opportunities to discuss single-sex schooling issues. During the site visit both 

administrative and teaching staff indicated an interest in learning more about teaching girls. 

Teachers at the boys’ school said they had received some professional development on teaching 

boys about a week before the school opened. They did not feel that the training was productive 

and expressed a need for more information on effective methods and strategies for teaching 

African-American boys. Some of the staff had attended a recent event at which Michael Gurian 

spoke about his new book, The Minds of Boys. One staff member mentioned that the school 

improvement plan called for more professional development, but it had not yet been 

implemented. Grade level meetings were scheduled weekly after school because the schedule of 

special classes (art, music, physical education, etc.) did not allow for common planning time 

during the school day. 

The core instructional materials for both schools were consistent across classrooms because the 

materials were all mandated by the district. Supplementary materials varied by classroom. On the 

state report cards, the girls’ school had advanced to the middle designation of “continuous 

improvement” in 2004. Staff attributed this improvement to the inviting school climate, 

concerned teachers who know what and how to teach, strict discipline, achievement orientation 

among the students, and the lack of distractions from boys. The boys’ school had received the 
67 

state’s lowest possible rating, “academic emergency.” One of the most beneficial aspects of the 

boys’ school was the small class sizes at all grades except kindergarten and Grades 5 and 6. 

Several classrooms had fewer than 10 students. One staff member noted that most teachers had 

made the adjustment to teaching all boys and found it easier to keep them on task without girls in 

the classroom. Since the change to all boys’ classes teachers had tried to implement more handson activities and read stories of interest to boys. The teachers remarked that boys have shorter 

attention spans than girls so teachers tried to deliver instruction in shorter segments. The boys’ 

school schedule did not offer any recesses or outdoor play opportunities. 

At the boys’ academy, a full-time teacher staffed the Responsible Thinking Classroom, where 

boys were sent if they could not manage their classroom behavior. The Responsible Thinking

program aimed to help students develop the confidence they needed to solve their own problems. 

When a student was disruptive or broke the rules in some way, he was asked a series of 

questions: “What are you doing? What are the rules? What happens when you break the rules? Is 

this what you want to happen? What do you want to do now? What will happen if you disrupt 

again?” If the student disrupted again, he took his work to the Responsible Thinking Classroom

for a period of time. The study team observed several instances of use of the approach in 

different classrooms, and teachers indicated a high level of satisfaction with its effectiveness. 

The girls’ academy enjoyed strong support from several community organizations. The Links 

organization provided tutoring in reading and mathematics, female guest speakers, and 

refreshments for student recognition day. A local church sponsored a trip to the opera for the 

oldest students, provided scholarships to a science camp, and helped pay for student uniforms. 

The local sheriff’s department offered a mentoring program, provided funds for various 

purposes, and provided transportation for tutors from a private girls’ high school to the school 

site. Under a grant from the county mental health board, the boys’ academy had a full-time 

African-American counselor who worked with students and families in the Families and Students 

Together (FAST) program, which provided prevention services to children and families at risk of 

mental health or substance abuse problems. The boys’ academy also received some support from 

a local men’s fraternity whose members took boys to visit a local college campus and served as 

mentors. Students from an all boys’ private high school in the area provided tutoring to the boys. 

Student Interactions and Behaviors 

The study team had limited opportunities to conduct classroom observations at the girls’ 

academy—the school administration permitted extended observations in only three of the 16 

classrooms. The study team rated the students in these observations very high on showing 

respect for the teacher (4.0 on a 4-point scale), engaging in leadership opportunities (4.0), and 

interacting positively with each other (3.3). Students also exhibited positive role modeling (3.0), 

and a sense of community (2.7). Nearly all of the teachers’ academic comments to girls were 

positive, and two out of three comments about student behavior were positive. The observers 

rated the teachers high on maintaining order and control (3.7) and promoting student self-esteem 

(3.7). These three teachers did not appear to reinforce sex role stereotypes (1.0). Unfortunately, 

these limited observations cannot be generalized to the entire school. 

In contrast, the study team conducted 22 classroom observations at the boys’ academy, visiting 

most classrooms twice during the three-day site visit. On average, students were rated high (3.4 
68 Single-Sex Elementary Schools 

on a 4-point scale) in terms of interacting positively with each other, exhibiting a sense of 

community (2.9), and showing respect for the teacher (3.6). The study team observed a very high 

level of order and control throughout the school, resulting in few classroom disruptions. 

Teachers made twice as many positive as negative comments to students about their behavior. 

The observers noted only one accommodation to the perceived needs of the boys: in one 

classroom boys were allowed to stand next to their desks instead of sitting in their chairs if they 

preferred. Teachers commented that the boys did not seem to worry about giving incorrect 

answers and displayed their emotions more freely in the absence of girls.

The study team conducted three girls’ focus groups with students representing all grade levels. 

The students cited a variety of reasons for attending the girls’ academy, ranging from “my 

mother made me come here because it’s an all girls’ school” to “the school has a good academic 

program.” Some students noted that a relative had attended or was currently attending the school. 

Most of the students believed it is easier to learn without boys around, and they also believed that 

making friends is easier. Although the girls agreed that there were cliques at the school, staff 

noted that the cliques were usually based on the housing project the students lived in, the bus 

they rode, or the church they attended. 

Girls of all ages said they had good role models at the school. Some girls identified other 

students as role models because they were nice, smart, or made good decisions. Some students 

identified adult role models at the school because they were comforting, shared their personal 

feelings with students, and treated students like family. The younger students seemed to prefer 

female teachers, but the older students’ preferences were mixed. Most girls agreed that it is 

easier to talk with female teachers about problems. Most of the students did not like the strict 

uniform policy but indicated that their parents did. Several students noted that they liked coming 

to school more since their school began serving girls only. The study team was not able to 

conduct student focus groups at the boys’ academy. 

Parents liked the girls’ school because they believed girls learn differently than boys and receive 

more attention in an all girls’ school. They remarked that the school focused more on academics 

than other public schools and provided the girls with more encouragement. Parents also believed 

that the teachers wanted to be at the school and the sense of community was stronger. One parent 

remarked that the students took care of each other and seemed more inclined to discuss their 

problems. Parents praised the firm discipline practiced at the school and appreciated receiving 

regular communications from the teachers. They noted that their daughters had more selfconfidence, were more assertive, had more leadership opportunities, and felt more empowered 

by being in an all girls’ school. 

Parents of the boys cited the absence of distractions caused by girls as a factor that has caused 

their sons to be more academically focused. They unanimously agreed that their sons were more 

eager to learn and more eager to compete academically in the all boys’ setting. One parent did, 

however, describe having some initial reservations about her son being in an all boys’ school 

because the structure does not reflect the realities of society and because she had concerns about 

the perceived sexual orientation of boys in an all boys’ environment. One staff member 

expressed concern that many of the students were from female-headed single parent homes and 

that by attending a school staffed mostly by females they had limited exposure to positive male 
69 

role models. This staff member remarked that many of the staff’s efforts to maintain control ran 

counter to the boys’ need to move freely in the classroom and exercise outdoors. 

Student Academic Achievement and Behaviors 

Although the girls’ academy staff permitted extended observations in only three classrooms, the 

observers gave these teachers high ratings in terms of setting high academic expectations (3.3 on 

a 4-point scale) and showing sensitivity to sex differences in learning or maturation (3.0). Nearly 

all of the academic and behavior comments the teachers addressed to the students were positive 

in nature. Students also received high ratings in terms of engagement in academic activities (3.7). 

Generalizing from these limited observations to an entire school is not, however, possible. 

In focus groups the girls said that without boys in the classroom, they received more attention 

and are called on more often. They commented that in coed classrooms teachers spent so much 

time on discipline that they had little time to teach the students who want to learn. The girls 

agreed that they experienced fewer distractions without boys in the classroom. They believed 

that their teachers expected them to work hard, do their best, pay attention, and achieve good 

grades. The teachers noted that the girls participated more in class because they were excited to 

be at school and were not afraid of being laughed at. 

The study team rated the teachers at the boys’ academy high on setting high academic 

expectations (3.3), and rated students high on engagement in academic activities (3.4). The most 

prevalent instructional model observed was interactive direct instruction with the whole class. 

However, the team had difficulty discerning what the instructional objectives were for many of 

the instructional segments observed. 

Exhibit 1 shows that the girls’ academy scored above the district average in Grade 3 and 6 

reading and Grade 6 mathematics, although they met the state requirement of 75 percent of the 

students at proficiency only in Grade 6 reading. Students at the girls’ academy scored below the 

district average in the other areas listed. In contrast, the boys’ academy scored well below the 

district average at all grade levels and did not meet the state proficiency requirement. 

Exhibit B3 

Students At and Above the Proficient Level 

 Percent of Students in 2004–05 

State Test Indicator Academy for Girls Academy for Boys District 

Grade 3 Reading 68.3 41.9 66.4 

Grade 3 Mathematics 39.0 22.6 47.8 

Grade 4 Reading 35.7 50.0 62.9 

Grade 4 Mathematics 26.2 31.3 49.6 

Grade 5 Reading 53.3 39.3 59.5 

Grade 6 Reading 89.4 12.9 60.6 

Grade 6 Mathematics 59.6 6.5 46.8 
70 Single-Sex Elementary Schools 

Student Extracurricular Activities 

These elementary school academies offered limited extracurricular activities. The girls indicated 

that in 2004–05 the school had offered after-school basketball and cheerleading, but they were 

unsure whether those opportunities would be available again in 2005–06. Some students said 

they participated in after-school activities at the YMCA. 

Other Issues and Observations 

As designated academies within their district, both schools were able to place more requirements 

on students and their families. If the girls could follow the rules, they were expected to transfer 

to another school. The girls’ school requested that parents volunteer at least 10 hours each year, 

but this time could be logged on evenings and weekends by making telephone calls or handing

out school flyers at church. Staff recorded volunteer hours and hosted a volunteer recognition 

event at the end of the year. Staff indicated that the school’s reputation in the community had 

improved subsequent to its becoming an all girls’ school and did not report any complaints, 

lawsuits, or teacher’s union issues. Staff expressed support for each other and believed that they 

communicated effectively with each other, liked working at the school, and shared in the goal of 

making their all girls’ school work. 

Teachers at the boys’ academy suggested that a lack of parent interest and involvement was a 

serious issue. One staff member countered this assertion with the observation that the white, 

middle class staff were not culturally sensitive to the population they serve and did not 

understand the issues that the parents and students faced and how they affected the boys’ ability 

to learn. A parent echoed this statement with the comment that many parents felt uncomfortable 

talking with staff, who were better educated. She suggested that teachers make more effort to 

communicate with parents by calling on the telephone rather than sending home notes.

The boys’ principal expressed a desire to increase enrollment by organizing open houses and 

cookouts in the spring and by contacting parents who transferred their sons to other schools. 

However, she named as her first priority raising the achievement level to ensure that parents will 

want their sons to attend the boys’ academy. She believed that the school had previously focused 

on improving school spirit and needed to shift the focus to improving instruction. The primary 

difficulty in achieving this goal might be the strength of the teacher’s union and the principal’s 

inability to enforce reforms. 

The boys’ academy principal believed that the primary benefits of an all boys’ school are 

decreasing distractions to learning, allowing more opportunities to provide social and moral 

guidance, and addressing the unique learning styles of boys. The assistant principal named 

reducing sexual harassment among students, decreasing sex role stereotyping, and addressing the 

unique learning styles of boys as the primary benefits. When asked to identify the three most 

important benefits of single-sex schooling, the girls’ principal cited improving student 

achievement, providing choice in public education, and addressing the unique learning styles of 

girls. The assistant principal cited decreasing distractions to learning, providing more leadership 

opportunities, and decreasing sex bias in teacher-student interactions. 
71 

Conclusions 

Examination of the data presented here suggests that simply turning two elementary schools into 

single-sex schools is not sufficient for improving student achievement. In this case, the girls’ 

school made substantial improvements in student achievement but the boys’ school did not. 

Parents, students, and staff at both schools believed that removing the distraction of the other sex 

from the education equation allows the students to focus more on academics. Both schools 

enforced strict behavioral rules and had uniform dress codes, but the girls’ academy spent more 

time planning and researching how to best serve the needs of girls, enjoyed more stability in 

school leadership, fostered more positive staff attitudes toward single-sex schooling, and 

employed teachers with stronger instructional skills. Staff at the girls’ academy also put more 

effort into recruiting families and marketing their school as a positive academic choice for girls 

and fostered a greater sense of community among staff and students. The girls benefited from 

positive female role models at their school, whereas the boys’ school had only a counselor and a 

part-time physical education teacher to serve as male role models. As is the case for any school 

reform effort, for single-sex education to be successful a school needs a strong leader who has 

the support of the teaching staff, ongoing professional development on implementing the reform 

effort, and teachers who are skilled at providing instruction that addresses state learning goals. 

73 

Middle Schools 

The study team visited three middle schools in October and November 2005. In School 1 the 

team observed 30 classrooms; performed five general school observations; and interviewed the 

principal, the vice principal, the charter organization’s CEO, teachers, parents, and students. In 

School 2 the team observed 24 classrooms; performed six general school observations; and 

interviewed the principal, the coordinator of the family resource youth service center, two groups 

of girls’ teachers, and students. In School 3 the team observed 28 classrooms; performed nine 

general school observations; and interviewed the principal, a guidance counselor, the district 

superintendent, teachers, parents, and students. The team also reviewed key records at each 

school. 

