POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE

Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: 

A Systematic Review 

2005 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC # 2005-01

OFFICE OF PLANNING, EVALUATION 

AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT 

Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: 

A Systematic Review 

Fred Mael 

Alex Alonso 

Doug Gibson 

Kelly Rogers 

Mark Smith 

American Institutes for Research 

Washington, D.C. 

(As subcontractors to RMC Research Corporation) 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2005 
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-01-CO-0055/0010 with 

RMC Research Corporation. Dena Gross served as the contracting officer’s technical representative. 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 of any product, commodity, 

service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Tom Luce 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

September 2005 

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 citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Single-Sex Versus Secondary Schooling: A Systematic Review, Washington, D.C., 2005. 

This report is available on the Department’s Web site at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/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) 205-8113. 
Contents 

List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. v 

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

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

The Systematic Review Process......................................................................................... x 

The Quantitative Review ................................................................................................... xi 

Implications of Review......................................................................................... xv 

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

Review Methodology...................................................................................................................... 3 

Search Strategy ................................................................................................................... 3 

Phases of Review................................................................................................................ 4 

Phase I..................................................................................................................... 4 

Phase II.................................................................................................................... 5 

Phase III.................................................................................................................. 5 

Validation of Evaluations ....................................................................................... 7 

The Qualitative Review ...................................................................................................... 7 

Validation of Evaluations ....................................................................................... 9 

Results........................................................................................................................................... 11 

The Quantitative Review .................................................................................................. 11 

Concurrent, Quantifiable Indicators of Academic Accomplishment.................... 12 

Long-Term, Quantifiable Academic Accomplishment......................................... 33 

Concurrent, Quantifiable Indicators of Individual Student Adaptation and 

Socioemotional Development........................................................................................... 36 

Long-Term, Quantifiable Indicators of Individual Student Adaptation and 

Socioemotional Development........................................................................................... 63 

Indicators of Process and Outcome Measures of Gender Inequity....................... 70 

Perceptual Measures of the School Climate or Culture That May Impact 

Performance ...................................................................................................................... 71 

Subjective Satisfaction with the School Experience by Students, Parents, and 

Teachers............................................................................................................................ 74 

Expected Outcomes Not Seen in the Review ....................................................... 79 

Qualitative Review............................................................................................................ 79 

iii
Implications of Review................................................................................................................. 83 

Specific Implications ........................................................................................................ 83 

General Trends.................................................................................................................. 86 

The Difficulties in Doing Single-Sex Research................................................................ 88 

Moderators and Individual Differences............................................................................ 88 

The Limits of a Systematic Review on This Topic........................................................... 89 

References..................................................................................................................................... 91 

References in Text ............................................................................................................ 91 

Quantitative Phase III-Coded References......................................................................... 94 

Quantitative Phase III-Excluded References.................................................................... 97 

Qualitative Phase III-Coded References......................................................................... 101 

Qualitative Phase III-Excluded References.................................................................... 101 

Appendix 1: Quantitative Study Coding Guide.......................................................................... 103 

Appendix 2: Qualitative Study Coding Guide............................................................................ 109 

Appendix 3: List of Quantitative Studies Excluded During Phase III........................................ 113 

Appendix 4: Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies............................................................ 117 

Appendix 5: Table of Study Outcomes for Boys........................................................................ 125 

Appendix 6: Table of Study Outcomes for Girls........................................................................ 127 

iv
Tables 

Table 1—Summary of Findings...................................................................................................xiii 

Table 2—All-Subject Achievement Test Scores.......................................................................... 13 

Table 3—Mathematics Achievement Test Scores........................................................................ 18 

Table 4—Science Achievement Test Scores................................................................................ 24 

Table 5—Verbal and English Achievement ................................................................................. 27 

Table 6—Grades........................................................................................................................... 32 

Table 7—Social Studies Achievement Test Scores...................................................................... 33 

Table 8—Postsecondary Test Scores............................................................................................ 34 

Table 9—College Graduation....................................................................................................... 35 

Table 10—Graduate School Attendance ...................................................................................... 35 

Table 11—Self-Concept ............................................................................................................... 37 

Table 12—Self-Esteem................................................................................................................. 40 

Table 13—Locus of Control......................................................................................................... 42 

Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences.............................................................................. 44 

Table 15—Educational Aspirations.............................................................................................. 53 

Table 16—Career Aspirations ...................................................................................................... 55 

Table 17—Delinquency................................................................................................................ 56 

Table 18—Attitudes Toward School ............................................................................................ 59 

Table 19—Time Spent per Week on Homework ......................................................................... 62 

Table 20—Attitudes Toward Working Women ........................................................................... 63 

Table 21—School Completion ..................................................................................................... 64 

Table 22—Postsecondary Success................................................................................................ 65 

Table 23—Unemployment............................................................................................................ 66 

Table 24—Eating Disorders ......................................................................................................... 67 

Table 25—Choice of College Major............................................................................................. 68 

Table 26—Sex-Role Stereotyping (Work-Related)...................................................................... 69 

Table 27—Political Involvement (Activism)................................................................................ 70 

Table 28—Percent Married to First Spouse.................................................................................. 70 

Table 29—Climate for Learning................................................................................................... 72 

Table 30—Opportunities for Leadership Roles............................................................................ 73 

Table 31—School Environment ................................................................................................... 74 

Table 32—Satisfaction with School Environment ....................................................................... 75 

Table 33—College Satisfaction (Academic) ................................................................................ 76 

Table 34—Summary of Findings.................................................................................................. 77 

Table 35—Qualitative Studies...................................................................................................... 80 

v
vi
Acknowledgments 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the authors of the 44 studies, 

almost all of whom graciously reviewed our evaluations of their studies. The authors also thank 

(in alphabetical order) Holly Baker, Eric Camburn, Amanda Datnow, Dena Gross, Neil Riordan, 

Patricia Schmuck, and Jeffrey Valentine for their comments on earlier versions of this 

manuscript. 

vii

Executive Summary 

Single-sex education refers most generally to education at the elementary, secondary, or 

postsecondary level in which males or females attend school exclusively with members of their 

own sex. This report deals primarily with single-sex education at the elementary and secondary 

levels. Research in the United States on the question of whether public single-sex education 

might be beneficial to males, females or a subset of either group (particularly disadvantaged 

youths) has been limited. However, because there has been a resurgence of single-sex schools in 

the public sector, it was deemed appropriate to conduct a systematic review of single-sex 

education research. 

A number of theoretical advantages to both coeducational (CE) and single-sex (SS) 

schools have been advanced by their advocates, a subset of whom have focused specifically on 

the potential benefits of SS schooling for disadvantaged males who have poor success rates in 

the educational system. The interpretation of results of previous studies in the private sector or 

the public sectors of other countries has been hotly debated, resulting in varying policy 

recommendations based on the same evidence. However, no reviews on this topic have been 

conducted using a systematic approach similar to that of the Campbell Collaboration (CC) or the 

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). Thus, the objective of this review is to document the 

outcome evidence for or against the efficacy of single-sex education as an alternative form of 

school organization using an unbiased, transparent, and objective selection process adapted from 

the standards of the CC and WWC to review quantitative studies. 

Concurrently with this review of the quantitative literature, we conducted a review of the 

qualitative literature on the subject of single-sex schooling using parallel coding techniques. 

Unlike quantitative studies, qualitative studies are not viewed by WWC as appropriate 

methodology when determining causal relationships. Rather, they contribute to theory building 

and provide direction for hypothesis testing. Few qualitative studies satisfied the criteria for 

inclusion. Therefore, the primary focus of this paper is the systematic review of quantitative 

research. 

The following are the major research questions addressed by the systematic quantitative 

review: 

1. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational schools in terms of 

concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishments? 

2. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational schools in terms of 

long-term, quantifiable academic accomplishment? 

3. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational schools in terms of 

concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and 

socioemotional development? 

ix
4. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational schools in terms of 

long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional 

development? 

5. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational schools in terms of 

addressing issues of procedural (e.g., classroom treatment) and outcome measures of 

gender inequity? 

6. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational schools in terms of 

perceptual measures of the school climate or culture that may have an impact on 

performance? 

As in previous reviews, the results are equivocal. There is 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. For many outcomes, there is no evidence 

of either benefit or harm. There is limited support for the view that single-sex schooling may be 

harmful or that coeducational schooling is more beneficial for students. 

THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROCESS

The systematic review of the literature consisted of the following steps: 

1. An exhaustive search of electronic databases for citations, supplemented by other 

sources. This search strategy yielded 2,221 studies. 

2. An initial Phase I exclusion of sources whose subject matter falls outside the defined 

scope of the study. Criteria used for exclusion in Phase I included: 

Population—To be included, the students had to be enrolled in a full-time school. 

They had to be in elementary, middle, or high school as opposed to college and 

beyond. Finally, the schools being studied had to be in English-speaking or 

Westernized countries somewhat comparable to American public-sector schools. 

Intervention—The single-sex school had to be one in which students were either 

completely segregated by sex or were completely segregated for all classes, even if 

co-located in the same building (i.e., dual academies). Studies of single-sex classes in 

a coeducational school were excluded from review. 

This initial screening yielded 379 publications that fit the initial inclusion criteria. 

3. A Phase II exclusion based on obvious methodological considerations (e.g., nonstudy, 

weak study). On the basis of titles and abstracts, citations that appeared to be essays, 

reviews, opinion pieces, and similar items were excluded, and only qualitative and 

quantitative studies that were likely to be codable in Phase III were retained. During 

Phase II, 114 citations were culled from the 379 items and coded as appropriate for 

review as quantitative (88) or qualitative (26) studies. Of the 26 qualitative studies, 4 

met the criteria for final inclusion and were reviewed separately. 

x
4. A Phase III evaluation and coding of the remaining quantitative articles. According to 

the guidelines of the WWC, all studies other than randomized controlled trials, quasiexperimental designs (QED) with matching, or regression discontinuity designs 

would be excluded prior to Phase III. Under the WWC criteria for inclusion, virtually 

all single-sex studies would have been eliminated from the review process because of 

the lack of experimental research on this topic. Therefore, for this review, a conscious 

decision was made to relax these standards and include all correlational studies that 

employed statistical controls. By relaxing the WWC standards, the number of 

candidate studies to be screened in Phase III was greatly increased. A more 

streamlined and efficient checklist was developed requiring dichotomous responses 

rather than descriptive responses in order to facilitate rater decision making. To be 

included in the quantitative review, a study had to use appropriate measurement and 

statistical principles. A primary criticism of previous single-sex literature has been the 

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

privilege, selective admissions, or other advantages associated with the single-sex 

school being studied. Therefore, in particular a study had to include statistical 

controls to account for individual differences (e.g., socioeconomic status [SES], 

individual ability, and age) as well as school and class differences that might account 

for the differences between single-sex and coeducational schools. Even so, many 

studies that included at least one covariate lacked other important covariates such as 

ethnic or racial minority status, socioeconomic status, and grade level or age. Also, it 

is important to note that the inclusion of covariates cannot control for important 

unobservable differences between the groups, such as motivation. Because 

correlational studies cannot adequately address the issue of differences in 

unobservables (or selection bias), the studies in this review may over or understate the 

true effects of SS schooling. 

THE QUANTITATIVE REVIEW

Two reviewers coded each study independently, using a quantitative coding guide. 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 by which they were coded. To be retained, a study did not have to 

meet all criteria. 

Of the 88 quantitative studies, 48 were eliminated after further review using the coding 

guide, and 40 studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained. The reasons for the exclusion 

of these articles were 1) failure to operationalize the intervention properly; 2) failure to apply 

statistical controls during the analyses; 3) work that was actually qualitative in nature rather than 

quantitative; 4) work performed in a non-Westernized country and therefore not comparable; 5) 

work written in a foreign language and therefore not codable by the researchers; 6) failure to 

draw comparisons between SS and CE schools; and 7) participants not of high school, middle, or 

xi
xii

elementary school age. In all, 40 studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained in the 

quantitative review. The following table shows results of each study according to the seven 

broad questions listed above and is broken into specific criteria within each larger category. 

Because some studies addressed multiple criteria, the total number of findings is greater than 40. 

Specifically, there are 112 findings considered in the 40 quantitative studies. 

A table summarizing the findings is below. In each row, one of the 32 outcome categories 

is listed, as well as the total number of studies related to that outcome category and the raw 

number and percent of findings that either support SS schooling, support CE schooling, are null, 

or mixed (supporting both CE and SS schooling). While eight of the outcome categories have 

four or more studies, others have as few as one or two studies. For any outcome category, the 

percentage of studies falling in any of the dispositions (supporting SS, supporting CE, null, or 

mixed) and the confidence with which one can use the findings will increase with the number of 

studies. Therefore, the percentages in the summary table should be treated with caution when 

only one or two studies appear for that outcome category. 