School Overview 

School 1 was a charter school dual academy that served 320 boys and girls in single-sex 

classrooms. The 2005–06 school year was School 1’s third year of operation. Title II, IV, and V 

funds support the school, and although its district qualified for Title I funds, the district did not 

make those funds available to School 1. Further support came from a state-sponsored charter 

start-up grant and a large grant from the Walton Foundation. 

School 3, a coed school located across town from School 1, was in its second year of operation. 

A bond financed the construction of a new building, which replaced a run-down facility. 

School 3 had a diverse student population, and 65 percent of the students were eligible for free or 

reduced-price meals. School 3’s reputation had improved since the school moved into the new 

building. Parents and administrators thought that the new facility had boosted student morale. 

Teachers suggested that the school’s philosophy of learning had also contributed to the school’s 

improved reputation. 

The city in which Schools 1 and 3 were located was predominantly middle class, but the school

district was an exception, serving one of lowest socioeconomic populations in the state. The 

CEO of School 1 estimated that 70 percent of the students in the district were nonwhite. The 

demographics of Schools 1 and 3 are changing rapidly due to a high level of student migration. 

Two military bases, 80 religious organization headquarters, and several major corporations in the 

area also influence demographics. Parents are allowed by state law to enroll their children in any 

public school, and School 3’s district had experienced a net outflow of 400 to 500 students a 

year. Despite the loss of students in the district, School 3 expected to expand from 640 to 800 

students as 12,000 soldiers move into the area. In addition, the Hispanic population in the district 

is growing at a rapid pace. 

School 3, the coed comparison school, paralleled the district average in that 69 percent of its 

student were nonwhite. Exhibit B4 shows that School 1’s population was roughly the inverse: 

27 percent nonwhite. Sixty-five percent of the students at School 3 and 30 percent at School 1 

received free or reduced-price meals, which indicates that School 1 served a less disadvantaged 

population. School 1’s target population was hard to discern. Its charter CEO stated that the 
74 Middle Schools 

school’s mission is to give a college preparatory experience to diverse populations of students, 

but the school had not drawn many neighborhood students. The school’s location on a highly 

trafficked street in a nonresidential section of the city with no bus transportation might have 

limited the ability of lower income students to attend. 

Exhibit B4 

Student Demographics 

School 

School Characteristic 1 2 3 

Nonwhite 27% 70% 69% 

Free/reduced price meals 30% 92% 65% 

School 2, a dual academy that served 850 students in Grades 6 through 8, was located in a midSouth city. Aside from some small donations from local businesses, Title I funds and the district 

allotment funded the school budget. Before becoming a dual academy three years prior to the site 

visit the school was coed. Although School 2 was located in a middle class neighborhood 

surrounded by an upper class neighborhood of elegant houses, it served a low socioeconomic 

population. Almost all of the students were bused from public housing projects three miles away. 

According to the principal, desegregation efforts resulted in the school serving more low-income 

students. At the time of the site visit 92 percent of School 2’s students, compared to 56 percent of 

the middle school students in the district, received free or reduced-price meals. School 2’s 

building was old and dilapidated, and students thought that the school had a negative reputation 

in the community. 

According to school administrators, the district did not actively publicize School 1 (a charter 

school) or prominently list it on the district Web site. The principal described the district as 

nonsupportive, but claimed that the district valued the school because its standardized test scores 

were above the district and state averages. Positive news coverage of School 1’s achievement 

test scores had improved the school’s reputation and demand was outstripping the school’s 

capacity. In part due to its lean budget, the school required parents to volunteer 20 hours a year. 

The principal described the school’s parents as highly involved and parents participating in focus 

groups agreed. One School 1 teacher noted that a parent missing a teacher conference “would be 

the exception, not the rule.” 

School 2’s principal and teachers agreed that parent involvement at the school was marginal. 

Teachers at School 3 also indicated that parents were not highly involved, although two groups 

of parents did participate in focus groups. The difference between Schools 1 and 2 in terms of

parent involvement could be traced to differences in socioeconomic levels or perhaps to the 

origins of single-sex schooling at each school. School 1 parents were pivotal in the establishment 

of single-sex schooling, whereas School 2 parents were not. A grassroots group of parents and 

charter founders established School 1 as a single-sex school from the outset. The charter’s high 

school was already in operation and parents wanted a middle school to provide a consistent

educational philosophy. Local parents also observed that boys were excelling in mathematics and 

science and girls were excelling in language arts. They believed that single-sex classes at the 
75 

middle school would eliminate this achievement gap. Though neither parents nor the district 

resisted single-sex classes, ensuring federal Title IX compliance has proved taxing. School 1’s 

stakeholders have studied Title IX carefully to ensure compliance. 

In the case of School 2, administrators—not parents—initiated the change to single-sex 

schooling for two primary reasons: to improve academic achievement and to reduce disciplinary 

problems. Administrators were concerned by inappropriate sexual behavior, low attendance, the 

highest suspension rate in the district, and an attitude among boys that they did not need an 

education. Detachment from school and low self-efficacy were also evident among the girls. 

Acknowledging that professional development was not solving the problem, the administrators 

turned to single-sex schooling. The principal stated that most teachers and district administrators 

supported the approach after a group visited single-sex schools with similar demographics and 

reported favorably on their findings. 

The levels of sex separation at Schools 1 and 2 were similar. At School 1 all academic classes 

were separated by sex. For every course a teacher generally had a section of boys and a section 

of girls. Boys and girls ate lunch separately but did interact during transitions in the hallways. 

One nonacademic period during the regular school day, focus period, was coed. During this 

period students could choose to participate in such activities as band, choir, and art. At School 2 

boys and girls attended separate classes, occupied separate floors, and waited for buses in 

separate gymnasiums. Only in choir and band did boys and girls intermingle during school. All 

after-school sports were separated by sex and each sport, except cheerleading, was offered to 

both boys and girls. At both Schools 1 and 2 boys and girls had opportunities to interact at 

dances, concerts, drama performances, and field trips outside of the school day. 

Educational Programs 

School 1’s principal has an unequivocal definition of an effective teacher and used her hiring 

autonomy to recruit teachers who fit her vision. She cited her foremost requirement as 

“teachability.” By design, 26 of the school’s 29 teachers in 2005–06 were new. The principal 

said he did not allow teachers to perform beneath the school’s standards. “If they’re not

performing in a way that shows improvement or if they’re not showing that teachable spirit, then 

we put them on the improvement plan,” remarked the principal. Although the school required 

much from its teachers, their salaries were only 80 percent of the district average. 

Structure, intentionality, and schoolwide coherence characterized School 1’s educational 

program. Pedagogy and instruction at School 1 were distinctive. Teachers strove to utilize every 

minute of instructional time, and the most common instructional approach was interactive direct 

instruction. The school opposed constructivist learning theory, and its pedagogy, the “effective 

teaching cycle,” included a warm-up, a review of old material, a review of new material, and 

guided practice of new material. One emphasized teaching practice was energetic teacher call 

and student choral response. 

School 1’s professional development efforts were the most systematic, thorough, and successful. 

To build teachers’ knowledge of and skill implementing the school’s distinctive instructional 

methods, School 1 provided much professional development. The principal conducted a 

preservice training on sex-specific learning differences based on research from the Gurian 
76 Middle Schools 

Institute. In addition, teachers received at least four types of ongoing training: CHAMPS 

classroom management, Direct Instruction, Quantum Learning, and Core Knowledge. CHAMPS 

contributed to teachers’ orderly classrooms, and the school’s call and response methods are 

promoted by Quantum Learning. Every Friday, school dismissed early to allow teachers to meet 

with lead teachers or participate in professional development. In addition, School 1 

systematically and randomly evaluated teachers on their use of the school’s teaching practices, 

and teachers discussed the evaluation results with a trainer. School 1 also encouraged its teachers 

to take content courses at a local college. The teachers who participated in focus groups were 

generally enthusiastic about the professional development they had received.

School 2 struggled with teacher retention. A strong union afforded School 2’s principal little 

hiring control. For example, a teacher from a nearby school who was assigned to teach 

mathematics at School 2 was certified in mathematics but had never taught the subject. One 

source estimated that 50 teachers had left the school in the four years prior to the site visit. 

School 2 had several “master teachers,” as the principal described them, but not enough. 

The principal described the instruction at School 2 as primarily “old school, stand and deliver.” 

Because many teachers struggled to control their classes, they avoided nontraditional 

instructional strategies. As a result, interactive direct instruction was the most common 

instructional method observed, and small group instruction was virtually nonexistent. The 

instructional quality at School 2 was highly variable. The principal believed that short tenures 

contribute to teachers’ superficial understanding of the curriculum and ineffective instructional 

approaches. In addition, collegiality was low among teachers and administrators, and staff 

struggled to communicate and interact productively. The level of collegiality had, however, 

improved since the school transitioned to a dual academy. “Before single-sex schooling,” 

commented the principal, “teachers would scream and yell at each other.” 

School 2’s professional development included weekly visits by district content coaches and guest 

speakers, but these activities had not had the intended effect of building unity and morale. 

Because the school was under pressure to improve its performance on standardized tests, much 

of the professional development involves constructing graphic displays of state test standards for 

classrooms. Due to low test scores, School 2 was on the verge of reconstitution and district and 

state observers spent considerable time in the school. The principal explained the effect: “My 

teachers feel put upon. They have people coming in and out and inspecting them every day.” 

School 3’s principal hired 12 new staff members for the 2005–06 school year. He admitted 

turnover had been high the previous year and proclaimed a “mission to clean house” and raise 

the level of teacher quality. With nearly complete control over teacher hiring, the principal strove 

to recruit experienced teachers who meet No Child Left Behind’s “highly qualified” teacher 

criteria. Many of School 3’s new teachers arrived directly from teacher training with no previous 

teaching experience. The principal also expressed a desire to recruit teachers with experience 

working in teams. The district experiences high teacher turnover due to the transient nature of the 

military population. Nonetheless, teacher turnover at School 3 was below the district average. 

School 3 made no distinction between teacher planning and staff development time. Every 

teacher had two planning periods each day: one for individual planning and another for planning 

with grade level teams and content coaches. The system did not allow for content planning 
77 

across grade levels. The principal admitted that the team planning meetings occasionally 

devolved into “gripe sessions.” Administrators were rarely involved in team meetings, but on 

Wednesdays a delayed class start allowed teachers and administrators to spend one hour and 45 

minutes discussing common assessments, common curricula, and student learning. On some 

Wednesday mornings teachers and administrators participated in book study group discussions 

of strategies for improving instruction or classroom management. These groups were part of the 

principal’s effort to alleviate certain teachers’ reliance on “command and control” to manage 

classrooms. 

Student Interactions and Behaviors 

The site visits revealed several salient similarities and differences between the schools. The 

observed interactions between teachers and students at School 3 (the coed comparison school) 

ranged from positive to troubling. School 1 stood out in terms of healthy interactions: overall, 

students showed respect for the teachers. At School 2 the interactions between staff and students 

were complex. The researchers witnessed several instances of strife between teachers and 

students, and teachers were observed yelling at students to regain control during both academic 

and nonacademic activities. 

Boys and girls in Schools 1 and 3 noted the presence of positive role adult models in their 

schools. The presence of role models was also cited by boys in School 2. Across all three schools 

students described role models similarly: kind, caring, and supportive of students’ academic and 

personal struggles. No strong trends correlating students’ sex to a preference in the sex of their 

role model emerged. Across the schools, students themselves rarely exhibited positive role 

modeling, leadership, or a sense of community. Combined data for these three indicators show 

no definitive trend toward higher ratings in single-sex classrooms than in coed classrooms. 

Peer interactions in the schools were generally healthy. Among both boys and girls in Schools 2 

and 3 moderate levels of aggressive behaviors were, however, observed. Negative behaviors 

such as sexual harassment and violence were not observed in the schools. At all three schools, 

students and teachers thought the dress code had improved peer interactions. Some students 

commented that the dress code shifted the focus from style to education. Students often 

expressed dislike of the policy—citing that it thwarted individuality or led to discomfort—but in 

general they acknowledged its positive results. 

Student Academic Achievement and Behaviors 

Exhibits B5 and B6 compare the schools’ performance on state standardized tests. Of the three 

schools, School 1 had the highest academic performance. On the 2003 state standardized tests 

School 1 students outperformed both the district and state. Caution should be exercised when 

interpreting the performance of schools compared to their district and state because the economic 

status of students at each school differed from that of their respective state and district. In the 

case of Schools 2 and 3, the average economic status of students was lower than the district 

average. In the case of School 1, the average economic status of students was greater than the 

district average. On the 2004 state standardized tests School 3 students fared nearly the same as 

the district averages but notably below the state averages. 
78 Middle Schools 

Girls’ and boys’ standardized test scores at School 1 indicate a trend toward sex parity. For 

Grade 6, 7, and 8 reading and mathematics, in only two cases are the differences between the 

percentages of girls and boys at or above proficient more than five points.16 In all other cases 

girls and boys alternate in terms of which sex scored higher. 

Exhibit B5 

Students At and Above the Proficient Level 

 Percent of Students in 2004 

State Test Indicator School 1 School 3 District State 

Grade 6 through 8 Reading 68% 57% 53% 64% 

Grade 6 through 8 Writing 59% 43% 41% 52% 

Grade 6 through 8 Mathematics 55% 28% 31% 45% 

Note: School C is the coed comparison school in the same district as School 1. 

School 2 used several formative assessments to enhance its data-driven instructional approach. 

Despite its struggles, School 2’s reputation and effectiveness were improving. According to the 

principal, more students were making the honor roll, fewer were being retained, attendance was 

up slightly, and students were gaining admission to magnet schools at markedly increased rates. 

Exhibit B6 

Students At and Above the Proficient Level 

 Percent of Students in 2004 

State Test Indicator School 2 District State 

Grade 6 Reading 23% 45% 56% 

Grade 6 Language Arts 22% 43% 53% 

Grade 6 Mathematics 24% 45% 55% 

Two pictures emerge when classroom orderliness, academic engagement, and on-task behavior 

are compared among the single-sex and coed schools (see Exhibit B7). At School 1 the 

researchers found orderly classrooms and high levels of on-task behavior. Students were engaged 

in academic activities, teachers maintained classroom order and control, and students initiated 

few interruptions. In Schools 2 and 3, orderly classrooms were more common than disorderly

classrooms, academic engagement was average, and student-initiated disruptions were few. 

Although variation on these indicators was low at School 1, it was high at Schools 2 and 3. 

Orderly classrooms, for example, might have been more common than disorderly classrooms, 

but several classrooms at each school exhibited disturbing levels of disorder and off-task 

behavior. In School 3 (the coed school) off-task students were sometimes highly distractive, 

 

16Grade 7 reading (Girls = 76 percent, Boys = 54 percent) and Grade 6 mathematics (Girls = 56 percent, Boys = 44 percent). 
79 

wandering around the room during lessons, talking loudly during silent reading, and interrupting 

teachers. Overall, in School 3 boys were observed to be more likely off task than girls, and, in 

both Schools 2 and 3, students were less focused and orderly than students in School 1. In the 

focus groups, nearly all of the School 1 and School 2 students claimed that single-sex schooling 

had improved their academic achievement by eliminating opposite sex distractions. Girls 

mentioned active distractions including boys “showing off,” “boys touching you,” and “boys 

acting tough to impress.” Both girls and boys said they felt more confident because did do not 

need to worry about what the opposite sex thought. A few boys did, however, mention that 

single-sex classrooms deprived them of access to girls’ ways of thinking. 

Exhibit B7 

Student Interactions and Academic Behaviors 

Mean Ratings by School 

Student Characteristic 1 2 SS Mean 3 

1. Exhibit a sense of community 2.46 2.14 2.31 2.04

2. Are engaged in academic activities 3.50 2.96 3.26 2.93 

3. Interact positively with each other 2.79 2.43 2.63 2.41 

4. Show respect for the teacher 3.62 3.09 3.39 3.00

5. Initiate class disruptions 1.33 1.95 1.63 1.82 

6. Have completed homework 3.50 2.75 3.35 2.25 

7. Exhibit positive role modeling 2.11 1.57 1.88 1.57 

8. Engage in leadership opportunities 2.13 1.83 2.00 1.85 

Note. Rating scale: 1 = very little, 4 = extensive. Number of classroom observations: School 1 = 30, 

School 2 = 24, School 3 = 28.

Variation across and within the schools narrows on the topic of students’ disposition toward 

grades and learning. Students in all of the focus groups professed that good grades are important. 

Several students in School 3 did, however, report that although grades were important to them, 

they were not important to their peers. School 3 students also had the lowest mean rate of

completed homework. Students in School 2 correlated good grades with eligibility to participate 

in extracurricular activities and college admission. Eighth-grade boys in School 2 also indicated 

feeling pressure to achieve because the school is on an improvement plan. Students in School 2 

reported spending 30 to 60 minutes a night on homework. School 1 students also cited 

extracurricular eligibility and added that a desire to be in good standing with their parents 

motivated them to earn good grades. 

School 2 teachers rated students’ academic motivation as low and believed that complacency 

was prevalent. The classroom observations found that teachers held a wide range of expectations 

for students. School 1’s results were mixed. Despite student reports of high teacher expectations, 

the observers did not rate teachers high in this area. This discrepancy might derive from the 

school’s emphasis on factual and procedural recall rather than higher order thinking. 
80 Middle Schools 

The principals of both single-sex schools believed that sex separation enhanced student academic 

achievement. Across all three schools, teachers thought that boys and girls have different 

learning needs and gave a variety of examples. The classroom observations revealed, however, 

low levels of sensitivity to sex-based learning differences. The greatest academic difference 

between the three schools was the number of questions and comments classroom teachers posed 

to students (see Exhibit B8). Boys were more likely to receive both academic and behavioral 

comments than girls. In the coed classroom these differences indicate that boys garnered more 

energy from the teacher, which might have affected the learning opportunities for girls. 

Exhibit B8 

Classroom Observation Summary 

Mean No. of Interactions 

by School 

Measure 1 2 3 

Positive Interactions With Boys 

Academic 25.6 10.6 5.0 

Behavioral 2.4 1.9 0.9 

Positive Interactions With Girls 

Academic 17.6 7.8 4.0 

Behavioral 1.5 1.2 0.4 

Note. Number of classroom observations: School 1 = 30, School 2 = 24, 

School 3 = 28.

Consistent with School 1’s energetic instructional style, boys and girls both received an 

exceptionally high number of academic comments and questions from their teachers. Although 

the difference in the number of comments addressed to boys and girls is noteworthy, both sexes 

engaged in high numbers of academic interactions with teachers and girls appeared to receive 

equally diligent instruction and attention. On average, School 2 boys and girls each received a 

respectable number of comments and questions from their teachers. 

In all three schools parents and students were asked to discuss their reasons for attending the 

school. School 1 parents cited academics as the dominant force behind their choice. They

mentioned standardized test scores, the Core Knowledge curriculum, the no-nonsense 

environment, the uniforms, and the single-sex classrooms. School 2 parents were unavailable for 

focus groups, but many students expressed ambivalence about attending the school because of its 

poor reputation. Students suggested that attending School 2 was a mandate rather than a choice. 

School 3 parents and students highlighted the proximity and quality of the school building. Other 

reasons for attending included friendly teachers, organized classrooms, and a variety of 

extracurricular activities. 
81 

Student Extracurricular Activities 

Data on extracurricular activities at the schools are almost exclusively from student focus groups 

and records shared with the study team by school administrators. School 3’s boys and girls 

equally enjoyed access to the widest range of extracurricular activities, including 11 nonathletic 

extracurricular activities and seven sports. School 3 students invariably indicated that the 

extracurricular activities were accessible and leadership opportunities were open to boys and 

girls. School 3 parents praised the breadth and quality of the extracurricular activities. Similarly, 

School 1 students cited few sex-related differences in terms of access to extracurricular activities. 

Students cited ample opportunities for extracurricular involvement, but made few comments 

about leadership opportunities. Access to extracurricular activities was apparently lowest at 

School 2. Students cited only a few extracurricular activities and expressed some confusion 

about access. At School 2 all athletic activities were separated by sex. 

Schools 1 and 3 also offered a variety of nonathletic extracurricular activities to boys and girls. 

All School 1 students could choose to participate in such activities as choir, art, and model

building during the final period of the day. At the time of the site visit the positions of president, 

vice president, secretary, and treasurer in School 1’s student council were held by girls. Each sex 

in each grade had, however, a representative on the council. School 3 students participated nearly 

equally in the science, mathematics, and research clubs and student council. Among the 11 

nonathletic extracurricular options at School 3, only the National Junior Honors Society had 

considerably more female than male members. At School 2 student council positions were 

allocated equally because each grade level had separate representatives for boys and girls. 

Conclusions 

The many differences between the three middle schools described herein leave little room for 

generalized conclusions. The coed school was in a new building and had a nearly new staff. One 

of the dual academies was a new charter school with a strong system of accountability and 

teachers who received extensive and ongoing professional development. The schools also varied 

greatly in terms of student demographics. The single-sex environment appeared to alleviate 

distractions, increase confidence, and promote higher academic expectations more than the coed 

environment. Teachers at all of the schools expressed sensitivity to boys’ and girls’ different 

learning styles, and teachers in the dual academies felt better able to reach students when 

teaching only one sex at a time. In contrast, only at the charter school had teachers received 

explicit professional development on the learning differences of boys and girls. At the other 

single-sex school, teachers had received no such professional development, and it appeared that 

modification of instructional practice and content for the needs of either boys or girls was left to 

each teacher. 

83 

High Schools 

A team of three researchers visited Schools 1 and 2 during October 2005. During that time the 

team observed classrooms; performed general school observations; interviewed school 

administrators, district administrators, teachers, parents, and students; and reviewed multiple key 

documents and data.

School Overview 

School 1 and School 2 were all girls’ secondary schools located in East Coast urban centers. 

Both were committed to providing a high-quality, college preparatory education to their students. 

They benefited from strong reputations in their communities for their high academic and 

behavioral standards. Despite their similarities, the schools differed in terms of history and 

operations. School 1 served 850 students in Grades 9 through 12 and is among the oldest singlesex public schools in the country. Its demographics, similar to those of its district, were 

82 percent African-American and 14 percent white, and the school drew students from 

throughout the city. Fifty percent of the students qualified for free or reduced-price meals. In 

contrast, School 2 served 400 students in Grades 7 through 12 and was only nine years old. The 

student population was 62 percent Hispanic and 34 percent African-American, which reflected 

the neighborhood from which the school drew its students. Eighty-four percent of the girls were 

eligible for free or reduced-price meals, 7 percent had individual education plans, and almost 

two-thirds came from homes in which the predominant language was Spanish. 

Both schools employed a selective admission process that considered prior academic 

performance, recommendations, and personal interviews. School 1 placed a heavier priority on 

prior academic achievement and had a relatively strict minimum score requirement, whereas 

School 2 accepted students within a wider range of prior performance. The admission processes 

at both schools took into account the level of student interest in the school because 

administrators believed that a desire to be in a single-sex environment is important to long-term 

success at the schools. 

The schools were located in well-maintained facilities that reflected pride in the schools. 

School 1 was housed in a large brick building and had a campus that included a gym, a large 

cafeteria, and sports fields. In contrast, School 2 occupied floors 7 through 11 of an 11-story 

office building. Whereas School 1’s capacity was twice its current enrollment, School 2 was 

extremely pressed for space. As a result, School 1 was contemplating adding grades and 

increasing enrollment, but School 2—despite district pressure to increase enrollment to meet the 

high demand—was unable to do so due to space constraints. 

Both schools received the bulk of their funding through their respective districts. School 1 

supplemented these monies to a small degree through private fundraising and grant writing. 

School 2 was very committed to raising additional funding, and its budget was supplemented by 

a foundation that benefits the five all girls’ schools in its network. Both schools had established 
84 High Schools 

strategic partnerships with organizations in their respective cities through which they received 

grants or services and offered additional educational opportunities to their students. 

Some of the more notable differences between the schools are attributable to their different 

histories. School 1 has existed for over 160 years and is well known in its city. Prominent 

alumnae are active in city politics and culture and continue to support the school. The school was 

started by the district to teach skills particular to women of the age (such as homemaking), and it 

evolved over time into a college preparatory school. At the time of the site visit School 1 had 

little discretion over its curriculum and professional development, and its operations did not 

differ from coed schools in the district. The staff was experienced—many of the teachers had 

been at the school for more than 20 years. The school received its teachers through a transfer 

system, as did all other schools in the district. 

School 2, in contrast, was only nine years old at the time of the site visit. It was founded in 1996 

through the efforts of a private individual who perceived a need to provide an all girls’ school 

choice for families unable to pay for private school. The neighborhood was chosen because of its 

history of academic underperformance and the limited resources of its population. The founders 

believed that a high-quality education would help break the cycle of poverty for the girls and 

their families. School 2 had much more autonomy in its curriculum and professional 

development, and to a certain extent teacher hiring. The teachers were generally young—

averaging around seven years of teaching experience—but enthusiastic and committed. 

Although both schools enjoyed strong reputations, some interviewees at School 1 believed that 

its reputation had weakened in recent years. They suggested two reasons: past low enrollment 

that resulted in lowered academic standards for enrollment and rumors in the community that the 

school educates lesbians. The school had addressed these issues, but some feared that the 

school’s outstanding reputation had been tarnished. School 2 had an excellent reputation, 

although students admitted being teased by peers at other schools that they attended a lesbian 

school. The rumor was more pronounced at School 1, but this bias is something the girls 

attending these schools must contend with. Both schools’ reputations, academic records, and 

well-connected advocates had helped them survive numerous political battles, yet stakeholders in 

both schools expressed concern that their respective districts might do away with single-sex 

schooling. 