As shown in the Summary Table, every study falls into one of four categories: Pro-SS, 

Pro-CE, Null, or Mixed. If a study’s findings all supported SS schooling for a given outcome 

variable, it was coded as “Pro-SS”. If the study’s findings all supported CE for a given outcome 

variable, it would be coded “Pro-CE”. A study was coded “Null” if for all findings regarding that 

outcome variable, there were no differences between the SS and CE schools. A study was coded 

“Mixed” if the study had significant findings in opposite directions for different subgroups on the 

same variable. For example, a study would be coded “Mixed” if on a specific outcome, support 

was found for single-sex schooling in the case of boys and support was found for coeducation in 

the case of girls. Another example would be a finding favoring single-sex in a 10th-grade sample 

and coeducation in a 12th-grade sample for the same outcome variable within a single study. If a 

study had findings that were both pro-SS and null, it was coded a pro-SS; if the study had 

findings that were both pro-CE and null, it was coded as pro-CE. Only studies with findings 

favoring both single-sex and coeducation were coded as mixed. It should also be kept in mind 

that some researchers evaluated multiple outcome variables in their research; therefore, it is 

possible that a single published study would yield information that appears in multiple rows of 

the Summary Table. 
Table 1—Summary of Findings

Pro-SS Pro-CE Null 

Outcome 

Total 

Number 

of 

Studies 

Number 

of 

Studies Percent 

Number 

of 

Studies Percent 

Number 

of 

Studies Pe

Concurrent Academic Accomplishment 

 

 

 

 

 

1) All-Subject Achievement Test Scores 9 6 67% 1 11% 2 22) Mathematics Achievement Test Scores 14 3 22% 0 0% 8 53) Science Achievement Test Scores 8 2 25% 0 0% 5 64) Verbal/English Achievement Test Scores 10 3 30% 0 0% 7 75) Grades 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 106) Social Studies Achievement Test Scores 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 Subtotal 43 15 35% 1 2% 23 5Long-Term Academic Accomplishment 7) Postsecondary Test Scores 2 1 50% 0 0% 1 58) College Graduation 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 109) Graduate School Attendance 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 10Subtotal 4 1 25% 0 0% 3 7Concurrent Adaptation and Socioemotional Development 10) Self-concept 7 4 57% 0 0% 3 411) Self-esteem 6 1 17% 2 33% 3 512) Locus of Control 5 3 60% 0 0% 2 413) School Track/Subject Preference 14 5 36% 2 14% 6 414) Educational Aspirations 3 2 67% 0 0% 1 3

2 2 100% 0 0% 0 4 2 50% 0 0% 2 5

15) Career Aspirations 16) Delinquency 17) Attitudes Toward School 5 1 20% 1 20% 1 218) Time Spent per Week on Homework 2 1 50% 0 0% 1 519) Attitudes Toward Working Women 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 Subtotal 49 22 45% 5 10% 19 3

xiii
xiv

Table 1—Summary of Findings (cont’d)

Pro-SS Pro-CE Null 

Outcome 

Total 

Number 

of 

Studies 

Number 

of 

Studies Percent 

Number 

of 

Studies Percent 

Number 

of 

Studies Pe

Long-term Adaptation and Socioemotional Development 20) School Completion 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 21) Postsecondary Success 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 122) Postsecondary Unemployment 2 1 50% 0 0% 1 23) Eating Disorders 1 0 0% 1 100% 0 24) Choice of College Major 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 25) Sex-Role Stereotyping 2 1 50% 1 50% 0 26) Political Involvement 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 27) Percent Married to First Spouse 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 1Subtotal 10 5 50% 2 20% 3 Perceived School Culture 28) Climate for Learning 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 29) Opportunities for Leadership Roles 2 1 50% 0 0% 1 30) School Environment 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 1Subtotal 4 2 50% 0 0% 2 Subjective Satisfaction 31) Satisfaction with School Environment 1 0 0% 1 100% 0 32) College Satisfaction 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 Subtotal 2 1 50% 1 50% 0 TOTALS 112 46 9 50 
Implications of Review 

Summary of Findings in Each Domain 

Concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishments 

In general, most studies reported positive effects for SS schools on all-subject achievement 

tests. Studies examining performance on mathematics, science, English, and social studies 

achievement tests found similar findings with one caveat. Within each of these subject-specific 

categories, roughly a third of all studies reported findings favoring SS schools, with the remainder of 

the studies split between null and mixed results. This minimal to medium support for SS schooling 

applies to both males and females and in studies pertaining to both elementary and high schools. The 

overall picture is split between positive findings for SS schooling and no differences or null findings, 

with little support for CE schooling. The one study that found advantages for CE schooling found 

advantages for white females but not for Asian or black females. Males continue to be 

underrepresented in this realm of research. 

Long-term, quantifiable academic accomplishment 

As opposed to concurrent indicators of academic achievement, any positive effects of SS 

schooling on longer-term indicators of academic achievement are not readily apparent. No differences 

were found for postsecondary test scores, college graduation rates, or graduate school attendance rates. 

However, all the findings in this domain came from a pair of studies, indicating the lack of highquality research on these important criteria. Although some studies favor single-sex education in the 

case of postsecondary test scores, there is a dearth of recent studies using controls. There has been a 

similar lack of research on other potential criteria in this domain, such as college grade point average, 

meritorious scholarships or funding attained, postgraduate licensure test scores, and any career 

achievement that could ostensibly be tied to quality of schooling. 

Concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional 

development 

This category includes a range of outcomes that are not easily grouped together, and the results 

are mixed. Regarding self-concept and locus of control, the studies are split between those showing 

positive effects for SS schooling and those showing no differences. In the case of self-esteem, a third 

of the studies supported CE schooling while half found no difference. Given a recent extensive review 

concluding that self-esteem’s relationship to school success, occupational success, better relationships, 

leadership, delinquent behavior, and other desirable outcomes is modest to nonexistent, the 

implications of findings regarding self-esteem appear complementary. Furthermore, CE schooling only 

had a positive impact on the self-esteem of males. 

Findings regarding school track and subject preferences were mixed, with the overall weight of 

the findings lying somewhere between pro-SS findings and no differences. A majority of studies 

favored SS schools on the outcome of higher educational aspirations, as evidenced by SS students 

showing more interest in and taking more difficult courses. SS schools fostered higher educational and 

career aspirations for girls. More studies emphasized the positive effect of SS schools on career 

aspirations than CE schools for boys, but evidence regarding their educational aspirations was mixed. 

xv
A category called “attitudes toward school” showing mixed results was actually a combination of 

single studies using somewhat different outcome variables, thus reducing the meaningfulness of the 

category. In terms of actual behaviors, a few studies focused on delinquency, reporting differences in 

favor of SS schools that were moderated by individual developmental differences. What is lacking is a 

conceptual framework to tie together the myriad academic-attitude outcome measures used in this 

realm so that studies will be more directly comparable. 

Long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional 

development 

The outcomes in this domain generally do not appear in more than one or two studies that made 

it to Phase III review. Therefore, one must be cautious in generalizing from these results. Having said 

that, the results still suggest the potential that SS schooling could be associated with a number of post–

high school, long-term positive outcomes. These include postsecondary success or participation in 

collegiate activities while maintaining full-time enrollment for a four-year period, reduced 

unemployment (males and females), reduced propensity to drop out of high school (males and 

females), the choice of a nontraditional college major (for females), and political activism (for 

females). The sole exception is eating disorders; one study found more SS students to have eating 

disorders than CE students. 

Procedural (e.g., classroom treatment) and outcome measures of gender inequity 

This question could not be addressed because of a lack of any quantitative studies that used 

gender equity as an outcome variable at the school level. Any studies that compared SS and CE 

classrooms within a CE school were outside the purview of this study and were not reviewed. 

Perceptual measures of the school climate or culture that may impact performance 

This category includes a number of disparate, single-study results. One of the two studies 

addressing leadership opportunities found more opportunities for both males and females in SS 

schools; however, the statistical significance of this finding depended on what other variables had been 

controlled for. The other found that both males and females in SS schools put more value on grades 

and leadership and less on attractiveness and money. However, there remains a dearth of high-quality 

empirical studies using this class of outcome variables as criteria. 

A final category of outcomes examined as a subset of culture was the realm of subjective 

satisfaction of students, parents, and teachers with the school environment. The one study in this 

review that found the social environment more appealing in CE schools is a good case in point in that 

the same study found that SS students are more interested in grades and leadership and less interested 

in money and looks. Some qualitative studies have looked at why certain parents prefer SS schooling, 

and studies in other cultures have found mixed results regarding teacher satisfaction with CE versus SS 

schooling. However, no empirical studies comparing current parental satisfaction in equivalent SS and 

CE schools were available for review using the stated guidelines. There remains a lack of research both 

on this class of criteria and on the relationship of subjective satisfaction to other more critical criteria. 

xvi
Expected Outcomes Not Seen in the Review 

Teenage pregnancy, college performance, differential treatment by teachers, parental 

satisfaction, bullying in school, and teacher satisfaction were among the many outcomes that we 

expected to see in the review or that should be addressed but were not found in any included study. 

General Trends 

A few trends are apparent across all outcomes. The preponderance of studies in areas such as 

academic accomplishment (both concurrent and long term) and adaptation or socioemotional 

development (both concurrent and long term) yields results lending support to SS schooling. A limited 

number of studies throughout the review provide evidence favoring CE schooling. It is more common 

to come across studies that report no differences between SS and CE schooling than to find outcomes 

with support for the superiority of CE. In terms of outcomes that may be of most interest to the primary 

stakeholders (students and their parents), such as academic achievement test scores, self-concept, and 

long-term indicators of success, there is a degree of support for SS schooling. 

The overwhelming majority of studies employ high school students, with a small minority 

using elementary school students. The preponderance of SS research has been conducted in Catholic 

SS schools in which students are separated by sex only when entering adolescence. Therefore, 

opportunities to study SS elementary or middle schools in either the public or private sector have been 

limited. 

There is also a pronounced tendency to study girls’ schools more than boys’ schools: 76 studies 

compared SS and CE girls, and 20 of those focused exclusively on girls. Of those 20, 18 were split 

evenly between support for SS schooling and no differences (nine pro-SS and nine no differences). The 

other two studies resulted in findings supporting CE schooling. SS and CE schooling for boys was 

compared in 55 studies, of which only three were studies exclusively devoted to boys’ schools. 

 There is a dearth of quality studies (i.e., randomized experiments or correlational studies with 

adequate statistical controls) across all outcomes. Even using the more relaxed criterion of allowing 

correlational studies, each outcome has only limited candidate studies. Too few researchers report 

descriptive statistics or effect sizes. Mathematics achievement test scores, English achievement test 

scores, and school subject preference were the only outcomes to have 10 or more qualifying studies. 

Even within these three categories, the studies differ in the criteria they use and the statistical controls 

they use to compare SS and CE schooling. This somewhat limits the arguments that can be built and 

extended from this quantitative review and renders it nearly impossible to conduct a meta-analysis on 

any outcome area. Many of the remaining studies have other conceptual or interpretive flaws. Many of 

the studies lacked well-developed hypotheses, and the hypotheses were often not linked directly to the 

outcomes being studied. 

The list of outcomes of interest needs to be expanded in future research and defined more 

clearly. For example, outcomes such as teenage pregnancy and bullying in school did not appear in a 

single study of sufficient quality to be reviewed. Other outcomes that are implicit in arguments for and 

against SS schooling need to be addressed explicitly. These include work-related long-term outcomes 

such as job performance, leadership performance, mixed-sex work team performance, performance and 

leadership in volunteer associations, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Few studies 

xvii
address important moderators, that is, variables that may have differential effects for single-sex 

schooling. For example, a number of authors have proposed that SS schools are particularly effective 

for students of lower socioeconomic status and perhaps specifically for those who are members of 

minority or disadvantaged communities. Unfortunately, only three studies addressed this moderator. 

This review should not be interpreted as a condemnation of the work of the dedicated 

researchers who have chosen to study SS-CE differences, as they may not have been in a position to 

conduct a randomized experiment on this topic. Such a study has yet to be conducted. However, it 

could be argued that instead of trying to conduct only all-or-nothing studies of whether SS schooling is 

better or worse than CE schooling, more careful specification of hypotheses and direct linkage of 

hypotheses to specific outcomes may show ways to also conduct smaller studies that prove whether 

certain aspects of SS or CE schooling are beneficial. 

Finally, there are limits to what a systematic review can accomplish when an intervention is 

being judged by multiple criteria and all stakeholders do not share the hierarchy of these criteria. Some 

issues cannot be resolved by any type of research, even randomized experiments, because they involve 

issues of philosophy and worldview and represent the relative priorities of dueling stakeholders. There 

is no way to resolve whether an outcome that is important to one stakeholder group, such as parents, 

students, civil libertarians, and feminists on both sides of the issue, should be accorded more weight 

than an outcome valued by another group. What is possible is to separate out fact in the form of 

evidence from fiction by converting as many claims as possible to testable hypotheses and performing 

the necessary research. In this way, the two parallel debates can be separated from each other. “Does 

SS schooling benefit or harm the students, and in what ways?” can be separated from “Is it worth it for 

society regardless of the benefits or costs?” with each debated on its own merits. 

These general implications of the review provide a stepping-stone for future research through 

the continuation of quality research on extant outcomes, the refinement of methodology, better 

statistical reporting, and the expansion of the theoretical domain. If heeded, these implications can 

improve the generalizations made about single-sex schooling and coeducation. 

xviii
Introduction 

Single-sex education refers most generally to schools at the elementary, secondary, or 

postsecondary level in which males or females attend school exclusively with members of their own 

sex. A related though different phenomenon is single-sex classes, whereby schools that are otherwise 

coeducational provide separate classes for males and females in selected subjects for one or more 

years. This report focuses on single-sex schools at the elementary and secondary levels. 

For a number of decades, the question of whether public single-sex education might be 

beneficial to males, females, or a subset of either group (particularly disadvantaged youths) was mainly 

theoretical. As described in this review, research on the question of whether public single-sex 

education might be beneficial to males, females, or a subset of either group (particularly disadvantaged 

youths) has been limited. However, because in recent years there has been a resurgence of single-sex 

schools in the public sector, it seems only fitting than an unbiased systematic review of single-sex 

education research that is interpretable and cognizant of other factors on the relationship between 

single-sex schools and educational outcomes be conducted. Today, public single-sex schools are 

operating in Albany, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, San Diego, Long Beach, Washington, 

Milwaukee, Houston, Cincinnati, Toledo, Seattle, Louisville, East Palo Alto, Hartford, and Baltimore. 

A number of theoretical advantages to both coeducational (CE) and single-sex schools (SS) 

have been advanced by their advocates (Dale, 1971, 1974; Fox-Genovese, 1991, 1994; Gilder, 1973; 

Kenway and Willis, 1986; Riordan, 2002), a subset of whom have focused specifically on the potential 

benefits of SS schooling for disadvantaged males who have poor success rates in the educational 

system (Hamilton, 1986; Hanson, 1959; Levine, 1964; Sexton, 1969; Whitehead, 1994). The 

interpretation of results of previous studies in the private sector or the public sectors of other countries 

has been hotly debated (Kenway and Willis, 1986; Lee and Bryk, 1986, 1989; Marsh, 1989; Riordan, 

1985, 1990; Rowe, 1988; Marsh and Rowe, 1996). As noted by Caspi (1995), “The extant 

evidence―containing many contradictory conclusions―has been used to support widely differing 

policy recommendations” (pp. 57–58). 