Educational Program 

Both schools aimed to provide students with a high-quality college preparatory educational

experience, including preparation for standardized tests. Both schools had rigorous graduation 

requirements and offered advanced placement classes for excelling students, although due to its 

smaller size and younger age School 2 offered fewer electives and advanced courses. School 1’s 

educational program was dictated almost entirely by the district. The school followed the districtmandated curriculum and district professional development calendar. The curriculum content did 

not vary from classroom to classroom, and the school made no sex-based modifications to 

content or delivery. Due to School 1’s reputation of academic achievement and order, many 

teachers in the district seek to transfer to the school. Teachers tend, however, to stay at the school 

for many years and historically turnover has been relatively low compared to other district 

schools. 
85 

In contrast, School 2’s district had dictated little regarding curriculum and professional 

development. Professional development was based on the results of needs assessments and the 

teachers’ own interests. In addition, teachers reported participating in citywide presentations and 

professional conferences as appropriate. The school had near autonomy in choosing its teachers 

due to an agreement reached in contract negotiations between the city and the teacher’s union. 

Under this agreement, a school personnel committee selects teachers according to criteria chosen 

by the school rather than seniority. The school must reapply for this increased autonomy every 

two years. Teacher turnover at the school was relatively low for an urban school in a high-need 

area: at the time of the site visit 75 percent of the staff had been with the school for five years. 

However, in the first five years of the school’s history turnover was very high. 

Both schools seemed to provide an interactive learning experience, and classroom observations 

revealed high levels of student engagement. In School 1 administrators described the desired 

model of pedagogy as “teacher as facilitator.” The predominant teaching style observed during 

the site visit was interactive direct instruction. Some teachers relied heavily on a more traditional 

lecture style, and some classes included individual or group activities. With few exceptions the 

desks were placed in rows. Aggregate classroom observation data indicate that 69 percent of the 

time 80 to 100 percent of the students were engaged in academic work. Twenty-five percent of 

the time 60 to 80 percent were on task. In general, students were well behaved in the classroom, 

and many teachers tolerated a high level of chatter. School 1 administrators rated the quality of 

the staff as high but admitted to some exceptions. 

The instructional styles observed in School 2 varied, but most instructors engaged students in 

inquiry-based, interactive direct instruction. Observers also noticed hands-on activities, 

independent and group work, and teacher lecture. The students were grouped at tables. The data 

show that 70 percent of the time 80 to 100 percent of the students were engaged in academic 

work. Most teachers maintained order and control while allowing for student interaction. Some 

classrooms were noisier than others, and some teachers more proficient than others at both 

generating interest and maintaining control. Although administrators expect a certain degree of 

student interaction to be a natural part of the “participatory learning” process, stakeholders in 

both schools shared the belief that girls are more prone to chatty behavior. 

In general, School 2 had more deliberately modified its curriculum and pedagogy to meet the 

distinct emotional and academic needs of girls. Most teachers chose the school because they 

wanted to teach girls, and they were eager to learn more about sex differences in learning. 

School 2 provided annual professional development on single-sex education, and teachers 

participated in book groups to further investigate the issue. Some teachers described modifying 

the curriculum by choosing books by women authors or highlighting women in history, and 

others described modifying instructional delivery by providing more positive feedback and 

focusing on the learning process rather than correct answers only. 

Although teachers in School 1 expressed appreciation for the school’s single-sex nature, it was 

generally not the reason they were at the school. Almost all of the benefits of single-sex 

schooling cited by the teachers were social—such as more leadership opportunities and fewer 

distractions—and very few teachers believed that in terms of academics teaching girls differs 

from teaching boys. Teachers in School 1 could not identify many sex-based adaptations to the 

curriculum or pedagogy. In fact, some believed strongly that “teaching is teaching,” regardless of 
86 High Schools 

the students’ sex. Their support for single-sex schooling was based on the belief that it increases 

student achievement by eliminating distractions from the other sex. Administrators did discuss 

sex-based learning differences but asserted that the primary benefits of single-sex schooling are 

cultural and social. Teachers received no professional development on single-sex education, and 

few staff expressed interest in the topic. 

Student Interactions and Behaviors 

The opportunity for positive student interactions is among the most heralded benefits of singlesex education. Students in both schools exhibited a strong sense of school identity and spoke 

eloquently about the ways in which the schools had helped them grow as young women, 

scholars, and citizens. In School 1 students spoke of a “sisterhood,” and this sense of community 

was palpable. The girls reported feeling very close to one another and the teachers and believing 

they are part of something special. Students claimed that their self-esteem had increased at the 

school—a benefit administrators and parents also highlighted. Parents indicated that School 1 

clearly expects a high level of maturity from the girls. Another benefit emphasized by multiple 

stakeholders was positive student and teacher role models. Girls expressed admiration for peer 

role models who demonstrate academic achievement and leadership abilities. In addition, the 

girls reported receiving social and moral guidance from teachers of both sexes. Students and 

parents suggested that higher quality teacher-student interactions are possible because boys are 

not present to distract the girls. 

Although some past sexual harassment incidents were mentioned, the absence of male peers had 

dramatically reduced the level and type of sexual harassment that occurred. Parents in School 2 

mentioned some bullying that had occurred at the beginning of the year, but students perceived 

there were lower levels of bullying in the school than in local coed schools. The visitors did not 

witness any violence during visits to either school, and interviewees believed the schools to be 

safe. Stakeholders stated that because the girls do not feel pressure to impress boys in the 

classroom, they can better engage in academics. Furthermore, they asserted that the all girls 

environment decreases sex bias in teacher-student interactions and ensures that teachers do not 

spend disproportionate time responding to boys’ disruptive behavior in the classroom. These 

factors together enhanced the quality of student interactions. In School 2 the observations 

recorded high levels of positive student interactions and sense of community. 

Multiple stakeholders in School 2 articulated appreciation for the school’s positive effect on the 

students’ self-esteem and peer interactions. Students cited ease in making friends and reported 

that their friendships thrived because boys did not distract them. Students described admiring 

peer role models in School 2 for their academic success and extracurricular involvement. 

Students also identified teachers who were regarded as role models due to their willingness to 

support students academically and socially. Teachers and students in School 2 expressed 

appreciation for the lack of distractions caused by the other sex in the classroom. Many of the 

same benefits of single-sex schooling cited by School 1 stakeholders were echoed at School 2. 

The observations indicated that both schools were relatively orderly. Interactions in the halls and 

the cafeterias were lively but controlled. In general, the interactions observed between adults and 

students were constructive and respectful, although some instances of rude behavior toward staff 

and fellow students occurred in both schools. Observations in both schools indicated youth 
87 

culture influence in such areas as jewelry, clothing, and use of cell phones. The influence was 

stronger in School 1, the larger of the two schools. Because School 2 required uniforms, youth 

culture dress was minimized to dyed hair, jewelry, and shoes. 

Student Academic Achievement and Behaviors 

Both schools place a high priority on providing a rigorous, college-preparatory program—a 

primary reason parents and students chose the schools. Both had performed well on city and state 

tests and generally had higher achievement scores than their respective districts. Both also had 

high graduation rates and boasted 100 percent college acceptance rates for the previous school 

year. Students expect—and are expected—to attend college after gradation. The emphasis on 

college was evident in both the support provided to students and in displays throughout the 

schools emphasizing postsecondary education. 

School 1’s commitment to academic rigor was one its defining characteristics. Students were 

expected to be studious, and entrance into and continued enrollment in the school were 

dependent on academic performance. The school offered two tracks for students: college 

preparatory and accelerated college preparatory, which included advanced placement or collegelevel classes in Grade 12. Honors and accelerated courses were offered for students in Grades 10, 

11, and 12. School 1 had a 97 percent graduation rate in 2005; of the graduates, 72 percent 

planned to attend a four-year college and 13 percent planned to attend a two-year college. The 

school has consistently performed among the top schools in the district on city and state tests 

(see Exhibits B9 and B10). 

Exhibit B9 

Students At and Above the Proficient Level in 2005 

 Percent of Students Proficient 

State Test Indicator School 1 District State 

Geometry 59% 19% 51% 

English 86% 34% 57% 

Exhibit B10 

2003–04 Adequate Yearly Progress 

 Percent Proficient 

State Test Indicator School 1 District State 

Reading 76% 46% 68% 

Mathematics 38% 36% 58% 

Adequate Yearly Progress Met Not met Not met 
88 High Schools 

School 2 had a college counselor on staff who scheduled college visits for students and invited 

college recruiters to the school to talk with the students. Parents appreciated the college focus 

and observed the desire for college take root in their daughters. Some parents did, however, 

mention a desire for more academic consistency across classrooms and more rigor in the school’s 

general offerings. School 2 had regularly achieved adequate yearly progress and was deemed a 

“school in good standing” by the state department of education. Exhibit B11 shows School 2’s 

test results reported on the 2003–04 school report card. 

Exhibit B11 

Student Performance on High School Exams (2003–04) 

Percent of Students Scoring 

No. Tested 55–100a 65–100 85–100 

English 

School 2 68 93 85 66 

Similar Schoolsb 9519 92 85 38 

City Schools 64,533 81 66 21 

Mathematics A 

School 2 16 100 56 6 

Similar Schools 10,324 95 86 24 

City Schools 72,537 87 68 15 

aA 55 is required to pass the secondary level state test. b

“Similar schools” is a state-determined 

comparison group based on the grade levels served by the school, the rates of student poverty and 

limited English proficiency, and the income and property wealth of the district residents. 

The site visitors rated both schools high in terms of homework completion, engagement in 

academic activities, and positive peer interaction. Staff and students in both schools asserted that 

the single-sex makeup of the student body allowed for more opportunities for the girls to excel in 

the classroom. Teachers, parents, and administrators credited the single-sex environment with 

helping the girls focus on academic achievement by eliminating the distraction of boys and 

allowing for healthy competition. Girls mentioned being less afraid of failing than they had been 

in coed schools, and teachers remarked that the girls were more willing to problem solve. 

Teachers commented that in coed environments they had often witnessed girls deferring to boys 

academically. Parents believed that their daughters were enthusiastic about school and achieved 

more academic success in the single-sex school than they would have in a coed school. 

Student Extracurricular Activities 

Both schools offer extracurricular activities that addressed a range of interests including science, 

theater, and service. School 1, the larger school, offered 35 clubs, and School 2 offered 21, and 

participation was high. These clubs offered many non-sex-stereotyped activities and excellent 

leadership opportunities, both formal and informal. Students said they were more willing to seek 

leadership roles in the clubs because they did not compete with boys to do so. 
89 

Other Issues and Observations 

Staff and students in School 1 expressed concern that the school would be closed or merged with 

another school. There was fear that the school is vulnerable because its space was underutilized 

and some district officials appeared to be unsupportive of the school. During the site visit the 

district held a community forum that drew hundreds of the school’s supporters. The topic of the 

meeting was the future of the district’s high schools, many of which may be broken up into 

smaller learning communities. Although district administrators sought to dispel rumors that the 

school may close or merge, the school’s supporters remain concerned that district leaders do not 

value the benefits of single-sex schooling. 

Administrators and staff in School 2 expressed concern that the girls who attend the school were 

not experiencing positive peer interactions with boys in school, and many of the girls did not 

have this opportunity outside of school either. Some staff—but not parents or students—

expressed concern that girls from the school might be targeted by inappropriate boys in the 

neighborhood and that the girls might accept these advances because they do not have the 

opportunity to meet boys at school. They claimed that the inability to interact with boys in a 

nonthreatening classroom environment contributes to a mystique surrounding boys. In response 

to these concerns staff were considering ways to increase the amount of positive interaction the 

girls have with boys, such as partnering with an all boys’ school for field trips or offering coed 

after-school activities. 

Conclusion 

Both schools prided themselves on having high academic and behavioral standards to which their 

students aspired, and both provided a supportive environment in which students were able to 

achieve these high standards. An integral aspect of that setting was the single-sex nature of the 

schools. Although the focus on sex differences in academics was more pronounced at School 2, 

both schools believed that the single-sex nature of their program was foundational to their 

success. Stakeholders in both schools expressed enormous respect and excitement for their 

efforts. Increased opportunities for leadership, increased student achievement, improved selfesteem, and fewer distractions are among the main benefits of single-sex schooling cited in 

School 1. School 2 cited fewer behavioral problems, the opportunity to address the learning 

styles of girls, and the provision of a choice in public education for parents in the neighborhood. 

At both schools, the single-sex nature was credited in helping the schools to more adequately 

address the needs of the students who come to them, and the ability to focus on “girl issues” had 

allowed the schools to put the appropriate supports in place that might not be available in coed 

schools. Parents were impressed with the way the schools had helped the maturation process of 

their daughters, reporting that their students took more initiative and made more decisions on 

their own. Students spoke about how they had grown in self-esteem and confidence since they 

began attending the schools, and how the support of the administration and peers had allowed 

them to take risks and try new things. The girls believed they had been “given a voice” through 

their attendance at these schools, and they spoke with a confidence and passion that they

attributed to their schools. 

Appendix C: 

Data Collection Instruments 

93 

Single Sex Schools 

Principal Survey 

 Date Completed: / / 

About This Survey 

This survey contains questions concerning your school such as student characteristics, classroom 

instruction, school climate, and your opinions about single sex schooling. Some questions may ask that 

you respond separately for boys and girls. 

Please write your answers directly on the survey by checking the appropriate boxes or by writing your 

response in the space provided. 

We expect that it will take approximately 1 1⁄2 hours to complete the survey. 