A relatively recent review (Mael, 1998) concluded that there were indications that SS schooling 

could be helpful for a range of desired outcomes. However, he noted that a paucity of research on SS 

schooling, especially for males, was an ongoing concern, as was the lack of public-school studies in 

the United States. Moreover, no reviews on this topic have been conducted using a systematic 

approach similar to that of the Campbell Collaboration (CC) or the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC). Thus, a systematic review is currently needed. 

The objective of this review is to document the outcome evidence for or against the efficacy of 

single-sex education as an alternative form of school organization. The review summarizes what is 

known about the effects of single-sex schooling. Benefits to students, especially those from 

disadvantaged circumstances, as well as any evidence that such schooling is not desirable for students, 

are reviewed. Critical and systematic selection of the most valid quantitative studies available, using an 

unbiased, transparent, and objective selection process adapted from the standards of the WWC and the 

Campbell Collaboration, was chosen as the review methodology. 

1
Concurrently with this review of the quantitative literature, we conducted a review of the 

qualitative literature on the subject of single-sex schooling. Unlike quantitative studies, qualitative 

studies do not contribute to the body of evidence on a subject. Rather, they contribute to theory 

building and provide direction for hypothesis testing. The primary focus of this paper is the systematic 

review of quantitative research, and the vast majority of the high-quality literature was empirical. 

However, because search activities were conducted in parallel and diverged only afterward, we 

describe both efforts in this paper. 

The following are the major research questions addressed by the systematic quantitative 

review: 

1. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in terms of concurrent, 

quantifiable academic accomplishments? Conversely, are any adverse effects associated 

with single-sex schools in this realm? 

2. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in terms of long-term, 

quantifiable academic accomplishment? Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with 

single-sex schools in this realm? 

3. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in terms of concurrent, 

quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional development? 

Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm? 

4. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in terms of long-term, 

quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional development? 

Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm? 

5. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in terms of addressing 

issues of procedural (e.g., classroom treatment) and outcome measures of gender inequity? 

Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools related to gender 

equity? 

6. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in terms of perceptual 

measures of the school climate or culture that may have an impact on performance? 

Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm? 

2
Review Methodology 

A systematic review of literature on a topic consists of the following steps: 

1. An exhaustive search of electronic databases for citations, supplemented by other sources 

2. An initial Phase 1 exclusion of sources whose subject matter falls outside the defined scope 

of the study 

3. A Phase 2 exclusion based on obvious methodological considerations (e.g., nonstudy, weak 

study) 

4. A Phase III evaluation and coding of remaining articles 

SEARCH STRATEGY

The first step in a systematic review is to conduct an exhaustive search of the extant literature. 

Various search strategies were used to identify relevant studies. First, we conducted an electronic 

search of popular academic databases. Next, articles by authors mentioned by a panel of subject-matter 

experts were obtained. Finally, we used the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) to locate any recent 

articles that cited a small number of influential studies on this topic. 

The electronic search strategy began by reviewing the following databases: 1) ERIC, 

Educational Resources Information Center; 2) PsycINFO; 3) Campbell Collaboration’s C2-SPECTR 

(Social, Psychological, Educational, and Criminological Trials Register); and 4) Dissertation Abstracts 

International. Each electronic database was searched from 1988 to the present, except for C2-SPECTR 

because year limitations cannot be set within that database. The following key words were used: Single 

Sex, Single Gender, Same Sex, Same Gender, Separate Sex, Separate Gender, Coeducation, 

Coeducational, and Mixed Sex. We selected 1988 as the starting point because of the seminal pieces by 

Lee and Bryk (1986) and Marsh (1989), which fueled the debate throughout the research community. 

Still, it is important to note that our search was not limited to studies published in 1988 or later. Studies 

from years prior to 1988 were collected from subsequent phases of searching, such as citation searches 

in the Social Sciences Citation Index and three core review publications. 

The next phase of searching identified all citations in three core publications containing 

relevant reviews of the literature: 1) the book Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling 

by Rosemary Salomone (2002); 2) Gender in Policy and Practice: Perspectives on Single-Sex and 

Coeducational Schooling, a book of edited chapters by Amanda Datnow and Lea Hubbard (2002); and 

3) a review article by Fred Mael (1998). All single-sex school research references from these sources 

provided a baseline of most relevant articles and theoretical arguments advanced for and against 

single-sex schooling. Any supplemental references from these three sources were added to the list of 

references compiled through the electronic databases. 

The final phase of the search entailed using the SSCI to find all articles that had cited any one 

of a few seminal pieces in the topic area. Publications that cited these influential articles were then 

added to, and crosschecked against, the database of references. 

3
This search strategy across all phases yielded 2,221 studies. All studies were then examined for 

inclusion in the quantitative review or the qualitative review. Quantitative studies were included in the 

review because of their ability to provide empirical evidence either for or against single-sex schooling. 

Qualitative studies were included because they could provide arguments or observations to be 

employed in the theory-building process. 

PHASES OF REVIEW

The review consisted of three review phases. In Phase I, it was determined that study abstracts 

would be reviewed to make sure that the subject matter of the study matched the topic of interest, the 

population in question matched the desired population of interest (e.g., elementary, middle, and high 

school boys and girls in industrialized countries where English was the recognized official language), 

and the intervention (i.e., single-sex schooling and not single-sex classrooms for certain subjects) was 

operationalized properly. In Phase II, study abstracts were again reviewed to ensure that information 

decided upon in Phase I was accurate based upon the complete studies in text. In Phase II, if the 

abstract made it clear that statistical controls were not applied, we dropped the study. Further, studies 

were coded in Phase II to ensure that researchers controlled for preexisting student or school-level 

differences (e.g., ability scores, socioeconomic status [SES], or age). Finally, in Phase III the 

remaining studies were coded for all criteria present in the Quantitative Coding Guide. If during the 

initial screening of the study texts in Phase III, we found that statistical controls were not applied, we 

ceased to review that study. That and other criteria such as the inappropriate operationalization of 

single-sex schooling (i.e., the use of single-sex classes in a coed school) that would have merited 

exclusion at earlier stages were used at the outset of Phase III. 

Phase I 

In Phase I, an initial relevance screen of the 2,221 references obtained from the literature search 

was performed. During this phase, studies that were clearly not pertinent were coded for exclusion. In 

cases where that information was unclear, studies were coded for inclusion rather than exclusion. This 

initial screening yielded 379 publications that fit the initial inclusion criteria. 

Three criteria were used for exclusion in Phase I: 

1. Subject matter—Numerous papers with the key words in the title were actually about samesex marriages or other unrelated topics. 

2. Population—Studies that were considered for review were limited to specific populations. 

Four criteria were used. The first was that the students had to be enrolled in a full-time 

school, as opposed to a summer camp or camping program. The second was that the 

students had to be in elementary, middle, or high school. Studies pertaining to college or 

beyond were excluded from further consideration. Third, studies had to be written in 

English so as to be codable by the researchers, and finally, the schools being studied had to 

be in Westernized countries so that they were somewhat comparable to American publicsector schools. Although a number of important studies have been conducted in other 

countries, they were in schools deemed sufficiently different from American schools to be 

4
not comparable. Studies that did not meet these criteria were excluded regardless of their 

technical merit. 

3. Intervention—To be considered for the review, the single-sex school had to be one in which 

students were either completely segregated by sex or were completely segregated for all 

classes, even if colocated in the same building (i.e., dual academies). Studies pertaining to 

single-sex classes in a coeducational school were not considered for further review. 

Phase II 

In Phase II, the 379 citations that survived the Phase I screening were reexamined. On the basis 

of abstracts and if necessary titles, citations that were essays, reviews, opinion pieces, and similar 

items were excluded and only qualitative and quantitative studies that were likely to be codable in 

Phase III were retained. 

A primary criticism of previous single-sex literature has been the confounding of single-sex 

effects with the effects of religious values, financial privilege, selective admissions, or other 

advantages associated with the single-sex school being studied. Therefore, a study had to include 

statistical controls to account for individual differences (e.g., SES, individual ability, and age) as well 

as school and class differences that might account for the differences between single-sex and 

coeducational schools. Without accounting for these differences by using statistical controls, a study 

would not be able to distinguish between the effects of single-sex education or some other extraneous 

influence. Such a study would not be a candidate for inclusion in Phase III coding. Thus, if it was clear 

from the abstract that no statistical controls were applied in a quantitative study comparing the SS and 

CE schools, the study was dropped during Phase II. If the abstract was unclear or intimated that there 

were appropriate statistical controls, the study was retained. Where there was doubt about inclusion, 

decisions were made in consultation with other research staff members and the research team 

coordinator. At the end of Phase II, 102 studies that could be classified as either quantitative with 

adequate controls (88) or qualitative (14) were culled from the 379 citations. 

Phase III 

At the beginning of Phase III, the full texts of the 102 retained studies were assembled and read 

and prepared for formal review using a coding scheme that departed somewhat from the screening 

process used by the WWC. According to the guidelines of the WWC, all studies other than randomized 

controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs with matching (QED), or regression discontinuity designs 

would be excluded prior to Phase III. For this review, a conscious decision was made to relax these 

standards and include all correlational studies that employed statistical controls. This was decided 

because of the lack of experimental research on this topic. Under the WWC criteria for inclusion, 

virtually all single-sex studies would have been eliminated from the review process. Because we 

relaxed the WWC standards, we greatly increased the number of candidates to be screened in Phase III. 

We also used a coding scheme that was less time consuming than the WWC coding scheme because of 

a shorter timeline. To code the large number of studies, we developed a checklist requiring 

dichotomous responses rather than descriptive responses, to facilitate rater decision-making. Appendix 

1 shows the quantitative checklist. 

5
Other differences are that the checklist items require dichotomous responses rather than 

quantitative or descriptive responses and are written to facilitate rater decision-making. The WWC 

Design and Implementation Assessment Device (DIAD) method uses a hierarchical method, excluding 

and including studies at each step and culminating in an accept or reject decision for each article. The 

WWC method of selection is sensitive to each decision made at each hierarchical step in the 

evaluation. Include or exclude decisions made at one step can affect the yield significantly. The current 

checklist method does not exclude a study on the basis of a single deficiency. The current coding 

scheme and checklist that are less time consuming than the WWC coding scheme were justified by the 

shorter timeline and the less-developed body of literature in this study. 

Phase III Coding 

A number of studies retained after Phase II based on their abstracts proved to be unusable once 

the full text had been obtained. Thus, if it was clear from the full text that no statistical controls were 

applied in a quantitative study comparing the SS and CE schools, the study was dropped during Phase 

III. Studies were excluded from further review for other reasons as well even though the abstracts had 

seemed promising. The research staff reviewed the full text of 88 quantitative studies at the onset of 

Phase III. Of the 88 quantitative studies coded, 48 were eliminated after further review. One reason for 

the exclusion of these articles were 1) failure to operationalize the intervention properly (e.g., singlesex classes for part of the day rather than single-sex schooling). For example, in some cases authors 

purported to have measured the impact of single-sex schooling when, in fact, this impact could not be 

established given the fact that the school was not a single-sex school with only one gender in the 

classroom for the entire school day. Other reasons for exclusion include: 2) failure to apply statistical 

controls during the analyses; 3) work that was actually qualitative in nature rather than quantitative; 4) 

work written in a foreign language; 5) failure to draw comparisons between SS and CE schools; and 6) 

participants not of high school, middle, or elementary school age (Appendix 3). In all, 40 studies met 

the inclusion criteria and were retained in the quantitative review. 

Two reviewers coded each study independently, using a quantitative coding guide (Appendix 

1). A quantitative study was coded for its treatment of the following issues: 1) sample characteristics 

(i.e., Was the sample randomly assigned to single-sex or coed conditions? Were subjects from the 

same area? Were subjects matched by demographics or other variables?); 2) psychometric properties, 

or the ability of a test to accurately and reliably measure what it purports to measure (i.e., reliability 

assessed by means of internal consistency, test-retest, or inter-rater methods; construct validity); 3) 

internal validity, or the ability of a study to accurately answer the question it intended to answer (i.e., 

differential statistical regression, proper alignment of intervention, appropriate unit of measurement, 

intervention sensitivity, attrition, or local history events); 4) effect, or the measured impact of 

intervention on outcomes (i.e., Were means and standard deviations reported? Was an effect size 

reported? Is the direction of the effect interpretable?); and 5) bias, or a preference or an inclination, 

especially one that inhibits impartial judgment (i.e., Was the study published in a peer-reviewed 

journal? Were hypotheses properly operationalized without biases?). 

Scores for each checklist item were recorded to establish a consensus regarding the treatment of 

key methodological issues. When discrepancies occurred, they were resolved in team meetings. It is 

important to note, however, that cumulative scores were not calculated and were not used to rank 

6
studies or to exclude them from review. Summative scores did not play a role in the review because 

there was no theoretical basis for creating these summative scores as a tool for comparing studies. 

Further, it is not useful at this time to compare studies given that all studies with a score were included 

in the review. If a study was not coded, it did not receive a score. In fact, it was considered premature 

to assign any significance to a higher summative score on this checklist and would be misleading 

without independent validation of the relative importance of the dimensions. The individual items on 

the checklist and their relative importance in determining the quality of the paper have not been 

validated against an independent evaluation of study quality. It would therefore be premature to assign 

each item equal weight in evaluating the study. The checklist was used merely to provide a listing of 

methodological issues addressed by researchers in the study. The only methodological criterion that 

was used to exclude a study from consideration was lack of statistical controls. Coding averaged one to 

three hours per reviewer for each quantitative article (unpublished quantitative dissertations generally 

required about four to five hours per reviewer) and two hours per reviewer for each qualitative article. 

Validation of Evaluations 

To confirm that we had accurately captured the intentions of the authors whose papers we 

reviewed, we attempted to give these authors an opportunity to comment on our summaries and 

evaluations of their work and correct anything that we may have misinterpreted. We attempted to 

contact all authors of the 40 quantitative papers reviewed in Phase III; we were able to contact all but 

five authors, whose works on the topic were primarily doctoral dissertations. To contact the authors of 

each reviewed paper, we searched for their contact information in conference directories of the 

American Educational Research Association (AERA), used contact information taken directly from 

their papers (if available), and searched for curricula vitae or any other citations on the Internet. We 

provided the lead authors with the coding guide of the papers and the paragraphs that we wrote 

summarizing the findings. We gave them at least four weeks, or in some cases longer, to review and 

comment (reminders were sent twice via e-mail), and we received comments on 35 of the 40 studies1

that we were able to locate. The comments and textual emendations received were very useful and 

have been incorporated in this review where appropriate. 

THE QUALITATIVE REVIEW

The role of qualitative research in determining the effectiveness of an intervention has been all 

but eliminated by the WWC. The WWC position, as noted in the DIAD (Version 1.0) (Valentine and 

Cooper, 2003), states: 

The fact that the Study DIAD focuses on research pertaining to the causal effects of educational 

interventions does not mean we believe that research designs meant to uncover causal 

relationships are the only tool that should be used by social scientists. Nor does it mean we 

believe that to be truly “scientific,” social science must be limited to randomized trials. To the 

 

1

 Four study authors chose not to participate in the verification of our summary. These authors declined when their 

review of our findings summary was requested. 

7
contrary, we believe that (a) no single method can be used to address all interesting and 

important questions about educational interventions and (b) even when causal relationships are 

of primary interest qualitative studies and quantitative surveys, among other types of research, 

yield important information about when, why, and how interventions work, and for whom. 

However, because of our mission our central focus, and the focus of the DIAD, is on research 

designs―such as experiments, quasi-experiments and regression discontinuity designs―that 

have as their primary purpose uncovering causal relationships (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 

2002).” 

Some members of the WWC community believe that the only evidence that a qualitative study 

can provide is to qualify hypotheses for testing in empirical studies. Others, as shown in the quotation 

above, believe that qualitative studies can contribute other, unspecified forms of evidence. However, 

for the current research question about the efficacy of SS schooling, it appears that qualitative studies 

would not be able to provide definitive evidence, defined narrowly as compelling evidence that SS 

schooling is either helpful or harmful. The reason is that the primary and most contentious issue among 

researchers has been whether the SS and CE schools in a study have been comparable. Critics have 

argued when a SS school has been superior, it is because the SS school had superior characteristics 

unrelated to its single-sex status. These could include a religious framework, private school status, a 

more educated parent body, and a more select student body. Thus, controlling statistically between two 

schools or school systems has been the only way to establish whether SS schooling is superior on a 

“level playing field.” 

Invariably, qualitative studies that do not collect empirical data about the schools or the 

variables that they are studying will not be in a position to control for possible preexisting differences 

when evaluating their results. Even if the authors state that the schools are in the same geographical 

area and appear to draw from the same populations, one cannot guarantee that there are not subtle 

differences between the parent bodies, the faculties, or other factors. For this reason, qualitative 

studies, no matter how informative, would not be included in Phase III of this study using the stated 

criteria. To be certain, papers we have deemed to be quantitative often contain qualitative data. The 

qualitative portions set the background for understanding the data and put the data in the appropriate 

context and have value (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001; Slavin, 1995). In summary, it is the focus of the 

question that has mandated the choice of studies rather than a value judgment about qualitative studies. 

When we conducted our initial search, we included qualitative studies among those citations 

that were not discarded. They were to be coded and analyzed separately from the quantitative studies. 

To ensure that valuable insights from the qualitative literature were not ignored or discarded for failing 

to meet quantitative standards, a checklist parallel to the one described was developed specifically for 

qualitative studies. This qualitative checklist appears in Appendix 2. 

The Qualitative Study Coding instrument was constructed by drawing on the literature 

describing the characteristics of qualitative research (Yin, 2002; Cho and Bero, 1994) and on draft 

qualitative evaluation instruments from the WWC. The purpose of the instrument was not to evaluate 

psychometric rigor. Because qualitative studies are not statistical in nature, the characteristics of a 

good qualitative study rest on the care with which the study is conceptualized and carried out. The 

Qualitative Study Coding instrument consists of a series of items that, if present, suggest that 

8
confidence can be placed in the data obtained. The instrument cannot completely reflect the quality of 

studies, since different studies have different circumstances that limit the degree to which evidence of 

validity can be acquired, but it was designed to capture a large part of the variance in quality. 

Researchers in the area have developed criteria for conducting effective qualitative research 

that are reflected in the checklist instrument. Three key criteria, for instance, are triangulation, 

explanation building, and reflexivity. Triangulation, in this case, is the use of multiple data collection 

methods, data sources, investigators, and theories to corroborate findings. Explanation building is the 

explication of a systematic chain of reasoning and supporting evidence in a study to demonstrate 

linkage between intervention and outcome. Reflexivity is the inclusion of checks on theory 

development by allowing researchers and participants to reexamine data and theory as they develop. 

A qualitative study was included in our review if it met the following criteria: 1) it employed 

triangulation of data or the evidence of the use of multiple data collection methods, data sources, 

investigators, and theories (e.g., surveys, interviews, and observation); 2) the authors attempted to 

build theoretical explanations from the observations made (explanation building); 3) the authors 

exhibited reflexivity, the tracking of one’s thoughts over the course of the study, by keeping a field 

journal of personal reflections; and 4) the authors used a prolonged field experience to make 

observations. 

One reviewer coded each qualitative study. The qualitative studies that emerged from Phase II 

screening included a greater proportion of books and dissertations than those obtained for quantitative 

review. Coding averaged four hours for each qualitative citation. In Phase II, 14 qualitative papers 

were available for review. Of these, 10 were rejected during the review process. The reasons for 

rejection were that 1) they were review papers and not about specific situations; 2) the methods used 

were largely quantitative; 3) they focused on gender equity and gender consciousness issues, not on 

efficacy of single-sex schooling instruction; and 4) they were about single-gender classes, not whole 

schools, or they did not compare students in single-sex schools with coed students. Of the four studies 

included in the review, two are books (Shmurak, 1998; Streitmatter, 1999), one is a dissertation 

(Svartoien-Conway, 2000) and one is a monograph (Datnow, Hubbard, and Woody, 2001). 

Validation of Evaluations 

To confirm that we had accurately captured the intentions of the authors whose papers we 

reviewed, we attempted to give these authors an opportunity to comment on our summaries and 

evaluations of their work and correct anything that we may have misinterpreted. We attempted to 

contact all authors of the four qualitative papers reviewed in Phase III; we were able to contact all four 

authors. To contact the author(s) of each reviewed paper, we searched for their contact information in 

conference directories of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), used contact 

information taken directly from their paper (if available), and searched for curricula vitae or any other 

citations on the Internet. We provided each lead author with the coding guide of the papers and the 

paragraphs that we wrote summarizing the findings. We gave them at least four weeks, or in some 

cases longer, to review and comment (reminders were sent twice via e-mail), and we received 

comments on one of the four studies that we were able to locate. The comments and textual 

recommendations received were useful and have been incorporated in this review where appropriate. 

9

Results 

THE QUANTITATIVE REVIEW

The results of the quantitative review will be framed by outcome. As a result, a summary of 

findings regarding three comparisons will be presented for each outcome: 1) Did the collective works 

present findings in favor of single-sex schooling when compared with coeducational schooling or vice 

versa?; 2) When considering males and females separately, did the collective works present findings in 

favor of single-sex schooling when compared with coeducational schooling or vice versa?; and 3) 

When considering elementary school and high school children separately, did the collective works 

present findings in favor of single-sex schooling when compared with coeducational schooling or vice 

versa? To report on the collective findings of researchers, we emphasized computing the percentage of 

total studies examining a specific outcome that found support for single-sex schooling, found support 

for coeducational schooling, or did not find significant support for either single-sex schooling or 

coeducational schooling (null results). Ideally, we would have liked to provide an aggregate or metaanalytic estimate of effect size; however, a host of researchers did not provide an effect size estimate or 

the basic elements needed to compute an effect size. Further, we did not compute effect sizes or 

perform meta-analyses because the studies did not meet WWC standards for evidence of causality. 

Consequently, the only option left for summarizing findings on each outcome was to provide an 

estimate of the general direction of the effects reported. 

The review is organized around salient outcomes that have been used to evaluate the efficacy of 

single-sex schools versus coeducational schools. They can be grouped into seven broad categories: 

1. Concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishment (e.g., class grades, concurrent 

standardized test scores). Common examples are mathematics and science achievement test 

scores because of their tendency to be treated as “male subjects.” 

2. Long-term, quantifiable academic accomplishment (e.g., postsecondary grades, college and 

graduate school standardized test scores, completion of postsecondary schooling, graduate 

school attendance). Other examples included career success. 

3. Concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional 

development (e.g., self-esteem, school track and subject preference). Locus of control, selfesteem, and interests in subjects were the most common outcomes. 

4. Long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional 

development (e.g., teenage pregnancy, dropping out of school). Other indicators were 

eating disorders onset, juvenile disciplinary actions, and career choice. 

5. Indicators of process (e.g., differential treatment by teachers in the classroom) and outcome 

measures of gender inequity. 

6. Perceptual measures of the school climate or culture that may affect performance (e.g., 

climate for learning, quality of teacher-student interactions, opportunities for female 

leadership roles, perceived bullying in school). 

11
12

7. Subjective satisfaction with the school experience by students, parents, and teachers. 

Teacher satisfaction with student behavior in single-sex schooling and parental satisfaction 

with schooling were the major outcomes in this category. 

A summary of findings for each outcome follows. To use this summary, readers should turn to 

the specific outcome table (e.g., Table X) and consider all the information provided. For instance, 

Table 1 (page 12) provides a summary of findings for studies examining academic achievement as an 

outcome. The first column is the citation. The second column is a description of the study findings. 

The next columns present a visual indication of findings for three comparisons: 1) single-sex versus 

coeducation; 2) boys in single-sex schools versus boys in coed schools; and 3) girls in single-sex 

schools versus coed schools. The final two columns are an indicator of the age of the subjects used in 

each study. A check mark (√) in any column represents a finding in favor of the specific category in 

the comparison. A “Null” under any comparison column refers to a null result or a lack of significant 

differences between any two categories reported by the researchers. A “Mixed” in any comparison 

column refers to a mixed result such as the reporting of significant differences favoring both single-sex 

schooling and coeducation for varying comparisons. For example, a “Mixed” would be placed in the 

single-sex schooling versus coeducation comparison if support was found for single-sex schooling in 

the case of boys and support was found for coeducation in the case of girls. Further, results can be 

mixed within any one of the categories of comparisons, such as favoring single-sex in the 10th-grade 

sample and coeducation in the 12th-grade sample within a single study. Both single-sex and 

coeducational schooling are supported under certain conditions leading to a mixed result. If a study had 

findings that were both pro-SS and null, it was coded a pro-SS; if the study had findings that were both 

pro-CE and null, it was coded as pro-CE. Only studies with findings favoring both single-sex and 

coeducation were coded as mixed. It is important to note that “mixed” and “null” results should not be 

considered negative results against single-sex or coeducation but rather indicative of the need for more 

single-sex research on the given outcome. Moreover, if a cell is left blank in any particular study, it 

means that no reviewed studies tested this comparison. This is best exemplified in the case of eating 

disorders, an outcome in which no studies used male participants and, as such, no comparison between 

single-sex males and coed males is reported. The text of the paper that appears before each outcome 

table summarizes the preponderance of evidence. The full references for each reviewed study and for 

those studies rejected in Phase III appear in the references. The findings across all outcomes are 

summarized in Table 33 and are also found in the Executive Summary). The percentages in Table 33 

should be treated with caution when only 1-2 studies appear for that outcome 

Concurrent, Quantifiable Indicators of Academic Accomplishment 

Proponents and opponents of SS education have proposed a range of dimensions that might be 

affected by whether schooling is single-sex or coed. One outcome of major interest for the purpose of 

this review is all-subject achievement test scores, defined by composite scores on standardized 

achievement tests in various subjects such as English, science, social studies, and mathematics. Other 

outcomes that are considered indicators of academic accomplishment might include test scores on 

individual subject tests like mathematics achievement test scores and grades. The following tables 

(Tables 1 to 6) refer to short-term outcomes related to academic accomplishment. 
All-Subject Achievement Test Scores 

Traditionally, all-subject achievement test scores have been defined as scores indicating the composite mas

or scholastic content areas (i.e., mathematics, verbal, science, etc.) acquired over a restricted span of time (Murphy 2001). Of the nine studies that examined the relationship between type of school and overall all-subject achieveme

percent) reported results supporting SS schooling, two (22 percent) found null results, and one (11 percent) reportecoeducation. When comparing SS and CE for girls, five of eight (63 percent) studies reported results supporting S

(13 percent) reported null effects, and two studies (25 percent) reported results supporting CE. When comparing Sthree of four studies (75 percent) reported evidence in favor of single-sex schooling and one (25 percent) reported 

studies examined the impact of single-sex schooling versus coeducation using high school samples. Only Garcia (

(1990) examined the relationship between ethnicity (African American, Asian, or white) and SS schooling versus finding differences favoring coeducation for all three groups, the author reports null differences between SS and C

controlling for preexisting differences among African Americans and Asians. In the case of white students, the difafter controlling for preexisting differences. Riordan (1990) did report significant difference among whites, AfricaHispanic students in SS schools and those in coed schools. 