We have taken several steps to ensure that the information you provide is not connected with your 

name or school name: 

Your survey will include an ID number only. 

We have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for you to mail your survey directly to RMC 

Research. Surveys will be seen only by the researchers and will be identified only by the ID 

number. 

No names or institutional identifiers will be used in any reports. Survey responses will be reported in 

aggregate form only. It may be possible for a reader to determine which schools participated in 

this study because of their unique characteristics, but our reports will not link these 

characteristics to your responses. 

Please return this survey no later than March 18, 2005 

Thank you very much for your help.

Form Approved 

OMB No. 1875-0234 

Expiration Date: 01/31/2008 

95 

Single Sex Schools 

Principal Survey 

School Characteristics 

1. Which best describes this school? 

1 Girls only 

2 Boys only 

3 Boys and girls, taught in separate classes by different teachers 

4 Boys and girls, taught in separate classes by same teachers 

2. Is this school a charter school? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

3. In what calendar year did this school become a single-sex school? 

4. Is this single sex school a newly created school or was it originally a coeducational school? 

1 A newly created school (Skip to Question 7) 

2 A pre-existing coeducational school 

3 Don’t know (Skip to Question 7) 

5. Did you support this school’s conversion to a single sex school? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

6. Were you a principal at this school before it became a single sex school? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

7. What was/were the primary reason(s) for creating this single-sex school? 

a Don’t know (Skip to Question 8) 

b 

c 

d 
96 Principal Survey 

8. Did you ever attend a single sex school as a student in Grades K–12? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

9. Have any of your own children attended a single sex school in Grades K–12? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

3 Not applicable (I have not had any school-age children) 

10. School enrollment. Write in the approximate number of children for each of the following. If no 

children have left or enrolled in this school, enter “0” on that line. 

Number of 

children

a. Total enrollment in this school around October 1, 2004, or the 

date nearest to that for which data are available (use the 

numbers you report to your state education agency, if 

applicable) 

 

b. Number of children who have enrolled in this school since 

October 1, 2004 

 

c. Number of children who have left this school since October 1, 

2004, and have not returned 

 

11. School enrollment by grade. Write in the approximate number of children for each grade level 

around October 1, 2004. If no children are enrolled for a particular grade, enter “0” on that line. 

a. Kindergarten.... h. 7th grade.......... 

b. 1st grade .......... i. 8th grade.......... 

c. 2nd grade.......... j. 9th grade.......... 

d. 3rd grade .......... k. 10th grade........ 

e. 4th grade .......... l. 11th grade........ 

f. 5th grade.......... m. 12th grade........ 

g. 6th grade.......... 
97 

12. Around October 1, 2004, how many students in this school belonged to each of the following 

racial/ethnic groups? Write the number OR percent on each line. Enter “0” on the line if this 

school has no students of that racial-ethnic group. The Total number should sum to the total 

school enrollment in question 9a OR the total on the percent column should add to 100%. 

Number OR Percent

a. White ................................................................ % 

b. Black or African American ................................. % 

c. Asian ................................................................. % 

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ......... % 

e. American Indian or Alaska Native ..................... % 

f. Other (Please specify) ...................................... % 

g. TOTAL............................................................... 100 % 

13. Approximately, what is the average daily attendance for this school this year? Write in percent 

or number from your most recent count below. To calculate percent, divide the number of 

students attending on an average day by the number of students enrolled. 

________ % Average Daily Attendance (e.g., number of students attending on an average 

day/number of students enrolled) 

OR 

________ Average Number Attending Daily 

For questions 14–16, use current numbers or your most recent report to your state. 

14. What is the total number of students at this school who are eligible for free or reduced price 

lunches? 

15. What is the number of students at this school who have an Individual Education Plan (IEP)? 

16. What is the number of students at this school who are identified through an English proficiency 

test as limited-English proficient? 

17. Does this school have programs specifically designed to address the needs of limited-English 

proficient students? 

1 Yes 

2 No 
98 Principal Survey 

18. Do any students enrolled in this school receive Title I services? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

19. Is this school operating a school-wide Title I program? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

20. Has this school been identified for school improvement under No Child Left Behind (NCLB)? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

21. What is the total number of classroom teachers, special services staff, administrators, and 

instructional assistants at this school? Report numbers of staff in full-time equivalents (FTE). 

Staff Type

Total Number 

of Staff

Number of 

Female Staff

a. Classroom teachers (Include regular 

classroom teachers, special education, Title 

I, ELL, teachers on special assignment, and 

special areas such as art, music, and PE). 

Do not include counselors, psychologists, 

media specialists, or speech-language 

pathologists.) 

 

b. Special services staff (Include counselors, 

psychologists, nurses, media specialists, 

and speech-language pathologists.) 

 

c. Administrators (Include principals, vice 

principals, and assistant principals.) 

 

d. Instructional assistants who work directly 

with students (include special education 

assistants, Title I assistants, bilingual/ESL 

assistants, and regular instructional 

assistants.) To calculate FTE, add the 

number of hours worked each day for each 

assistant and divide by 8.

 

22. What percentage of your teachers are considered “highly qualified” under NCLB? 

 % 
99 

23. How long is the school day for students in this school? (Report BOTH hours and minutes, 

e.g., 5 hours and 45 minutes). If the length of day varies by grade level, record the longest day. 

Include instructional time only—do not include lunch, recess, or passing time. 

 hours and minutes 

24. How many instructional days are in your school year? Include only the days that students are 

present. 

 days 

25. Does this school have a formal school improvement plan? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

26. Is this school currently involved in the implementation of any specific school reform models 

(e.g., Success for All, Core Knowledge, Coalition of Essential Schools, Accelerated Schools)? 

1 Yes If yes, please indicate which reform model(s) you are implementing. 

2 No 

27. Has this school had a major new curriculum adoption this year (2004–05)? Mark (X) all that apply. 

x Did not adopt any new curriculum programs this year

a Reading/language arts 

b Mathematics 

c Science 

d Social studies 

e Other: ___________________________ 

f Other: ___________________________ 

28. What percent of your students scored at or above the proficient level on your state standards in 

reading last year? 

% 

29. What percent of your students scored at or above the proficient level on your state standards in 

math last year? 

% 
100 Principal Survey 

Admission Procedures 

30. Does this school use any of the following requirements for admission? 

Yes No

a. Admission test 1 2

b. Standardized achievement test 1 2

c. Academic record 1 2

d. Special student needs (e.g., “at risk” or with disabilities) 1 2

e. Special student aptitudes, skills, or talents 1 2

f. Personal interview 1 2

g. Recommendations 1 2

h. Residence in attendance area 1 2

i. Commitment to parental involvement 1 2

j. Socioeconomic need 1 2

31. What percentage of your enrollment slots, if any, are reserved for low-income students? 

a None, we do not have income requirements 

b __________% of our enrollment slots are reserved for low-income students 

32. Does the admission process involve a lottery of any kind? 

1 Yes If yes, please describe. 

2 No 

 

33. How many students (otherwise qualified) were denied admission this school year due to a lack 

of space? 

34. Do you maintain a reservation list for students who are not yet old enough to enter your school’s 

lowest grade? (e.g., a high school that keeps a list of elementary and middle school students 

who want to be admitted in the future)? 

1 Yes 

2 No 
101 

School Climate 

35. This school year (2004-05), is it the practice of this school to do the following? 

Yes No

a. Control access to school buildings during school hours (e.g., locked or monitored 

doors) 

1 2

b. Control access to school grounds during school hours (e.g., locked or monitored 

gates) 

1 2

c. Require students to pass through metal detectors each day 1 2

d. Perform random metal detector checks on students 1 2

e. Require that all or most students stay on campus during lunch 1 2

f. Use random dog sniffs to check for drugs 1 2

g. Perform random sweeps for contraband (e.g., drugs or weapons), but not 

including dog sniffs 

1 2

h. Require students to wear uniforms 1 2

i. Enforce a strict dress code 1 2

j. Require clear book bags or ban book bags on school grounds 1 2

36. To the best of your knowledge, how often do the following types of problems occur with students 

at this school? Mark (X) one box on each row.

Never 

On 

occasion

At least 

once a 

month

At least 

once a 

week Daily

a. Physical abuse of teachers 1 2 3 4 5

b. Student racial tensions 1 2 3 4 5

c. Student bullying 1 2 3 4 5

d. Student verbal abuse of teachers 1 2 3 4 5

e. Widespread disorder in classrooms 1 2 3 4 5

f. Gang activities 1 2 3 4 5

37. To what extent is each of the following a problem at this school? Mark (X) one box on each row.

Not a 

problem

Minor 

problem

Moderate 

problem

Serious 

problem

a. Student tardiness 1 2 3 4

b. Student absenteeism 1 2 3 4

c. Teacher absenteeism 1 2 3 4

d. Student class cutting 1 2 3 4

e. Physical conflicts among students 1 2 3 4
102 Principal Survey 

Not a 

problem

Minor 

problem

Moderate 

problem

Serious 

problem

f. Robbery or theft 1 2 3 4

g. Vandalism of school property 1 2 3 4

h. Student pregnancy 1 2 3 4

i. Student use of alcohol 1 2 3 4

j. Student drug abuse 1 2 3 4

k. Student possession of weapons 1 2 3 4

l. Student disrespect for teachers 1 2 3 4

m. Students dropping out 1 2 3 4

n. Student apathy 1 2 3 4

o. Lack of parental involvement 1 2 3 4

p. Poverty 1 2 3 4

q. Students come to school unprepared 

to learn 

1 2 3 4

r. Poor student health 1 2 3 4

38. Please rate your level of satisfaction with each of the following school characteristics. Mark (X) 

one box on each row.

Very 

Unsatisfied

Somewhat 

Unsatisfied Uncertain

Somewhat 

Satisfied

Very 

Satisfied

a. Individual attention to students 1 2 3 4 5

b. Academic standards for students 1 2 3 4 5

c. Student access to teachers 1 2 3 4 5

d. Quality of school administration 1 2 3 4 5

e. Quality of teaching 1 2 3 4 5

f. School facilities 1 2 3 4 5

g. Extracurricular activities 1 2 3 4 5

h. Transportation for students 1 2 3 4 5

i. Food for students 1 2 3 4 5

j. Staff and student safety 1 2 3 4 5

k. Student behavior code 1 2 3 4 5

l. Student dress 1 2 3 4 5

m. Length of school day 1 2 3 4 5

n. Length of school year 1 2 3 4 5
103 

39. How much of a problem are the following in the neighborhood where this school is located? 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

No 

problem

Somewhat of 

a problem

A big 

problem

Don’t 

know

a. Tensions based on racial, ethnic, or 

religious differences 

1 2 3 8

b. Garbage, litter, or broken glass in the street 

or road, on the sidewalks, or in yards 

1 2 3 8

c. Selling or using drugs or excessive drinking 

in public 

1 2 3 8

d. Gangs 1 2 3 8

e. Heavy traffic 1 2 3 8

f. Violent crimes like drive-by shootings 1 2 3 8

g. Vacant houses and buildings 1 2 3 8

h. Crime in the neighborhood 1 2 3 8

40. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line. 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. I get satisfaction from seeing student 

progress at this school. 

1 2 3 4

b. I feel like I am making a difference at this 

school. 

1 2 3 4

c. The stress and disappointment involved in 

working at this school aren’t really worth it. 

1 2 3 4

d. The teachers at this school like being here; I 

would describe them as a satisfied group. 

1 2 3 4

e. I feel empowered to make decisions that 

affect my work at this school. 

1 2 3 4

f. I like the way things are run at this school. 1 2 3 4

g. I think about transferring to another school. 1 2 3 4

h. I don’t seem to have as much enthusiasm 

now as I did when I began my career as a 

principal. 

1 2 3 4

i. I think about staying home from school 

because I’m just too tired to go. 

1 2 3 4
104 Principal Survey 

Classroom Instruction 

41. Does this school use any of the following methods to organize classes or student groups? 

Yes No

a. Traditional grade levels or academic discipline-based departments 1 2

b. Grades or schools subdivided into small groups such as “houses” or “families” 1 2

c. Student groups that remain two or more years with the same teacher 

(looping) 

1 2

d. Interdisciplinary teaching (e.g., two or more teachers with different academic 

specializations collaborate to teach the same group of students) 

1 2

e. Paired or team teaching (e.g., two teachers are jointly responsible for a single 

group of students) 

1 2

42. Has this school implemented any of the following? 

Yes No

a. Scheduling of class periods to create extended instructional blocks of time 

(block scheduling) 

1 2

b. Before-school or after-school remedial programs 1 2

c. Before-school or after-school enrichment programs 1 2

d. Academic intersessions or summer school activities for students needing 

extra assistance to meet academic expectations 

1 2

e. Academic intersessions or summer school activities for students seeking 

academic advancement or acceleration 

1 2

f. School calendar where the number of days for students exceeds mandatory 

days per year 

1 2

g. Year-round calendar to distribute school days across twelve months 1 2

Student Support 

43. Does this school sponsor a formal adult-student mentoring program? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

44. Does this school sponsor a formal older student-younger student mentoring program? 

1 Yes 

2 No 
105 

45. Does this school currently have a drug, alcohol, or tobacco prevention program? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

46. Does this school currently have a violence prevention program? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

47. Does this school currently have any other program to support students that you feel is important 

to the students’ success? 