Table 2—All-Subject Achievement Test Scores 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females C

fem

Carpenter and Hayden (1987), in comparing SS Catholic versus CE public high schools, found significant differences in all-subject achievement test scores for girls; SS girls’ achievement score (SS mean: 61.879, sd = 10.337) was higher than that of CE girls (CE mean: 51.657, sd = 11.676). Sex composition of schools predicted (significant) all-subject achievement test scores of girls in SS schools (beta = .131, Rsquare = .053). In the case of all-subject achievement test scores of girls in CE schools, sex composition of schools did not predict (no) all-subject achievement test scores (beta = .032, R-square = .032). 

1) Carpenter and Hayden (1987) 

√ √ 

13
Table 2—All-Subject Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fem

2) Caspi (1995) 

Caspi (1995), when comparing SS school girls with CE high school girls (Catholic and public), found significant differences in test scores for one of two achievement tests: 1) School Certificate Form and 2) Sixth Form Examination (significant; beta = –.10). The relationship is a moderated one. Earlymaturing CE girls (significant; t = 2.2) and late-maturing CE girls (significant; t = 2.5) performed less well than their respective counterparts in SS schools. (n = 976). 

√

√

3) Daly (1996) Daly (1996) compared 10th-grade students in two cohorts 

attending SS and CE schools in Northern Ireland and found no advantage for girls attending SS schools in overall achievement on examinations in mathematics and English. Parameters for multilevel modeling are reported with no effect sizes. 

Null Null 

4) Garcia (1998) 

Garcia (1998), when comparing SS versus CE schools (12thgrade females in two public high schools) on overall SAT scores, found that girls in CE schools had higher scores (SS mean: 941 vs. CE mean: 1027, p < .001 for black girls (n = 104); SS mean: 1003 vs. CE mean: 1138, p < .001 for white girls (n = 86); and SS mean: 939 vs. CE mean: 1120, p < .001 for Asian girls (n = 47)]. When controlling for initial ability, SES, and quality of previous education, these differences became null for Asian and black girls. However, when controls were made in the analysis of white girls, the CE girls continued to have higher SAT scores. 

√

14
Table 2—All-Subject Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fem

5) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found effects of attending SS high schools on achievement in sophomore and senior years. Gain scores were overall positive, but reached significance only in seven out of the 24 comparisons made. No correction was made for multiple comparisons. Lee and Bryk present evidence that in this situation, an effect size of .20 represents a full year of extra learning. 

√

√

√

6) Marsh (1989)

Marsh (1989) compared achievement scores for seniors in Catholic SS and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school, and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one type of school over another. 

a

Null 

7) Riordan (1994) 

Riordan (1994), in considering a large sample of black and Hispanic Catholic high school students (N = 690), found significant effects favoring SS schools on a set of cognitive tests (standardized d score = 0.21 and 0.21) when controlling for home background and initial cognitive ability. 

√

√

15
Table 2—All-Subject Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fem

Spielhofer, O’Donnell, Benton, Schagen, and Schagen (2002), in comparing students in SS versus CE high schools across England, found mostly nonsignificant differences for males on all-subject achievement test scores when using multilevel analyses and partialling out the effects of prior academic attainment and school-level factors (using 16,868 males in boys-only schools and more than 100,000 males in CE schools). However, they did find some significant performance gains for students of lower prior all-subject achievement test scores in SS schools. For females, many of the differences between students in SS and CE schools on all-subject achievement test scores were significant in favor of SS schools, using multilevel modeling and controlling for prior attainment and school factors (including 23,477 females in girls-only schools and more than 100,000 females in CE schools). The measured difference was particularly striking for science scores, where females in SS schools could be expected to score over one-third of a point (on an eight-point scale) better than comparable students from CE schools. Also, SS schooling appeared to particularly benefit females with lower levels of previous academic attainment. 

8) Spielhofer, O’Donnell, Benton, Schagen, and Schagen (2002) 

√ Null 

√

16
Table 2—All-Subject Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fem

Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999), in comparing SS versus CE high schools in New Zealand, found significant differences for males (SS mean: 4.39 vs. CE mean: 2.37; p < .0001 based on t-test) and significant differences for females (SS mean: 4.65 vs. CE mean: 2.89; p < .0001) on School Certificate examinations (n = 657). Findings for both sexes favored SS schools, and no sex by type of school interaction was found. When parental background variables, previous school behaviors, and previously measured cognitive ability were controlled, students from SS schools still scored significantly higher, albeit to a smaller degree (mean: 4.00 vs. 3.06; p < .0001). 

9) Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999) 

√

√

√

a Marsh (1989) provided a series of statistical controls (e.g., school-related factors) that were applied beyond those prescribed in 

guide. It is important to note that many of the findings reported failed to reach statistical significance after these controls were reviewers did not report this failure to reach significance because the controls at this secondary level went beyond those that aneeded in SS research. 

Mathematics Achievement Test Scores 

Mathematics achievement test scores have been defined as an indicator of composite mastery over the scho

skills required in mathematics acquired over a restricted span of time. Of the 14 studies that examined the impact omathematics achievement test scores, eight (56 percent) reported null results, three (22 percent) reported results suschooling, three (22 percent) reported mixed results, and none (0 percent) reported results supporting coeducation 

comparing single-sex education and coeducation for girls, eight of 11 (73 percent) studies reported null results, thr

reported results supporting single-sex schooling, and no studies reporting results supporting coeducation. When co

coeducation for boys, four of nine studies (44 percent) reported null results, three (33 percent) reported finding evi

single-sex schooling, and two (23 percent) reported results in favor of coeducation. All 14 studies used high schoo

study also used an elementary school sample, which yielded null results. 

17
Table 3—Mathematics Achievement Test Scores 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females C

fem

Mathematics Achievement Test Scores: Baker, Riordan, and Schaub (1995) in comparing SS versus coed schools (High School: Public and Private) found significant differences in 

Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for males in SS schools versus those in CE schools in three countries (Belgium, Thailand, and Japan). CE males scored higher on Mathematics Achievement Test Scores than did SS males in the three countries (Belgium: d = –0.74, Thailand: d = –3.21, Japan: d = –3.57). There was no difference between SS males and CE males in terms of Mathematics Achievement Test Scores in New Zealand. For girls, the difference between math achievement in SS and CE schools was significant in Thailand and Japan (d = 2.92 and d = –1.25, respectively). SS girls performed higher in Thailand, and CE girls did better than their counterparts in Japan. In the case of New Zealand and Belgium, the differences were no. (n's = Belgium 2,714, New Zealand 1,152, Thailand 3,651, Japan 7,605). 

1) Baker, Riordan, and Shaub (1995) 

Mixed √ √ 

2) Conway (1996) 

Conway (1996), in comparing female seniors in one SS Catholic high school versus one CE Catholic high school, found no differences (SS mean: 471 vs. CE mean: 461; t = 1.07, p > .05) on the SAT mathematical reasoning section (n = 270). Also, when preexisting math ability was accounted for (based on the High School Proficiency Test [HSPT] score from freshman year), the differences between schools were still not statistically significant. However, this study used just two Catholic high schools in one local area, so these results should not be generalized to other SS or CE schools. 

Null Null 

18
Table 3—Mathematics Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females C

fema

Daly and Shuttleworth (1997), in comparing all-boys, all-girls, and CE high schools in Ireland, found no differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores among all types of schools when controlling for covariates at the student level and the school level. In fact, the only potentially significant result is that CE students tend to fare better than all-boys school students on math achievement; however, the difference is practically insignificant as pointed out by the authors. 

3) Daly and Shuttleworth (1997) 

Null Null Null 

4) Harker (2000) 

Harker (2000), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school students from public and Catholic schools), found significant differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for students (SS mean: 31.08 vs. CE mean: 29.24; n = 622 vs. 1209; t = –1.84) where SS students scored higher on Mathematics Achievement Test Scores than CE students. Mathematics Achievement Test Scores on a later test differed significantly in favor of SS students (n = 533; SS mean: 52.57; t = –3.86), who scored higher than did CE students (n = 1,031; CE mean: 48.71). When adjustments were made for prior achievement, SES, and ethnic differences, the achievement differences were no longer significant. 

Null 

Harker and Nash (1997), in comparing SS versus CE Null secondary schools, found significant differences for females on math scores (CE mean: 29.24 vs. SS mean: 31.08, p < .01, based on t-test; n = 1,831). However, this significant difference disappeared when SES, initial ability, and ethnic group were considered. Males were not considered in this analysis. 

5) Harker and Nash (1997) Null 

19
Table 3—Mathematics Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females C

fema

6) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls in SS high schools had no significant differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for sophomores, seniors, or gain scores between sophomores and senior years, when compared with girls in CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. This study also showed that boys in SS schools had significantly higher Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for sophomores (

d = .26) and seniors (

d = .18), but 

not for gain scores, when compared with boys in CE high schools. 

√

√ Null 

Lee and Lockheed (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (ninth-graders in Nigeria), found significant differences on Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for males (beta = –.11; p < .05; n = 785) and significant differences on Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for females (Beta = .12; p < .05; n = 227), when controlling for student and school characteristics. These results indicate that SS schools positively affect Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for girls and negatively affect Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for boys. 

7) Lee and Lockheed (1990) 

Mixed 

√

√

Null 8) Lee and 

Marks (1990) 

Lee and Marks (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (SS Catholic vs. CE public high schools) on differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores, found no differences between SS male students (n = 328) and CE male students (n = 262); SS males scored higher than CE males (d = 0.08). No differences were found when comparing SS females (n = 335) with CE females (n = 337); SS females scored lower than CE females (d = –0.07). 

Null Null 

20
Table 3—Mathematics Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females C

fema

Null 9) LePore 

and Warren (1987) 

LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic high schools versus CE public high schools, found significant differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores in grade 8 for males (n = 159) (SS mean: = 43.19, sd = 9.92 vs. CE mean: 39.24, sd = 10.86)). They found no differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for females (n = 140) in grade 8 (SS mean: 39.72, sd = 11.60 vs. CE mean: 39.85, sd = 9.90). In grade 10, Mathematics Achievement Test Scores of SS males differed significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 53.06, sd = 10.45 vs. CE mean: 48.81, sd = 10.70) and there was no difference between Mathematics Achievement Test Scores of SS and CE females (SS mean: 49.11, sd = 13.23 vs. CE mean: 48.91, sd = 11.05). In grade 12, Mathematics Achievement Test Scores of SS males differed significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 58.54, sd = 10.45 vs. CE mean: 54.94, sd = 11.47) and there was no difference between Mathematics Achievement Test Scores of SS and CE females (SS mean: 54.28, sd = 14.63 vs. CE mean: 53.95, sd = 11.32). In terms of gain scores from grade 8 to grade 12, Mathematics Achievement Test Scores differences between SS males and CE males were no (SS mean: 15.35, sd = 20.37 vs. CE mean: 15.70, sd= 22.32) and there was no difference between Mathematics Achievement Test Scores of SS and CE females (SS mean: 14.55, sd = 26.24 vs. CE mean: 14.10, sd = 21.22). Grade 8 scores served as a control for preexisting achievement differences. 

√

√

21
Table 3—Mathematics Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females C

fema

10) Marsh (1991)

Marsh (1991), in comparing CE Catholic high schools versus SS Catholic high schools while statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in mathematic achievement in Year 10 between public schools versus Catholic SS schools (SS Catholic mean: 27.41, sd = 11.56 vs. CE Catholic mean: 26.59, sd = 11.54). In Year 12, when comparing Catholic SS schools versus Catholic CE schools, the difference was not significant (SS Catholic mean: 31.94, sd= 12.55 vs. CE Catholic mean: 26.59, sd = 11.54). (N=10,507). 

Null 

Marsh, Smith, Marsh, and Owens (1988), in comparing two SS high schools that transitioned to two CE high schools, found no differences for males and females between pre- and posttransition. The characteristics of the sample included in this study are unclear. Over the four-year period of transition, math achievement scores were not different when accounting for background and growth. 

11) Marsh, Smith, Marsh, and Owens (1988) 

Null 

12) Riordan (1985)

Riordan (1985), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic SS high schools, Catholic CE high schools, and public CE high schools), found significant differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores, such that Catholic SS students performed better on math tests than public CE students (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .26 sds) (n = 22,652). In the case of males, no differences were found for math achievement such that Catholic SS students outperformed public CE students on math achievement tests (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .19). For females, there was a significant difference in math test scores; Catholic SS students outperformed public CE students (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .28). 

a

√ Null 

√

22
Table 3—Mathematics Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females C

fema

13) Riordan (1990) 

Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic high schools) found significant differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores where at-risk males in SS schools outperformed at-risk males in CE schools (sd = 1.5) when controlling for initial ability, race, and home background (n = 200–283). No differences were found for at-risk females. 

Mixed 

√ Null 

14) Young and Fraser (1992)

Young and Fraser (1992), in comparing SS versus CE schools (level: 14-year-olds in middle or high school; public, private, and Catholic) on scores on a national Australian physics test, found no differences for males (n = 2,353, SS n = 581, CE n = 1,977) and no differences for females (n = 2,565, SS n = 426, CE n = 1,919). The control variables, such as SES, were found to be more significant differentiators. 

b

Null Null Null 

a This paper does not report statistical significance opting to present the results as effects sizes (standard deviation units or sdu)

was a popular way to present school effects. 

b In Young and Fraser (1992) the authors suggest that the physics test used for achievement was a science test; however, in read

independent reviewers came to an agreement that the test was indeed a test of mathematics skills. The reason for this is that th

one that requires students to use physics formulas provided for them and does not require any application of theory. 

Science Achievement Test Scores 

Science achievement test scores have been defined as an indicator of composite mastery over the scholastic 

required in sciences acquired over a restricted span of time. Of the eight studies that examined the relationship betand science achievement test scores, five (62 percent) reported null results, two (25 percent) reported results supposchooling, and one (13 percent) reported mixed findings. When comparing single-sex and coeducation for girls, thstudies reported null results, and two (40 percent) study reported results supporting single-sex schooling. When co

coeducation for boys, one study (33 percent) of three reported evidence in favor of single-sex schooling, and the oreported null findings. All eight studies used high school samples. 

23
Table 4—Science Achievement Test Scores 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fem

1) Daly (1995) 

Daly (1995), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school and elementary; public, private, and Catholic; in Northern Ireland and Wales) found no differences in science course achievement for students. (b = -.38, n.s. and b = .61, n.s.) (N = 1,837). 

Null 

2) Harker (2000) 

Harker (2000), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school students from public and Catholic schools), found significant differences in science achievement for students (SS mean: 44.09 vs. CE mean: 39.85; n = 679 vs. 1,251; t = –4.23) where SS students scored higher on science achievement tests than CE students. Science achievement scores on a later test differed significantly in favor of SS students (n = 550; 55.26; t = -2.73) who scored higher than did CE students (n = 1,048; 52.53). When adjustments were made for prior achievement, SES, and ethnic differences, the achievement differences were no longer significant. 

Null 

Harker and Nash (1997), in comparing SS versus CE secondary schools, found significant differences for females on science scores (CE mean: 39.85 vs. SS mean: 44.09, p < .01; n = 1,930). However, this significant difference disappeared when SES, initial ability, and ethnic group were considered. Males were not considered in this analysis. 

3) Harker and Nash (1997) Null Null 

24
Table 4—Science Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fe

Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls in SS high schools had no differences in science achievement scores for sophomores and seniors, but had significantly better gain scores (d = .20) between sophomore and senior years, when compared with girls in CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. For boys in SS schools, there were no differences in sophomore scores, senior scores and gain scores, when compared with boys in CE schools. 

4) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

√ Null √ 

Null LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic versus CE 

public high schools, found significant differences in science achievement in grade 8 for males (n = 159) (SS mean = 21.59, sd = 4.40 vs. CE mean: 19.95, sd = 4.41). They found no differences in science achievement for females (n = 140) in grade 8 (SS mean: 19.54, sd = 4.78 vs. CE mean: 19.37, sd = 4.01). In grade 10, science achievement of SS males differed significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 24.83, sd = 5.36 vs. CE mean: 22.80, sd = 5.37) and there was no difference between science achievement of SS and CE females (SS mean: 22.66, sd = 5.63 vs. CE mean: 23.12, sd = 4.92). In grade 12, science achievement of SS males did not differ significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 27.15, sd = 5.67 vs. CE mean: 25.93, sd = 5.14) and there was no difference between science achievement of SS and CE females (SS mean: 24.01, sd = 5.78 vs. CE mean: 24.85, sd = 4.95). In terms of gain scores from grade 8 to grade 12, science achievement differences between SS males and CE males were no (SS mean: 5.57, sd = 10.07 vs. CE mean: 5.98, sd = 9.55) and there was no difference between science achievement of SS and CE females (SS mean: 4.48, sd = 10.57 vs. CE mean: 5.48, sd = 8.96) . 

5) LePore and Warren (1987) 

√ √ 

25
Table 4—Science Achievement Test Scores (cont’d) 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fe

6) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in science achievement in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 10.04, sd = 4.06 vs. Catholic CE mean: 10.24, sd = 3.95). In Year 12, science achievement differences were no when comparing Catholic SS schools versus Catholic CE schools (Catholic SS mean: 11.40, sd = 4.01 vs. Catholic CE mean: 11.17, sd = 4.01). (N = 10,507). 

Null 

7) Proach (2000) 

Proach (2000) compared females in SS versus CE Catholic schools (10th grade) and found significant differences on a standardized biology examination for pretest scores (SS mean: 27.88 vs. CE mean: 34.83) and posttest scores (SS mean: 35.56 vs. CE mean: 40.17). However, when pretest scores were accounted for, there was no difference in the learning of biology between types of schools. Despite these results, it is important to note that this study used a total of just 48 students from one SS school and two CE schools; these factors severely limit the value of the study and any conclusions that can be made from it. 

Null Null 

8) Riordan (1990) 

Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic high schools) found significant differences in science achievement, such that white females in SS schools outperformed white females in CE schools (.9 sds) when controlling for initial ability and home background (n = 477-619). Senior-year test scores were significantly different, such that SS at-risk girls outperformed CE at-risk girls (1.5 sds) when controlling for only initial ability, race, and home background. 

Mixed Null √ 

26
Verbal and English Achievement Test Scores 

Verbal and English achievement test scores has been defined as an indicator of composite mastery over the 

area verbal skills required in English (i.e., reading, phonics, and writing) acquired over a restricted span of time. Oexamined the relationship between type of school and verbal achievement test scores, seven (70 percent) reported (30 percent) reported results supporting single-sex schooling. When comparing single-sex and coeducation for girlpercent) studies reported null results, one study (12.5 percent) reported mixed results, and one study (12.5 percent) supporting single-sex schooling. When comparing single-sex and coeducation for boys, three of six (50 percent) st

results, two of six studies (33 percent) reported finding evidence in favor of single-sex schooling, and one (17 perc

findings. All ten studies used high school samples. 

Table 5—Verbal and English Achievement 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fe

1) Conway (1996) 

Conway (1996), in comparing female seniors in one SS Catholic high school versus one CE Catholic high school, found no differences (SS mean: 511 vs. CE mean: 499; t = 1.17, p > .05) on the SAT verbal reasoning section (n = 270). Also, when preexisting verbal ability was accounted for (based on the High School Proficiency Test (HSPT) score from freshman year), the differences between schools were still not statistically significant. However, it is important to note that these results are based on just two Catholic high schools in one local area, so these results should not be generalized to other SS or CE schools. 

Null Null 

2) Harker (2000) 

Harker (2000), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school students from public and Catholic schools), found significant differences in English achievement for students (SS mean: 71.41 vs. CE mean: 68.19; SS n = 674 vs. CE n = 1251; t = –3.22) where SS students scored higher on English achievement tests than CE students. English achievement scores on a later test differed significantly in favor of SS students (n = 646; SS mean: 57.81; t = –4.09) who scored higher than did CE students (n = 1271; CE mean: 53.73). When adjustments were made for prior achievement, SES, and ethnic differences, there were no differences in achievement. 

Null 

27
Table 5—Verbal and English Achievement (cont’d) 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

f

3) Harker and Nash (1997) 

Harker and Nash (1997), in comparing SS versus CE secondary schools, found significant differences for females on English scores (CE mean: 68.19 vs. SS mean: 71.41, p < .01; n = 1,925). However, this significant difference disappeared when SES, initial ability, and ethnic group were considered. Males were not considered in this analysis. 

Null Null 

Mixe

4) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls in SS high schools had no differences in sophomore reading scores, significantly better senior reading scores (d = .21) and significant improvement in reading gain scores between sophomore and senior years (d = .14) when compared with girls in CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. Boys in SS schools had significantly higher reading scores than those in CE schools as sophomores (d = .20), but only higher scores for seniors and for gain scores. √ Mixed Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls in SS high schools had no differences in writing achievement for sophomores, seniors and gain scores between sophomore and senior years when compared with girls in CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. Boys in SS high schools had higher writing achievement scores in the sophomore year (d = .24) when 

compared with boys in CE schools, but not for seniors or gain scores. 

28
Table 5—Verbal and English Achievement (cont’d) 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

f

5) Lee and Marks (1990) 

Lee and Marks (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic) for differences in verbal achievement, found no differences between SS male students and CE male students such that SS males scored slightly higher than CE males (d = –0.01) (n = 732). No differences were found when comparing SS females (n = 335) with CE females where SS females scored slightly lower than CE females (d = –0.06) (n = 801). 

Null Null Null 

Null 6) LePore and 

Warren (1987) 

LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic versus CE public high schools, found no differences in verbal achievement for females (n = 140) in grade 10 (SS mean: 31.93, sd = 7.67 vs. CE mean: 31.51, sd = 7.82). In grade 10, verbal achievement of SS males differed significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 35.57, sd = 8.15 vs. CE mean: 32.81, sd = 8.78), and there was no difference between verbal achievement of SS and CE females (SS mean: 35.17, sd = 9.86 vs. CE mean: 35.58, sd = 8.22). In grade 12, verbal achievement of SS males differed significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 37.96, sd = 7.93 vs. CE mean: 35.45, sd = 9.07) and there was no difference between verbal achievement of SS and that of CE females (SS mean: 38.84, sd = 7.47 vs. CE mean: 39.03, sd = 8.10). In terms of gain scores from grade 8 to grade 12, verbal achievement differences between SS males and CE males were no (SS mean: 6.78, sd = 16.03 vs. CE mean: 6.74, sd = 17.82), and there was no difference between verbal achievement of SS and CE females (SS mean: 6.91, sd = 15.13 vs. CE mean: 7.52, sd = 15.92). Grade 8 achievement scores were used to control for preexisting differences. When using this control variable, only SS boys demonstrated higher achievement. 

√ √ 

29
Table 5—Verbal and English Achievement (cont’d) 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

f

7) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in reading achievement in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 9.13, sd = 4.36 vs. Catholic CE mean: 8.22, sd = 4.52). In Year 12, reading achievement differences were no when comparing Catholic SS schools versus Catholic CE schools (Catholic SS mean: 10.83, sd = 4.53 vs. Catholic CE mean: 9.92, sd = 4.71). (N = 10,507). Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in writing achievement in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 10.89, sd = 4.24 vs. Catholic CE mean: 10.33, sd = 4.58). In Year 12, writing achievement differences were no when Catholic SS schools versus Catholic CE schools (Catholic SS mean: 12.77, sd = 3.82 vs. Catholic CE mean: 12.16, sd = 4.16). (N = 10,507). Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in vocabulary achievement in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 11.65, sd = 4.76 vs. Catholic CE mean: 8.95, sd = 5.28). In Year 12, reading achievement differences were no Catholic SS schools versus Catholic CE schools (Catholic SS mean: 14.28, sd = 4.41 vs. Catholic CE mean: 13.46, sd = 4.74). (N = 10,507). 

Null 

Null 8) Marsh et al. 

(1988) 

Marsh, Smith, Marsh, and Owens (1988), in comparing two SS high schools that transitioned to two CE high schools, found no significant differences between males and females (F (1, 367) p> .05) between pre- and posttransition. 

Null Null 

30
Table 5—Verbal and English Achievement (cont’d) 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

f

9) Riordan (1985) 

Riordan (1985), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic SS high schools and Catholic CE high schools) found significant differences in vocabulary achievement, such that Catholic SS students perform better on vocabulary tests than either Catholic CE students or public CE students (Catholic SS vs. Catholic CE = .22 sds; Catholic SS vs. public CE = .43 sds) (n = 22,652). In the case of males, significant differences were found for vocabulary achievement such that Catholic SS students outperformed public CE students on vocabulary achievement tests (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .32 sds). For females, there was a significant difference in vocabulary test scores; Catholic SS students outperformed public CE students (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .50 sds). Riordan also found significant differences in reading achievement scores; Catholic SS students performed better on reading tests than either Catholic CE students or public CE students (Catholic SS vs. Catholic CE = .14 sds; Catholic SS vs. public CE = .31 sds). In the case of males, no differences were found for reading achievement. For females, there was a significant difference in vocabulary test scores where Catholic SS students outperformed public CE students (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .48 sds). 

√ √ √ 

10) Woodward et al. (1999) 

Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999), in comparing SS versus CE high schools in New Zealand, found significant differences for males (SS mean: 100.29 vs. CE mean: 94.33; p < .0001) and significant differences for females (SS mean: 101.84 vs. CE mean: 96.32; p < .0001) on the Burt Word Reading Test (n = 657). Findings for both sexes favored SS schools, and no sex by type of school interaction was found. However, when parental background variables, previous school behaviors, and previously measured cognitive ability were controlled, the difference between schools was virtually nonexistent (SS mean: 97.8 vs. CE mean: 97.6; p > .05). 

Null Null Null 

31
Grades 

Grades have long served as a measure of a student’s performance across all types of schooling. One study 

type of school on grades and reported null results. This study did not make comparisons on the basis of sex. The sa

school students. 

Table 6—Grades 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in grades in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 5.95, sd = 1.42 vs. Catholic CE mean: 5.88, sd = 1.44). In Year 12, grade differences were no when Catholic SS schools versus Catholic CE schools (Catholic SS mean: 6.11, sd = 1.32 vs. Catholic CE mean: 6.01, sd = 1.34). (N = 10,507). 

Null 

Social Studies Achievement Test Scores 

Social studies achievement test scores have been defined as an indicator of composite mastery over the sch

verbal skills required in civics (i.e., social studies, government, civics, and history) acquired over a restricted span examined the relationship between type of school and social studies achievement test scores and reported results faschooling. This study reported results favoring single-sex schooling for girls and null findings when comparing bo

schools. The sample consisted of high school students. 

32
Table 7—Social Studies Achievement Test Scores 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Riordan (1990) 

Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic high schools), found significant differences in civics achievement, such that white females in SS schools outperformed white females in CE schools (.6 sds) when controlling for initial ability and home background (n = 477–619). Senior-year test scores were significantly different: SS at-risk girls outperformed CE at-risk girls (1.9 sds) when controlling for only initial ability, race, and home background. It should be noted that this significant difference becomes no when controlling for course work, preparatory track, homework, and adolescent subculture as represented by the formal structure of the school. No differences were found in males. 

√ Null √ 

Long-Term, Quantifiable Academic Accomplishment 

Long-term, quantifiable indicators of academic accomplishment are outcomes that provide some indication 

effects of attending a single-sex high school. Proponents of single-sex schooling have long argued that postsecondgraduation rates, and graduate school attendance are higher for students in single-sex schools because the single-sean academic subculture focused on achievement and studying. Presumably, this would train students to work hard achievement even after they leave the single-sex school. The following tables (Tables 7 to 9) represent all findings 

of outcome. It is important to note that all of these findings came from single studies by Marsh (1989) and Riordan 

is an underresearched outcome of single-sex schooling. 