1 Yes If yes, what type of program? 

2 No 

Parent Involvement 

48. Last school year (2003-2004), what percentage of students had at least one parent or guardian 

participating in the following events? 

0–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–100%

Not 

applicable

a. Open house or back-to-school night 1 2 3 4 8

b. All regularly scheduled schoolwide parentteacher conferences 

1 2 3 4 8

c. One or more special subject-area events 

(e.g., science fair, concerts, etc.) 

1 2 3 4 8

49. This school year (2004–2005), does this school have the following? 

Yes No

a. A staff member assigned to work on parent involvement 1 2

b. A log of parent participation maintained by parents or staff 1 2

c. A reliable system of communication with parents, such as newsletters or phone trees 1 2

d. Services to support parent participation, such as providing child care or transportation 1 2

e. A parent drop-in center or lounge 1 2

f. A requirement that teachers send information home to parents explaining school 

lessons 

1 2

g. A requirement that teachers provide suggestions for activities that parents can do at 

home with their child 

1 2

h. A requirement that teachers create homework assignments that involve parents 1 2
106 Principal Survey 

Topics Duration

50. Last school year (2003–2004), were any of the following offered to parents or guardians? 

Yes No

a. Parent education workshops or courses 1 2

b. Written contract between the school and parent/guardian 1 2

c. Opportunities for parents/ guardians to serve as volunteers in the school on a 

regular basis 

1 2

Professional Development 

51. In the past 12 months, have you participated in the following kinds of professional development? 

Yes No

a. University course(s) related to your role as principal 1 2

b. Visits to other schools designed to improve your own work as principal 1 2

c. Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest to you professionally 1 2

d. Mentoring and/or peer observation and coaching of principals, as part of a formal 

arrangement that is recognized or supported by the school or district 

1 2

e. Participating in a principal network (e.g., group of principals organized by an outside 

agency or through the internet) 

1 2

f. Workshops, conferences, or inservice training in which you were a presenter 1 2

g. Other workshops or conferences in which you were not a presenter 1 2

52. In the past 12 months, how often have you participated in professional development activities 

with teachers from this school? 

1 Never 

2 Once or twice 

3 3 to 5 times 

4 6 or more times

53. Have you had any professional development related to single-sex schooling? 

1 Yes If yes, what were the topics and duration of trainings? 

2 No 
107 

Single Sex Schooling 

54. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

At this school . . . 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. same-sex teachers serve as role models for 

students 1 2 3 4

b. opposite-sex teachers serve as role models for 

students 

1 2 3 4

c. students have same-sex peer role models who 

are academically successful 

1 2 3 4

55. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

In comparison to coeducational schools, 

public single sex schools . . . 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. are more expensive to operate 1 2 3 4

b. have greater financial resources 1 2 3 4

c. result in higher academic achievement for girls 1 2 3 4

d. result in higher academic achievement for boys 1 2 3 4

e. result in higher academic achievement for at-risk 

students 

1 2 3 4

f. reduce negative behaviors for at-risk students 1 2 3 4

g. provide an environment more conducive to 

learning 

1 2 3 4

h. are a better environment for meeting students’ 

emotional needs 

1 2 3 4

i. are viewed negatively by the community 1 2 3 4

j. do not prepare students for the sex-integrated 

workplace 

1 2 3 4

k. reinforce sex-role stereotypes 1 2 3 4

l. do not prepare students for interactions with the 

other sex outside of school 

1 2 3 4

m. have fewer extracurricular activities 1 2 3 4

n. provide curriculum materials that are more 

appropriate to the needs of each sex 

1 2 3 4
108 Principal Survey 

56. Do you have girls at this school? 

1 Yes (continue to Question #57) 

2 No (skip to page 17) 

57. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

Girls in my school . . . 

Not 

applicable

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. are taught math and science the same 

way we teach boys 

0 1 2 3 4

b. are taught reading or language arts 

the same way we teach boys 

0 1 2 3 4

c. have interests that are different from 

their classmates 

0 1 2 3 4

d. discuss their interests with me 0 1 2 3 4

e. discuss their insecurities with me 0 1 2 3 4

f. seem comfortable being in a group of 

all girls 

0 1 2 3 4

g. are not focused on how they dress 0 1 2 3 4

h. are teased by students from other 

schools for attending a girls’ school 

0 1 2 3 4

58. Please estimate what percent of the girls in your school . . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. are respectful toward teachers 1 2 3 4

b. are respectful toward the administration 1 2 3 4

c. treat each other with respect 1 2 3 4

d. work together cooperatively 1 2 3 4

e. assume a leadership role in the classroom or 

school 

1 2 3 4

f. need frequent discipline for disruptive behavior 1 2 3 4

g. bully other students 1 2 3 4

h. put down other students 1 2 3 4
109 

59. Please estimate the percent of the girls in your school who. . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. express stereotyped views of male and 

female roles 

1 2 3 4

b. tell sexist jokes or make sexist remarks 1 2 3 4

c. enjoy attending a single sex school 1 2 3 4

d. view girls as being superior to boys 1 2 3 4

e. express interest in stereotypical female 

careers 

1 2 3 4

f. express interest in stereotypical male 

careers 

1 2 3 4

g. have parents who prefer that their 

daughters attend single sex schools 

1 2 3 4

60. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line. 

Skip this item if you are the principal of an elementary school.

Girls in my school . . . 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. are involved in extracurricular academic 

activities (e.g., mock trial, science fair) 

1 2 3 4

b. are focused on athletics and sports 1 2 3 4

c. seek leadership roles in student government 1 2 3 4

d. show more respect for student athletes than 

academic high achievers 

1 2 3 4

e. participate in clubs that are non-traditional for 

girls 

1 2 3 4
110 Principal Survey 

61. Please estimate the percent of girls in your school who . . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. are focused on being attractive 1 2 3 4

b. express concern about dating and relationships 1 2 3 4

c. know how to get along with both sexes 1 2 3 4

d. are teased by their female peers 1 2 3 4

e. feel safe from sexual harassment at school 1 2 3 4

f. feel safe from threats at school 1 2 3 4

g. have the social skills they will need in the 

mixed-sex work place 

1 2 3 4

h. can stand up for themselves in confrontations 

with peers 

1 2 3 4

62. Do you have boys at this school? 

1 Yes (continue to Question #63) 

2 No (skip to page 20) 

63. Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

Boys in my school . . . 

Not 

applicable

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. are taught math and science the same 

way we teach girls 

0 1 2 3 4

b. are taught reading or language arts the 

same way we teach girls 

0 1 2 3 4

c. have interests that are different from 

their classmates 

0 1 2 3 4

d. discuss their interests with me 0 1 2 3 4

e. discuss their insecurities with me 0 1 2 3 4

f. are not focused on how they dress 0 1 2 3 4

g. seem comfortable being in a group of 

all boys 

0 1 2 3 4

h. are teased by students from other 

schools for attending a boys’ school 

0 1 2 3 4
111 

64. Please estimate what percent of the boys in your school . . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. are respectful toward teachers 1 2 3 4

b. are respectful toward the administration 1 2 3 4

c. treat each other with respect 1 2 3 4

d. work together cooperatively 1 2 3 4

e. assume a leadership role in the classroom or 

school 

1 2 3 4

f. need frequent discipline for disruptive behavior 1 2 3 4

g. bully other students 1 2 3 4

h. put down other students 1 2 3 4

65. Please estimate the percent of the boys in your school who. . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. express stereotyped views of male and 

female roles 1 2 3 4

b. tell sexist jokes or make sexist remarks 1 2 3 4

c. enjoy attending a single sex school 1 2 3 4

d. view boys as being superior to girls 1 2 3 4

e. express interest in stereotypical female 

careers 

1 2 3 4

f. express interest in stereotypical male careers 1 2 3 4

g. have parents who prefer that their sons 

attend single sex schools 

1 2 3 4
112 Principal Survey 

66. Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line. 

Skip this item if you are the principal of an elementary school.

Boys in my school. . . 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. are involved in extracurricular academic 

activities (e.g., mock trial, science fair) 1 2 3 4

b. are focused on athletics and sports 1 2 3 4

c. seek leadership roles in student government 1 2 3 4

d. show more respect for student athletes than 

academic high achievers 

1 2 3 4

e. participate in clubs that are non-traditional for 

boys 

1 2 3 4

67. Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

Boys in my school. . . 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. are focused on being attractive 1 2 3 4

b. worry about dating and relationships 1 2 3 4

c. know how to get along with both sexes 1 2 3 4

d. are teased by their male peers 1 2 3 4

e. feel safe from sexual harassment at school 1 2 3 4

f. feel safe from threats at school 1 2 3 4

g. have the social skills they will need in the 

mixed-sex work place 

1 2 3 4

h. can stand up for themselves in confrontations 

with peers 

1 2 3 4
113 

68. Listed below are several reasons that practitioners have given to support single sex education. 

In the box at the bottom of the page, please write in the letters corresponding to the five

reasons you believe are most important. If your most important reasons are not listed, please

add them in items o, p, and q. 

Single sex education . . .

a. decreases the academic problems of low achieving students. 

b. decreases distractions to learning. 

c. improves student self esteem. 

d. decreases gender role stereotyping. 

e. allows for more opportunities to provide social and moral guidance. 

f. provides more leadership opportunities. 

g. addresses the unique learning styles and interests of girls or boys. 

h. reduces student behavior problems. 

i. provides more positive student role models. 

j. decreases sex bias in teacher-student interactions. 

k. provides choice in public education. 

l. promotes a sense of community among students and staff. 

m. reduces sexual harassment among students. 

n. Improves student achievement. 

o. other (specify): ____________________________________________________ 

p. other (specify): ____________________________________________________ 

q. other (specify): ____________________________________________________ 

Write in the letters corresponding to what you believe are the 5 most important reasons 

for offering single sex education: 

 Most important 

 Second most important 

 Third most important 

 Fourth most important 

 Fifth most important 
114 Principal Survey 

69. How much of a challenge have the following issues been for this school? 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

Challenge

No 

challenge

A small 

challenge

A moderate 

challenge

A huge 

challenge

a. Turnover in school leadership 1 2 3 4

b. Teacher turnover 1 2 3 4

c. Lack of district level support 1 2 3 4

d. Lack of real choice for students to be here 1 2 3 4

e. Insufficient funding compared to other 

schools in this district 

1 2 3 4

f. Competition for students from other 

magnet or charter schools 

1 2 3 4

g. Reputation of school as undesirable 1 2 3 4

h. Low student enrollment 1 2 3 4

i. Class sizes too large 1 2 3 4

j. Insufficient professional development on 

single sex education 

1 2 3 4

k. Insufficient professional development on 

teaching low achieving students 

1 2 3 4

l. Unclear mission or purpose of single sex 

education 

1 2 3 4

m. Insufficient course offerings compared to 

coed schools in district 

1 2 3 4

n. Lack of sufficient curriculum focus on state 

standards 

1 2 3 4

o. Conflict with other school reform efforts 1 2 3 4

p. Parent opposition to change 1 2 3 4

q. Negative community perceptions about 

single-sex schools 

1 2 3 4

Principal Background 

70. Are you female or male? 

1 Female 

2 Male 
115 

71. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

72. What is your race? Please select one or more.

a White 

b Black or African American 

c Asian 

d Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

e American Indian or Alaska Native 

73. How many years of experience do you have in each of the following positions? Write in the 

number of years below. Count part of a year as 1 year. If none, mark 0.

Number of years

a. Years as a teacher before becoming a principal 

b. Total number of years as a principal 

c. Number of years as principal of a single-sex school 

d. Total number of years as principal of this school 

74. What is the highest degree you have obtained as of December 2004? Mark (X) only one box.

1 Associate degree 

2 Bachelors (B.A., B.S., B.E., etc.) 

3 Master’s degree (M.A., M.A.T., M.B.A., M.Ed., M.S., etc.) 

4 Education specialist or certification (at least one year beyond master’s level) 

5 Doctorate or first professional degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., L.L.B., J.D., D.D.S.) 

6 Do not have a degree 

Thank you for your participation in this survey! 

Please use the enclosed envelope to mail your survey: 

Dr. Bonnie J. Faddis 

RMC Research Corporation 

522 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1407 

Portland, OR 97204 

If you have any questions, please call Bonnie Faddis or 

 Margaret Beam at (800) 788-1887 

117 

Single Sex Schools 

Teacher Survey 

 Date Completed: / / 

About This Survey 

This survey contains questions concerning your school such as student characteristics, classroom 

instruction, school climate, and your opinions about single sex schooling. Some questions may ask that 

you respond separately for boys and girls. 

Please write your answers directly on the survey by checking the appropriate boxes or by writing your 

response in the space provided. 

We expect that it will take approximately one hour to complete the survey. 

We have taken several steps to ensure that the information you provide is not connected with your 

name or school name: 

 Your survey will include an ID number only. 

 We have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for you to mail your survey directly to 

RMC Research. Surveys will be seen only by the researchers and will be identified only by the 

ID number. 

 No names or institutional identifiers will be used in any reports. Survey responses will be 

reported in aggregate form only. It may be possible for a reader to determine which schools 

participated in this study because of their unique characteristics, but our reports will not link 

these characteristics to your responses. 