Postsecondary Test Scores 

Postsecondary test scores can be operationalized as scores on standardized tests such as the Graduate Reco

Graduate Management Admissions Test, the Medical College Admissions Test, and the Law School Admissions T

33
measured in a collegiate setting after secondary schooling. This is a long-term outcome as opposed to all prior out

examined the relationship between the type of school and postsecondary test scores. One reported findings favorinand the other reported null results. Only one study made comparisons on the basis of sex with results favoring sing

In both studies, the sample consisted of high school students. 

Table 8—Postsecondary Test Scores 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Marsh (1989) 

Marsh (1989) compared postsecondary test scores for seniors in Catholic SS and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school, and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one type of school over another. 

Null 

2) Riordan (1990) 

Riordan (1990) compared postsecondary test scores for seniors in SS Catholic and CE Catholic high schools. When controlling for SES, initial ability, and prior education, Riordan found significant differences in verbal and mathematics test scores between SS and CE girls. When controlling for SES, initial ability, and prior education, Riordan found significant differences in mathematics ability between SS and CE boys. 

√ √ √ 

College Graduation 

College graduation has been used as a long-term measure of success for students. Further, it has been used 

outcome in the arguments both for and against single-sex schooling. One study examined the relationship between college graduation and reported null results. This study did not make comparisons based on sex. The sample consi

students. 

34
Table 9—College Graduation 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Marsh (1989) 

Marsh (1989) compared college graduation for seniors in Catholic SS and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school, and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one type of school over another. 

Null 

Graduate School Attendance 

Graduate school attendance has long been used as a long-term measure of success for students. Further, it i

long-term outcome in the arguments both for and against single-sex schooling. One study examined the relationshschool and graduate school attendance and reported null results. This study did not make comparisons on the basis consisted of high school students. 

Table 10—Graduate School Attendance 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Marsh (1989) 

Marsh (1989) compared graduate school attendance for seniors in Catholic SS and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school, and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one type of school over another. 

Null 

35
Concurrent, Quantifiable Indicators of Individual Student Adaptation and Socioemotional D

A number of attitudinal and socioemotional outcome measures are of interest as well. These include schoo

preference (e.g., school subject preferences and course enrollment) and higher academic aspirations, self-reported 

control, perceived cognitive competence, reduced stereotypical attitudes toward one’s own and opposite sex, and s

of single-sex education have argued that students of single-sex schools develop higher aspirations for academics abuilding healthier self-images about competence, control, and abilities. The following tables (Tables 10 to 19) repr

findings for these outcomes. 

Self-Concept 

The consensus among researchers is that self-concept can be defined as “the totality of a complex, organize

of learned beliefs, attitudes and opinions that each person holds to be true about his or her personal existence” (Purthe seven studies that examined the relationship of single-sex schooling to self-concept, four (57 percent) reported single-sex schooling and three (43 percent) reported null results. When comparing single-sex and coeducation for 

percent) studies reported results supporting single-sex schooling and one study reported null results (25 percent). W

single-sex and coeducation for boys, two of three (67 percent) studies reported null results, and the other study (33 finding evidence in favor of single-sex schooling. All seven studies examined the relationship of self-concept to tyhigh school samples. 

36
Table 11—Self-Concept

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fe

Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools (9th grade girls; public vs. Catholic), found no differences in general selfconcept for females (SS mean: 3.6046, sd = .3374 vs. CE mean: 3.6116, sd = .4929); F(1,213) = .0146) (n = 213). 

1) CiprianiSklar (1996) 

Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools (9th grade girls; public vs. Catholic), found significant differences in mathematics self-concept for females, such that females in SS schools had higher academic self-concept than their counterparts in CE schools (SS mean: 2.8096, sd = .3252 vs. CE mean: 2.3897, sd = .5757; F(1,213) = 42.03) (n = 213). 

√ √ 

Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools (9th grade girls; public vs. Catholic), found significant differences in science selfconcept for females, such that females in SS schools had higher science self-concept than their counterparts in CE schools (SS mean: 3.2402, sd = .3057 vs. CE mean: 2.8578, sd = .5446; F(1,213) = 39.07) (n = 213). 

2) Cuddy (2000) 

Cuddy (2000), in comparing SS versus CE schools (public CE high schools vs. Catholic SS high schools), found significant differences in “multiple selves,” where SS students exhibited a higher number of possible selves than CE students (F(1,159) = 6.12). 

√ 

3) Lambert (1998) 

Lambert (1997), in comparing girls in SS versus girls in CE schools (Catholic high school, seniors), found no differences in overall selfconcept (F(6,41) = .76). In the case of self-concept subdimensions, no differences were found between SS and CE girls for all six subdimensions (Academic: F(1,46) = .01; Affect: F(1,46) = .01; Family: F(1,46) = 1.15; Competence: F(1,46) = .06; Physical: F(1,46) = .41; and Social: F(1,46) = .34). Only SES and SAT scores covaried with the overall self-concept. 

37
Table 11—Self-Concept (cont’d)

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fe

4) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls in SS high schools had higher self-concept scores in their sophomore year (d = .18), but not in senior year or in their gain scores between sophomore and senior year, when compared with girls in CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. For boys in SS high schools, there were no significant differences in self-concept when compared to boys in CE schools for sophomore year, senior year and gain scores. 

Null Null Null 

5) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in academic self-concept in Year 10 . (N = 10,507). In the case of academic self-concept in Year 12, no differences were found. 

Null 

6) Marsh et al. (1988) 

Marsh, Smith, Marsh, and Owens (1988), in comparing two SS schools that transitioned to two CE schools (high school, public) found significant differences for males (F tests) and significant differences for females (F test) (n = grades, not students) on multiple dimensions of the SDQ II self-concept measure in favor of the later, posttransition CE period. Researchers said change was made at parental request and did not discuss possible Hawthorne and parental suggestion effects on students. Within-subject changes were not studied because of lack of identifiers. 

√ √ √ 

38
Table 11—Self-Concept (cont’d)

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fe

7) Riordan (1990) 

Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school, Catholic) found no differences in self-concept. However, in the case of white females, SS students reported higher self-concept than white females in CE schools when controlling for initial ability and home background. No differences were found in males or at-risk students of either gender. (n = 902). 

√ Null √ 

Self-Esteem 

The consensus among researchers is that self-esteem can be defined as pride in one’s self; holding a good o

feeling of pride in oneself, or the quality of being worthy of esteem (Silber and Tippett, 1965). Of the six studies th

relationship between SS schooling and self-esteem, one (17 percent) reported results in favor of SS schooling, thre

null results, and two (33 percent) studies reported results in favor of coeducation. When comparing SS and CE for 

(100 percent) studies reported null findings. When comparing SS and CE for boys, two of three (67 percent) studiefavor of coeducation, and the other (33 percent) reported finding evidence in favor of single-sex schooling. Of the 

elementary school samples, one found evidence favoring single-sex schooling and the other study found evidence Of the four studies using high school samples, one (25 percent) reported results supporting coeducation, and three 

null results. Only one study reported ethnic comparisons with null results for African American, white, and Asian 

39
Table 12—Self-Esteem 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

f

1) Brutsaert and Bracke (1994)

Brutsaert and Bracke (1994), in comparing SS versus CE schools (elementary private Catholic) found significant differences in selfesteem for boys where SS boys reported higher self-esteem than CE boys (no numbers reported but listed in results) (N = 1,130 boys; 965 girls). Differences were no in the case of girls when comparing selfesteem for SS girls and CE girls. 

a

√ √ Null 

2) Conway (1996) 

Conway (1996), in comparing female seniors in one SS high school to female seniors in one CE high school (Catholic), found no differences on the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (SS mean: 59.37 vs. CE mean: 58.83; t = 0.51, p > .05) (n = 293). Also, differences between groups were considered using preexisting cognitive ability as a covariate (based on questionable logic), and no significant differences were shown. Further, it is important to remember that this study used just two Catholic high schools in one local area. 

Null 

3) Garcia (1998) 

Garcia (1998), in comparing SS versus CE schools (12th-grade females in two public high schools) on self-esteem scores, found that black females in CE schools had significantly higher scores than black females in SS schools (SS mean: 34.65 vs. CE mean: 36.50, p > .01) (n = 104). The differences were not significant for white or Asian girls (SS mean: 31.42 vs. CE mean: 31.21, p > .05 for white girls; n = 86); (SS mean: 30.84 vs. CE mean: 32.07, p > .05 for Asian girls; n = 47). When controlling for initial ability, SES, and quality of previous education, the differences were not significant for each group (black, white, and Asian) of girls. 

Null Null 

40
Table 12–Self-Esteem (cont’d) 

Advantage to

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

f

LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic schools versus CE public high schools, found no significant differences in selfesteem in grade 8, grade 10, grade 12, or from grade 8 to 12 for males (n = 159). They found no differences in self-esteem in grade 8, grade 10, grade 12, and from grade 8 to 12 for females (n = 140). Grade 8 scores served as a control for preexisting achievement differences. 

4) LePore and Warren (1987) 

Null 

5) Riordan (1994) 

Riordan (1994), in considering a large sample of black and Hispanic Catholic high school students (N = 690), found significant effects favoring CE schools on a measure of self-esteem for males, but no differences for females (standardized d score = 0.28 and 0.09) when controlling for home background and initial cognitive ability. 

√ √ Null 

6) Sanders (1992) 

Sanders (1992), in comparing SS versus CE African American elementary schools (grades 3, 4, and 5), found no differences for fourth- and fifth-grade males (p > 0.05; based on F test) and significant differences for third-grade males (p = 0.001; based on F test) (total n = 196). Results for third-graders showed that self-reports of self-esteem were higher for students in the CE school than students in the SS school when pretest scores on self-esteem and math ability scores were used as covariates. However, this study was limited to just two schools with quite different curricula, so no conclusions should be drawn. 

√ √ 

a Brutsaert and Bracke (1994) have suggested that in the case of self-esteem, school commitment, and study commitment for bo

attributed to SS schooling can be explained largely by the presence of male faculty in SS schools. 

Locus of Control 

Locus of control is a concept describing whether people feel that control of their lives rests in their own ha

control) or in the hands of others (external locus of control) (Rotter, 1966). In the case of students, it refers to whe

41
they have control over their academic life or not. Of the five studies that examined the relationship between SS sch

control, three of five studies (60 percent) reported results in favor of single-sex schooling and two (40 percent) rep

When comparing SS and CE for girls, three of their (100 percent) studies reported results supporting SS schooling

and CE for boys, two of three studies (67 percent) reported results supporting SS schooling and the other (33 perceresults. All five studies used high school samples. Finally, two studies reported results for disadvantaged youths w

results favoring SS education. 

Table 13—Locus of Control 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls in SS high schools had no differences in scores for locus of control in their sophomore year, significantly higher scores for seniors (d = .21) and no differences for gain scores between sophomore and senior years, when compared with girls in CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. For boys, there were no differences in locus of control between students in SS high schools and those in CE schools (for sophomore year, senior year and gain scores). 

√ Null √ 

2) LePore and Warren (1987) 

LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic versus CE public high schools, found no differences in locus of control in grade 8, grade 10, grade 12, or from grade 8 to 12 for males (n = 159). They found no differences in locus of control in grade 8, grade 10, grade 12, and from grade 8 to 12 for females (n = 140). Grade 8 scores of locus of control were used as a control variable for preexisting differences. 

Null 

42
Table 13—Locus of Control (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

3) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in locus of control in Year 10 between SS and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .19, sd = .59 vs. Catholic CE mean: .12, sd = .57) (N = 10,507). For Year 12, no differences were found between SS and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .19, sd = .59 vs. Catholic CE mean: .14, sd = .58). 

Null 

4) Riordan (1990) 

Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school, Catholic), found significant differences in locus of control. White females in SS schools reported higher self-esteem than white females in CE schools when controlling for initial ability and home background. SS at-risk males expressed significantly higher sense of internal locus of control than did CE at-risk males (30 percent of 1 sd), even when controlling for initial attitude, initial ability, home background, preparatory track, homework, and adolescent subculture (n = 902). 

√ √ √ 

5) Riordan (1994) 

Riordan (1994), in considering a large sample of black and Hispanic Catholic high school students (N = 690), found significant effects favoring SS schools on a measure of environmental control for both males and females (standardized d score = 0.25 and 0.22, respectively) when controlling for home background and initial cognitive ability. 

√ √ √ 

43
School Track and Subject Preferences 

Course participation, course attitudes, or course enrollment have all been examined as outcomes relating to 

subject preference. Of the 14 studies that examined the impact of single-sex schooling on school track and subject percent) reported results in favor of single-sex schooling, six (43 percent) reported null results, one reported mixed and two (14 percent) studies reported findings in favor of coeducation. When comparing single-sex and coeducatio

eight studies (63 percent) reported results supporting single-sex schooling; one study (13 percent) reported results 

and two (25 percent) reported null results. When comparing single-sex and coeducation for boys, two of seven stu

reported results in favor of single-sex schooling, three studies (43 percent) reported null results, and two studies (2

findings in favor of coeducation. Of the 13 studies employing a high school sample, six studies (46 percent) report

single-sex schooling, five (39 percent) reported null results, one reported mixed results (8 percent), and one (8 persupporting coeducation. Of the two studies using elementary school students, both reported results in favor of coed

Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Ainley and Daly (2002) 

Ainley and Daly (2002) found attendance at SS girls’ high schools increased the likelihood of participation in physical science courses (SS score: 8.3 percent vs. CE score: 5.1 percent), but the parameter did not reach significance (p < .05) after controlling for gender, language, SES, earlier school achievement, metropolitan location, and independent versus Catholic school. They found that a large amount of variance in participation remained after these factors were accounted for. 

Null Null 

44
Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

Bornholt and Möller (2003) compared attributions for success or failure in math and English for Australian boys and girls, ages 11–16, at one CE high school and two SS high schools. Attributions were “remarkably similar” for boys and girls at CE and SS schools. Ability was viewed as a reason for success in English by girls at CE schools but not SS girls (b = -.19). There were no differences between boys at SS and CE schools. For math, effort was viewed as a reason for success by CE girls (b=-.27) but girls in SS schools. There were no differences for boys at SS and CE schools. Overall, differences suggest that ability and effort are viewed as equally important reasons for success or failure by SS boys and CE boys but not by SS girls or CE girls. 