Please return this survey no later than March 18, 2005 

Thank you very much for your help. 

Form Approved 

OMB No. 1875-0234 

Expiration Date: 01/31/2008 

119 

Single Sex Schools 

Teacher Survey 

Student Characteristics 

1. What is the total number of boys and girls in your class(es)? Write in the number of students 

below. Write 0 if you do not teach one sex.

Number of 

students

a. Number of boys 

b. Number of girls 

c. Total 

2. In which grades are the students you currently teach? Mark (X) all that apply. 

a Pre-kindergarten f

 4th k 9th

b Kindergarten g 5th l

 10th

c 1st h 6th m 11th

d 2nd i 7th n 12th

e 3rd j 8th o Ungraded 

Class Organization 

3. Which statement best describes the way your class(es) at this school are organized? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 You instruct several classes of different students most or all of the day in one or more 

subjects (such as algebra, history, biology). (Departmentalized Instruction) 

2 You are an elementary school teacher who teaches only one subject (such as 

art, music, physical education, or computer skills). (Elementary Enrichment 

Class) 

3 You instruct the same group of students all or most of the day in multiple 

subjects (Self-Contained Class) 

4 You are one of two or more teachers, in the same class, at the same time, and 

are jointly responsible for teaching a single group of students. (Team Teaching) 

5 You instruct selected students released from their regular classes in specific 

skills or to address specific needs (such as gifted and talented, special 

education, reading, English as a Second Language). (“Pull-Out” Class) 
DRAFT 

120 Teacher Survey 

4. What subject(s) are you teaching this year? Mark (X) all that apply.

a Multiple subjects (elementary grades) 

b English or language arts 

c Mathematics 

d Science 

e Social studies or history 

f Foreign language 

g Physical education or health 

h Visual or performing arts 

i Special education 

j Vocational or professional/technical education 

k English instruction for English Language Learners 

l Other (Please specify______________________________________) 

Professional Development 

5. In the past 12 months did you participate in any of the following professional development 

activities? 

a. University courses related to teaching 

1 Yes If yes, how many? 

2 No 

b. Observational visits to other schools 

1 Yes If yes, how many? 

2 No 

c. Observational visits to other classrooms within your school 

1 Yes If yes, how many? 

2 No 

d. Workshops, conferences, or inservice training sessions in which you were a presenter 

1 Yes If yes, how many? 

2 No 

e. Other workshops, conferences, or inservice training sessions in which you were NOT a 

presenter 

1 Yes If yes, how many? 

2 No 

f. Reading of professional journals or magazine articles or books related to education? 

1 Yes If yes, what is the average number of 

hours you spend reading per month? 

2 No 
121 

6. In the past 12 months, did you participate in any professional development activities specific to 

these content areas? Mark (X) all that apply. 

a Reading 

b Other language arts (writing, spelling, listening, speaking) 

c Mathematics 

d Science 

e Social studies or history 

f Physical education or health 

g Visual or performing arts 

h Student assessment 

i Student discipline and classroom management 

j Use of technology in instruction 

k Instruction for English Language Learners 

l Special education 

m Single-sex schooling 

n Other: ________________________________________________________ 

School Climate

7. To the best of your knowledge, how often do the following types of problems occur with students 

at this school? Mark (X) one box on each row.

Daily

At least 

once a 

week

At least 

once a 

month

On 

occasion Never

a. Physical abuse of teachers 1 2 3 4 5

b. Student racial tensions 1 2 3 4 5

c. Student bullying 1 2 3 4 5

d. Student verbal abuse of teachers 1 2 3 4 5

e. Widespread disorder in classrooms 1 2 3 4 5

f. Gang activities 1 2 3 4 5
DRAFT 

122 Teacher Survey 

8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Mark (X) one 

box on each row.

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. The principal lets staff members know what is 

expected of them. 

1 2 3 4

b. The school administration’s behavior toward 

the staff is supportive and encouraging. 

1 2 3 4

c. I am satisfied with my teaching salary. 1 2 3 4

d. The level of student misbehavior in this 

school (such as noise, horseplay or fighting in 

the halls, cafeteria or student lounge) 

interferes with my teaching. 

1 2 3 4

e. I receive a great deal of support from parents 

for the work I do. 

1 2 3 4

f. Necessary materials such as textbooks, 

supplies, and copy machines are available as 

needed by the staff. 

1 2 3 4

g. Routine duties and paperwork interfere with 

my job of teaching. 

1 2 3 4

h. My principal enforces school rules for student 

conduct and backs me up when I need it. 

1 2 3 4

i. Rules for student behavior are consistently 

enforced by teachers in this school, even for 

students who are not in their classes. 

1 2 3 4

j. Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and 

values about what the central mission of the 

school should be. 

1 2 3 4

k. The principal knows what kind of school 

he/she wants and has communicated it to the 

staff. 

1 2 3 4

l. There is a great deal of cooperative effort 

among the staff members. 

1 2 3 4

m. In this school, staff members are recognized 

for a job well done. 

1 2 3 4

n. I worry about the security of my job because 

of the performance of my students on state 

and/or local tests. 

1 2 3 4

o. State or district content standards have had a 

positive influence on my satisfaction with 

teaching. 

1 2 3 4

p. I am satisfied with my class size. 1 2 3 4

q. I am given the support I need to teach 

students with special needs. 

1 2 3 4

r. I make a conscious effort to coordinate the 

content of my courses with that of other 

1 2 3 4
123 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

teachers. 

s. The amount of student tardiness and class 

cutting in this school interferes with my 

teaching. 

1 2 3 4

t. I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to 

do my best as a teacher. 

1 2 3 4

u. I am generally satisfied with being a teacher 

at this school. 

1 2 3 4

9. To what extent is each of the following a problem at this school? Mark (X) one box on each row.

Not a 

problem

Minor 

problem

Moderate 

problem

Serious 

problem

a. Student tardiness 1 2 3 4

b. Student absenteeism 1 2 3 4

c. Teacher absenteeism 1 2 3 4

d. Student class cutting 1 2 3 4

e. Physical conflicts among 

students 

1 2 3 4

f. Robbery or theft 1 2 3 4

g. Vandalism of school property 1 2 3 4

h. Student pregnancy 1 2 3 4

i. Student use of alcohol 1 2 3 4

j. Student drug abuse 1 2 3 4

k. Student possession of weapons 1 2 3 4

l. Student disrespect for teachers 1 2 3 4

m. Students dropping out 1 2 3 4

n. Student apathy 1 2 3 4

o. Lack of parental involvement 1 2 3 4

p. Poverty 1 2 3 4

q. Students come to school 

unprepared to learn 

1 2 3 4

r. Poor student health 1 2 3 4
DRAFT 

124 Teacher Survey 

10. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each row.

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. I get satisfaction from seeing student progress at 

this school. 

1 2 3 4

b. I feel like I am making a difference at this school. 1 2 3 4

c. The stress and disappointment involved in 

teaching at this school aren’t really worth it. 

1 2 3 4

d. The teachers at this school like being here; I 

would describe us as a satisfied group. 

1 2 3 4

e. I feel empowered to make decisions that affect 

my work at this school. 

1 2 3 4

f. I like the way things are run at this school. 1 2 3 4

g. I think about transferring to another school. 1 2 3 4

h. I don’t seem to have as much enthusiasm now as 

I did when I began teaching. 

1 2 3 4

i. I think about staying home from school because 

I’m just too tired to go. 

1 2 3 4

Classroom Instruction and Assessment 

11. Do you have access to your students’ most recent scores on state or district achievement tests? 

1 Yes (Continue to Question 12) 

2 No (Skip to Question 13) 

3 Not applicable; my students have not taken a state or district achievement test (Skip to 

Question 13) 

12. To what extent do you use the information from your students’ state or district achievement test 

scores to do each of the following? 

Activity

Not at 

all

To a 

small 

extent

To a 

moderate 

extent

To a 

great 

extent

a. To group students into different instructional 

groups by achievement or ability 

1 2 3 4

b. To assess areas where you need to strengthen 

your content knowledge or teaching practice 

1 2 3 4

c. To adjust your curriculum in areas where your 

students encountered problems 

1 2 3 4
125 

13. To what extent do you use state or district standards to guide your instructional practice? 

1 Not at all 

2 To a small extent 

3 To a moderate extent 

4 To a great extent 

14. How often do students in your class who need more help receive the following services while at 

school? Mark (X) one box on each line.

Activity Never

Less than 

once a 

week

Once or 

twice a 

week

3 or 4 

times a 

week Daily

a. Individual assistance from you outside 

of class time 1 2 3 4 5

b. Individual tutoring from aides or 

volunteers outside of class time 1 2 3 4 5

c. Pull-out instruction 1 2 3 4 5

d. Individual tutoring by a specialist in 

class 1 2 3 4 5

e. Individual tutoring from an aide or 

volunteer in class 1 2 3 4 5

f. In-class instruction in small groups 1 2 3 4 5

g. Other (________________________) 1 2 3 4 5

Single Sex Schooling 

15. Is this single sex school a newly created school or was it originally a coeducational school? 

1 A newly created school 

2 A pre-existing coeducational school 

3 Don’t know 

16. Were you teaching at this school before it became a single sex school? 

1 Yes 

2 No (Skip to Question 18) 

17. Did you support this school’s conversion to a single sex school? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

18. Did you ever attend a single sex school as a student in Grades K-12? 

1 Yes 

2 No 
DRAFT 

126 Teacher Survey 

19. Have any of your own children attended a single sex school in Grades K-12? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

3 Not applicable (I have not had any school-age children) 

20. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

At this school . . . 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. same sex teachers serve as role models for 

students 

1 2 3 4

b. opposite sex teachers serve as role models for 

students 

1 2 3 4

c. students have same sex peer role models who 

are academically successful 

1 2 3 4

21. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

In comparison to coeducational schools, 

public single sex schools . . . 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. result in higher academic achievement for 

girls 

1 2 3 4

b. result in higher academic achievement for 

boys 

1 2 3 4

c. result in higher academic achievement for atrisk students 

1 2 3 4

d. reduce negative behaviors for at-risk students 1 2 3 4

e. provide an environment more conducive to 

learning 

1 2 3 4

f. are a better environment for meeting students’ 

emotional needs 

1 2 3 4

g. are viewed negatively by the community 1 2 3 4

h. do not prepare students for the sex-integrated 

workplace 

1 2 3 4

i. reinforce sex-role stereotypes 1 2 3 4

j. do not prepare students for interactions with 

the other sex outside of school 

1 2 3 4

k. have fewer extracurricular activities 1 2 3 4

l. provide curriculum materials that are more 

appropriate to the needs of each sex 

1 2 3 4
127 

22. Do you teach girls? 

1 Yes (continue to Question #23) 

2 No (skip to page 31) 

23. Please estimate what percent of the girls in your class(es) . . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. contribute to academic discussions 1 2 3 4

b. show confidence in their intellectual abilities 1 2 3 4

c. do not express concern if they are failing 1 2 3 4

d. strive to get good grades 1 2 3 4

e. are disengaged from school 1 2 3 4

f. spend independent study time on academic 

activities such as reading 

1 2 3 4

g. are easily distracted from their schoolwork 1 2 3 4

h. explore subject areas or take courses they 

might not in a coed school 

1 2 3 4

i. complete their homework regularly 1 2 3 4

j. seek feedback about their class work 1 2 3 4

k. make fun of girls who excel academically 1 2 3 4

l. chose to attend a single sex school for 

academic reasons 

1 2 3 4
DRAFT 

128 Teacher Survey 

24. Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

Girls in my class(es) . . . 

Not 

applicable

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. are taught math and science the 

same way I teach boys 

0 1 2 3 4

b. are taught reading or language arts 

the same way I teach boys 

0 1 2 3 4

c. ask questions in class 0 1 2 3 4

d. have interests that are different from 

their classmates 

0 1 2 3 4

e. discuss their interests with me 0 1 2 3 4

f. discuss their insecurities with me 0 1 2 3 4

g. discuss issues related to sexuality 

with me 

0 1 2 3 4

h. seem comfortable being in a group 

of all girls 

0 1 2 3 4

i. are not focused on how they dress 0 1 2 3 4

j. feel safe from being ridiculed 0 1 2 3 4

k. are teased by students from other 

schools for attending a girls’ school 

0 1 2 3 4

25. Please estimate what percent of the girls in your class(es) . . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. are respectful toward teachers 1 2 3 4

b. are respectful toward the administration 1 2 3 4

c. treat each other with respect 1 2 3 4

d. work together cooperatively 1 2 3 4

e. assume a leadership role in the classroom 1 2 3 4

f. need frequent discipline for disruptive behavior 1 2 3 4

g. bully other students 1 2 3 4

h. put down other students 1 2 3 4
129 

26. Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

In my all-girl classes . . . 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. I spend a lot of time managing student behavior 1 2 3 4

b. I match my teaching methods to the unique 

needs of girls 

1 2 3 4

c. there is a good balance between cooperation 

and competition among students 

1 2 3 4

d. the rules are strictly enforced 1 2 3 4

e. I feel prepared to meet the unique needs of girls 1 2 3 4

f. I tailor the curriculum to girls’ interests 1 2 3 4

27. Please estimate the percent of the girls in your class(es) who. . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. express stereotyped views of male and female 

roles 

1 2 3 4

b. tell sexist jokes or make sexist remarks 1 2 3 4

c. enjoy attending a single sex school 1 2 3 4

d. view girls as being superior to boys 1 2 3 4

e. aspire to having a successful career 1 2 3 4

f. express interest in stereotypical female 

careers 

1 2 3 4

g. express interest in stereotypical male careers 1 2 3 4

h. have parents who prefer that their daughters 

attend single sex schools 

1 2 3 4
DRAFT 

130 Teacher Survey 

28. Please estimate the percent of the girls in your class(es) who. . . 

(Skip this item and go to Question 30 if you teach in an elementary school.)

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. are involved in extracurricular academic 

activities (e.g., mock trial, science fair) 

1 2 3 4

b. are focused on athletics and sports 1 2 3 4

c. seek leadership roles in student government 1 2 3 4

d. show more respect for student athletes than 

academic high achievers 

1 2 3 4

e. participate in clubs that are non-traditional for 

girls 

1 2 3 4

29. Please estimate the percent of the girls in your class(es) who. . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. are focused on being attractive 1 2 3 4

b. express concern about dating and relationships 1 2 3 4

c. know how to get along with both sexes 1 2 3 4

d. are teased by their female peers 1 2 3 4

e. feel safe from sexual harassment at school 1 2 3 4

f. feel safe from threats at school 1 2 3 4

g. have the social skills they will need in the 

mixed-sex work place 

1 2 3 4

h. can stand up for themselves in confrontations 

with peers 

1 2 3 4
131 

30. Do you teach boys? 

1 Yes (continue to Question #31) 

2 No (skip to page 38) 

31. Please estimate what percent of the boys in your class(es) . . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. contribute to academic discussions 1 2 3 4

b. show confidence in their intellectual abilities 1 2 3 4

c. do not express concern if they are failing 1 2 3 4

d. strive to get good grades 1 2 3 4

e. are disengaged from school 1 2 3 4

f. spend independent study time on academic 

activities such as reading 

1 2 3 4

g. are easily distracted from their schoolwork 1 2 3 4

h. explore subject areas or take courses they 

might not in a coed school 

1 2 3 4

i. complete their homework regularly 1 2 3 4

j. seek feedback about their class work 1 2 3 4

k. make fun of boys who excel academically 1 2 3 4

l. chose to attend a single sex school for 

academic reasons 

1 2 3 4
DRAFT 

132 Teacher Survey 

32. Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

Boys in my class(es) . . . 

Not 

applicable

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. are taught math and science the 

same way I teach girls 

0 1 2 3 4

b. are taught reading or language arts 

the same way I teach girls 

0 1 2 3 4

c. ask questions in class 0 1 2 3 4

d. have interests that are different from 

their classmates 

0 1 2 3 4

e. discuss their interests with me 0 1 2 3 4

f. discuss their insecurities with me 0 1 2 3 4

g. discuss issues related to sexuality 

with me 

0 1 2 3 4

h. seem comfortable being in a group of 

all boys 

0 1 2 3 4

i. are not focused on how they dress 0 1 2 3 4

j. feel safe from being ridiculed 0 1 2 3 4

k. are teased by students from other 

schools for attending a boys’ school 

0 1 2 3 4

33. Please estimate what percent of the boys in your class(es) . . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. are respectful toward teachers 1 2 3 4

b. are respectful toward the administration 1 2 3 4

c. treat each other with respect 1 2 3 4

d. work together cooperatively 1 2 3 4

e. assume a leadership role in the classroom 1 2 3 4

f. need frequent discipline for disruptive behavior 1 2 3 4

g. bully other students 1 2 3 4

h. put down other students 1 2 3 4
133 

34. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

In my all-boy classes . . . 

Strongly 

agree

Somewhat 

agree

Somewhat 

disagree

Strongly 

disagree

a. I spend a lot of time managing student 

behavior 

1 2 3 4

b. I match my teaching methods to the unique 

needs of boys 

1 2 3 4

c. there is a good balance between cooperation 

and competition among students 

1 2 3 4

d. the rules are strictly enforced 1 2 3 4

e. I feel prepared to meet the unique needs of 

boys 

1 2 3 4

f. I tailor the curriculum to boys’ interests 1 2 3 4

35. Please estimate the percent of the boys in your class(es) who. . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. express stereotyped views of male and female 

roles 

1 2 3 4

b. tell sexist jokes or make sexist remarks 1 2 3 4

c. enjoy attending a single sex school 1 2 3 4

d. view boys as being superior to girls 1 2 3 4

e. aspire to having a successful career 1 2 3 4

f. express interest in stereotypical female 

careers 

1 2 3 4

g. express interest in stereotypical male careers 1 2 3 4

h. have parents who prefer that their sons attend 

a single sex school 

1 2 3 4
DRAFT 

134 Teacher Survey 

36. Please estimate the percent of boys in your class(es) who. . . 

(Skip this item and go to Question 37 if you teach in an elementary school.)

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. are involved in extracurricular academic activities 

(e.g., mock trial, science fair) 

1 2 3 4

b. are focused on athletics and sports 1 2 3 4

c. seek leadership roles in student government 1 2 3 4

d. show more respect for student athletes than 

academic high achievers 

1 2 3 4

e. participate in clubs that are non-traditional for boys 1 2 3 4

37. Please estimate the percent of boys in your classes who. . . 

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

a. are focused on being attractive 1 2 3 4

b. express concern about dating and relationships 1 2 3 4

c. know how to get along with both sexes 1 2 3 4

d. are teased by their male peers 1 2 3 4

e. feel safe from sexual harassment at school 1 2 3 4

f. feel safe from threats at school 1 2 3 4

g. have the social skills they will need in the 

mixed-sex work place 

1 2 3 4

h. can stand up for themselves in confrontations 

with peers 

1 2 3 4
135 

38. Listed below are several reasons that practitioners have given to support single sex education. 

In the box at the bottom of the page, please write in the letters corresponding to the five

reasons you believe are most important. If your most important reasons are not listed, please

add them in items o, p, and q. 

Single sex education . . .

a. decreases the academic problems of low achieving students. 

b. decreases distractions to learning. 

c. improves student self esteem. 

d. decreases gender role stereotyping. 

e. allows for more opportunities to provide social and moral guidance. 

f. provides more leadership opportunities. 

g. addresses the unique learning styles and interests of girls or boys. 

h. reduces student behavior problems. 

i. provides more positive student role models. 

j. decreases sex bias in teacher-student interactions. 

k. provides choice in public education. 

l. promotes a sense of community among students and staff. 

m. reduces sexual harassment among students. 

n. improves student achievement. 

o. other (specify): ____________________________________________________ 

p. other (specify): ____________________________________________________ 

q. other (specify): ____________________________________________________ 

Write in the letters corresponding to what you believe are the 5 most important reasons 

for offering single sex education: 

 Most important 

 Second most important 

 Third most important 

 Fourth most important 

 Fifth most important 
DRAFT 

136 Teacher Survey 

39. How much of a challenge have the following issues been for this school? 

Mark (X) one box on each line.

Challenge No 

challenge

A small 

challenge

A moderate 

challenge

A huge 

challenge

a. Turnover in school leadership 1 2 3 4

b. Teacher turnover 1 2 3 4

c. Lack of district level support 1 2 3 4

d. Lack of real choice for students to be here 1 2 3 4

e. Insufficient funding compared to other 

schools in this district 1 2 3 4

f. Competition for students from other 

magnet or charter schools 1 2 3 4

g. Reputation of school as undesirable 1 2 3 4

h. Low student enrollment 1 2 3 4

i. Class sizes too large 1 2 3 4

j. Insufficient professional development on 

single sex education 1 2 3 4

k. Insufficient professional development on 

teaching low achieving students 1 2 3 4

l. Unclear mission or purpose of single sex 

education 1 2 3 4

m. Insufficient course offerings compared to 

coed schools in district 1 2 3 4

n. Lack of sufficient curriculum focus on state 

standards 1 2 3 4

o. Conflict with other school reform efforts 1 2 3 4

p. Parent opposition to change 1 2 3 4

q. Community perceptions about single-sex 

schools 1 2 3 4

r. Other 

 

1 2 3 4
137 

Teacher Background 

40. Are you female or male? 

1 Female 

2 Male 

41. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

42. What is your race? Please select one or more. 

a White 

b Black or African American 

c Asian 

d Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

e American Indian or Alaska Native 

43. How many years have you worked as a full-time elementary or secondary teacher in public, 

charter, and/or Indian schools? Write in the number of years below. Count part year as one 

year. 

Number of years

a. Total number of years as a teacher (do not include student teaching) 

b. Total number of years as teacher in a single-sex school 

c. Total number of years as a teacher at this school 

44. What is the highest degree you have obtained as of December 2004? Mark (X) only one box.

1 Associate degree 

2 Bachelors (B.A., B.S., B.E., etc.) 

3 Master’s degree (M.A., M.A.T., M.B.A., M.Ed., M.S., etc.) 

4 Education specialist or certification at least one year beyond master’s level 

5 Doctorate or first professional degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., L.L.B., J.D., D.D.S.) 

6 Do not have a degree 
DRAFT 

138 Teacher Survey 

45. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate(s) you currently hold in this state? 

Mark (X) all that apply.

a Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

b Probationary certificate (issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of 

a probationary period) 

c Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what 

the state calls an “alternative certification program” 

d Temporary certificate (requires some additional coursework, student teaching, and/or 

passage of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

e Waiver or emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation 

who must complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching in their 

current subject area or level) 

46. What subject(s) are you fully certified to teach? Mark (X) all that apply.

a Elementary grades (multiple subjects) 

b English or language arts 

c Mathematics 

d Science 

e Social studies or history 

f Foreign language 

g Physical education or health 

h Visual or performing arts 

i Special education 

j Vocational or professional/technical education 

k English language learners 

l Other (Please specify______________________________________) 

Thank you for your participation in this survey! 

Please use the enclosed envelope to mail your survey to: 

Dr. Bonnie J. Faddis 

RMC Research Corporation 

522 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1407 

Portland, OR 97204 

If you have any questions, please call Bonnie Faddis or Margaret Beam at (800) 788-1887 
Classroom Observation Form – Single Sex Schooling Stud

 School ID: Observer: Date: Subject Ar Start Time: End Time: 

Am

None 

1. Sets high academic expectations [2] 0 1 2. Shows sensitivity to sex differences in 

learning or maturation [9] 0 1 

3. Maintains order and control [3] 0 1 4. Reinforces sex role stereotypes [6] 0 1 

Teacher Characteristics: ID: Gender: 

Female 

Male 

Ethnicity: 

White 

AfrAmer 

Other 

Asian 

Hispanic 

Approx. Age: 

5. Attends to student feelings [14] 0 1 

TEACHER 

6. Provides opportunities for non-sex 

stereotyped activities [10] 0 1 

Am

None 

1. Exhibit a sense of community [13] 0 1 2. Are engaged in academic activities [2] 0 1 3. Interact positively with each other [7] 0 1 

Student Characteristics: Sex: # Male # Female Ethnicity: # White: # AfrAmer: 

 # Asian: # Hispanic:  # Other: 

4. Show respect for the teacher [1] 0 1 5. Initiate class disruptions [3] 0 1 6. Have completed homework [2] 0 1 7. Exhibit positive role modeling [4] 0 1 8. Engage in leadership opportunities [8] 0 1 

STUDENTS 

9. Act out or exhibit sexual harassment [11] 0 1 

Physical Environment: Do bulletin boards/wall displays: [5] feature both sexes? 

Y 

N 

 reflect stereotypes? 

Y 

N 

Seating: 

Groups 

Rows

Notes on physical environment of 

room, teacher, students:



NOTES 
DRAFT 

140 

Academic Time on Task

Topic of Scan classroom at 5 minute intervals and record % of students engaged Lesson: Percent Time Segment 

Engaged 

Number 

Engaged A B C D E F 

81-100% 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Lesson Objectives: 

61-80% 4 4 4 4 4 4 41-60% 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Questions/comments that teachers address 21-40% 2 2 2 2 2 2 to BOYS (bubble for each interaction) 

BOYS 

0-20% 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Positive Negative Observation Time 

○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ Time Segment○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○

Percent 

Engaged 

Number 

Engaged A B C D E F 

○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ 81-100% 5 5 5 5 5 5 

 Academic 

○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ 61-80% 4 4 4 4 4 4 ○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ 41-60% 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Behavioral

○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ 21-40% 2 2 2 2 2 2 

 Other ○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○

GIRLS 

0-20% 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Questions/comments that teachers address to GIRLS (bubble for each interaction) Instructional Characteristics

Positive Negative Am

○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ Activity None ○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ 1. Direct instruction with whole class—teacher lecture 0 ○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ 2. Direct instruction with whole class—interactive 0 

 Academic 

○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ 3. Small group instruction based on student skill levels 0 ○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ 4. Heterogeneous small group activity 0 

Behavioral

○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○ 5. Students work independently (worksheets, computer, . . . ) 0 

 Other ○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○

INSTRUCTION 6. Lesson includes experiential or hands-on activity 0 

7. Learning objectives for lesson are clear 0 

Behavioral comments directed to ALL STUDENTS (bubble for each interaction) Instructional Characteristics 

Positive Negative 

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

NOTES 

142