2) Bornholt and Möller (2003) 

√ Null 

√

√ 3) Daly 

(1995) 

Daly (1995), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school and elementary levels of all three kinds: public, private, and Catholic in Northern Ireland and Wales), found significant differences in science course participation favoring CE students (b = –.475 and b = .418) (N = 4,107). However, this was moderated by gender, whereby SS girls participated less in science courses than did CE girls, but no difference was found between SS boys and CE boys. 

√ Null 

45
Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

4) Daly and Ainley 

Daly and Ainley, in comparing students in SS versus CE Australian high schools, found no differences for males and no differences for females in attending advanced math classes as high school seniors (total n = 2,002). These results were found using multilevel modeling in which student-level variables (earlier math achievement, parental education, and ethnic background) and school-level variables (type of school, school location, and coeducational status) were considered simultaneously. In general, results showed that the major influences on advanced mathematics participation are gender and prior Mathematics Achievement Test Scores, rather than school-level factors. 

Null Null Null 

Daly, Ainley, and Robinson (1996) examined the effect of SS versus CE schooling on participation of Australian high school seniors in science courses, taking into account family background and public versus private school. They found attendance at a SS school produced no significant difference for participation in a physics or biology curriculum. 

5) Daly, Ainley, and Robinson (1996) Null 

Daly and Shuttleworth (1997), in comparing all-boys’, allgirls’, and CE high schools in Ireland, found no differences in mathematics test enrollment among all types of schools when controlling for covariates at the student level and the school level. 

6) Daly and Shuttleworth (1997) Null 

46
Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

7) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls attending SS high schools had a significantly higher interest in math (p < .05, d = 0.23) and English (p < .05, d = 0.26), were more likely to enroll in mathematics (p < .05, d = 0.16), and had more association with academically oriented friends (p < .05, d = 0.23) than those in CE schools. Boys in SS high schools were more likely to enroll in mathematics (p < .05, d = 0.46) and physical science (p < .05, d = 0.40) and less likely to enroll in vocation studies (p < .05, d = –0.26) than those in CE schools. All of the reported effects include adjustments for many personal, family, and school characteristics. 

√

√

√

Lee and Lockheed (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (ninth-graders in Nigeria), found significant differences for males (beta = .08; p < .05; n = 785) and significant differences for females (beta = –.10; p < .05; n = 227), on stereotypic views of mathematics, when controlling for student and school characteristics. These results indicate that SS schools decrease stereotypical views for girls and (increase) stereotypical views for boys. 

8) Lee and Lockheed (1990) 

Mixed 

√

√

9) Marsh (1989) 

Marsh (1989) compared course selection for seniors in Catholic SS and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school, and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one type of school over another. 

Null 

47
Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

10) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in mathematics participation in Year 12 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 3.10, sd = .67 vs. Catholic CE mean: 2.96, sd = .72) (N = 10,507). Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in science participation in Year 12 between SS and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 2.79, sd = .80 vs. Catholic CE mean: 2.68, sd = .80) (N = 10,507). Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and Null CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in vocational participation in Year 12 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 2.18, sd = .76 vs. Catholic CE mean: 2.25, sd = .73) (N = 10,507). Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in academic credits received by Year 12 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 14.89, sd = 3.20 vs. Catholic CE mean: 14.43, sd = 4.29) (N = 10,507). 

48
Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools with CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in participation in academic track by Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .69, sd = .46 vs. Catholic CE mean: .57, sd = .50). In the case of academic track participation by Year 12, no differences were found between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .74, sd = .44 vs. Catholic CE mean: .69, sd = .46). 

10) Marsh (1991) continued 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in participation in vocational track by Year 10 between SS and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .05, sd = .22 vs. Catholic CE mean: .06, sd = .24) (N = 10,507). In the case of vocational track participation by Year 12, no differences were found between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .10, sd = .30 vs. Catholic CE mean: .11, sd = .31). Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in participation in honors courses by Year 12 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 1.34, sd = .41 vs. Catholic CE mean: 1.32, sd = .40) (N = 10,507). 

49
Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

11) Sanders (1992) 

Sanders (1992), in comparing SS versus CE African American elementary schools (grades 3, 4, and 5), found no differences for fourth- and fifth-grade males (p > .05; based on F test) and significant differences for third-grade males (p = .033; based on F test) (total n = 196). Results for thirdgraders showed that self-reports of attitudes toward school were higher for students in the CE school than students in the SS school when pretest scores regarding attitudes toward school were used as covariates. However, these findings were based on just two schools with quite different curricula and many other differences, so no conclusions should be drawn. 

√

√

50
Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

Spielhofer, O’Donnell, Benton, Schagen, and Schagen (2002), in comparing students in SS versus coed CE high schools across England, (level: high school) found that males in SS schools were significantly more likely than males in CE schools to be enrolled in higher levels of mathematics and science classes, when controlling for prior academic attainment and school factors (using 16,868 males in boys-only schools and more than 100,000 males in CE schools). More important, girls in SS schools were also significantly more likely than girls in CE schools to be entered for higher levels of math and science, when controlling for prior ability and school factors (including 23,477 females in girls-only schools and more than 100,000 females in coed CE schools). 

12) Spielhofer et al. (2002) 

Spielhofer, O’Donnell, Benton, Schagen, and Schagen 

√

√

√

(2002), in comparing students in SS versus CE high schools across England, (level: high school) found that girls in SS schools were significantly less likely to take the courses in traditional foreign languages than girls in CE schools, when controlling for prior scholastic attainment and school factors (including 23,477 females in girls-only schools and more than 100,000 females in CE schools). In addition, girls in SS schools were less likely to take Food Technology (a traditionally female subject) and more likely to take Resistant Materials (a traditionally male subject), when statistical controls were included. Despite the trends for SS schools to increase the likelihood of taking non-traditional-gender school subjects for girls, males in boys’ schools were even less likely to take traditionally female subjects. 

51
Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

13) Stables (1990) 

Stables (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (sample included more than 2,300 third-year high school students from 13 schools in England), found significant differences for males in attitudes toward biology (SS mean: 57.8 vs. CE mean: 52.5; p < .001), physics (SS mean: 44.2 vs. CE mean: 47.8; p < .001), and school in general (SS mean: 12.6 vs. CE mean: 12.0; p < .05); no differences were found for science in general (SS mean: 40.3 vs. CE mean: 40.2) and chemistry (SS mean: 61.9 vs. CE mean: 61.7). For females, Stables found significant differences for attitudes toward science in general (SS mean: 39.3 vs. CE mean: 37.9; p < .001), biology (SS mean: 56.7 vs. CE mean: 59.3; p < .001), physics (SS mean: 41.2 vs. CE mean: 39.1; p < .001), chemistry (SS mean: 59.5 vs. CE mean: 58.4; p < .05), and school in general (mean: SS mean: 12.1 vs. CE mean: 13.0; p < .001). These results indicate that SS education may reduce sex differences in preferences for different school subjects, especially physics, where sex differences are particularly large in CE schools. 

√

Steinback and Gwizdala (1995) compared female students from an all-female Catholic high school before and after they merged with a similar all-male school (173 females took part in both years of the study). They found some apparent differences in female attitudes toward math, such that their attitudes toward math were lower when the school was CE; for instance, 87 percent of females reported that they were comfortable asking questions in math class in Year 1 (SS), but only 79.2 percent reported this in Year 2 (CE). However, these differences were apparently not analyzed for statistically significant differences between years, so that analysis was of limited value. 

14) Steinback and Gwizdala (1995) 

√

√

52
Educational Aspirations 

Educational aspiration refers to the educational goals that a student has set for himself or herself to attain. I

sex education, researchers have argued that students of single-sex schools set loftier goals, such as seeking a colleg

advanced degree. Of the three studies that examined the impact of single-sex schooling on educational aspirations, 

reported results in favor of single-sex schooling and the other (33 percent) reported null findings. Two studies comcoeducation for girls. Both studies (100 percent) reported results supporting single-sex schooling for girls. In comp

coeducation for boys, both studies (100 percent) reported null results. All three studies used high school students a

Table 15—Educational Aspirations 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls in SS high schools had significantly higher educational aspirations in their sophomore years (d = .19), senior years (d = .23) and gain scores between sophomore and senior years (d

= .15) when compared with girls in CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. Boys in SS high schools had no differences with boys in CE schools on educational aspirations in sophomore and senior years, as well as in their gain scores. 

√ Null √ 

53
Table 15—Educational Aspirations (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

2) Lee and Marks (1990) 

Lee and Marks (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic high schools) for differences in educational aspirations, found that SS males scored higher than CE males, but there was no difference (d = 0.06)(SS n = 328; CE n = 262). Significant differences were found when comparing SS females (n = 335) with CE females (n = 337); SS females scored higher than CE females (d = 0.21). 

√ Null √ 

3) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in educational aspirations in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .52, sd = .73 vs. Catholic CE mean: .30, sd = .80). In the case of educational aspirations in Year 12, no differences were found between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .58, sd = .73 vs. Catholic CE mean: .42, sd = .77). 

Null 

Career Aspirations 

Career aspirations refer to the career goals that a student has set for himself or herself to attain. In the case 

education, researchers have argued that students of single-sex schools set loftier goals, such as seeking a graduate a career that is viewed as profitable or successful. Of the two studies that examined the impact of single-sex schoo

aspirations, both (100 percent) reported results in favor of single-sex schooling. When comparing single-sex and c

both (100 percent) reported results supporting single-sex schooling. One study compared single-sex and coeducatipercent) reported results favoring single-sex schooling. Both studies used high school students as participants. 

54
Table 16—Career Aspirations 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

Lee and Marks (1990), in comparing postbaccalaureate academic interests of students from the High School and Beyond study, found that students with SS high school education were more likely to consider applying to graduate school (CE males: 37.9 vs. SS males: 44.8 percent, p = .05; CE females: 31.3 percent vs. SS females: 41 percent, p = .01). In particular, they were more likely to consider applying to law school (SS males: 12.8 vs. CE males: 5.6 percent, p = .01; SS females: 13.0 vs. CE females: 7.7 percent, p = .01). A significant difference was found for males but not for females; males from SS schools were more likely to consider an MBA program (SS males: 26.6 vs. CE males: 19.1 percent, p = .01). Students from CE high schools were found to be more likely to consider another graduate degree (CE students: 18.0 vs. SS students: 10.9 percent, p = .05). Canonical Discriminant Function for the impact of SS schooling on career aspirations yields a coefficient of .387 for females and .270 for males. 

1) Lee and Marks (1990) 

√ √ √ 

Watson, Quatman, and Edler (2002), in comparing the career aspirations of high school students (10th- and 12th-grade females), found that females from SS schools (N = 351) had higher ideal (SS mean: 70.6) and realistic (SS mean: 67.5) career aspirations than did females from CE schools (N = 494) (CE mean: 67.9 and CE mean: 63.8, respectively). Further, the females in the SS schools did not demonstrate the drop in ideal (F (1, 435) = 5.40; p < .05) and realistic (F (1, 415) = 4.06; p < .05) career aspirations that females in CE schools had demonstrated between the 10th and 12th grades. 

2) Watson, Quatman, and Edler (2002) 

√ √ 

55
Delinquency 

Delinquency refers to an antisocial misdeed in violation of the law or school policy by a minor. In the case 

education, researchers have argued that students in single-sex schools perform fewer acts of delinquency, misbehaand associate with fewer delinquent peers. Of the four studies that examined the relationship between single-sex sc

delinquency, two (50 percent) reported results in favor of single-sex schooling and two (50 percent) reported null r

compared single-sex and coeducation for girls, and two (67 percent) reported results supporting single-sex schoolipercent) reported null findings. One study (100 percent) reported null findings when compared single-sex and coed

studies used high school students as participants. 

Table 17—Delinquency 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Caspi (1995) 

Caspi (1995), in comparing SS versus CE (public and Catholic) schools at the high school level, found significant differences in peer delinquency at age 13 in girls attending SS schools and girls attending CE schools (t = 2.1; n = 850), where SS girls knew fewer peers who were delinquent than their CE counterparts did. This relationship was moderated by menarcheal development: the difference is exhibited only in the case of girls who reached menarche early. However, in the case of girls who reached menarche on time or late, there was no significant difference between SS and CE girls. At age 15, the same relationship holds true; SS girls who reach menarche early differ significantly from CE girls (t = 3.0). Similarly, the difference between a girl who reaches menarche on time or late is not significant. (n = 976). 

√ √ 

Caspi (1995), in comparing girls in SS school versus CE high school girls (Catholic and public), found significant differences in self-reported delinquency between SS girls and CE girls (t = 2.0). However, this relationship holds true only for girls who reach menarche early (n = 976). 

56
Table 17—Delinquency (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993), in comparing girls in SS versus girls in CE schools (elementary public and private schools), found significant differences in familiarity with delinquent peers (F(1, 263) = 6.73). This relationship was moderated, however. In comparing girls in SS with girls in CE schools, there was a significant difference in familiarity with delinquent peers only for girls who reached menarche early (t(263) = 2.12). For girls who reach menarche on time or late, there was no significant difference in familiarity with delinquent peers. 

2) Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993) 

Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993), in comparing girls in SS versus girls in CE schools (elementary public and private schools), found no differences for norm violations (F(1, 263) = .92). This relationship was moderated, however. In comparing girls in SS versus girls in CE schools, a significant difference was found in norm violations only for girls who reached menarche early (t(263) = 2.98). For girls who reach menarche on time or late, there was no significant difference in norm violations. 

√ √ 

Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993), in comparing SS versus CE school girls in elementary public and private schools, found no differences for self-reported delinquency (F(1, 263) = 1.88). This relationship was moderated, however. In comparing girls in SS versus CE schools, there was a significant difference in self-reported delinquency only for girls who reached menarche early (t(261) = 2.02). For girls who reach menarche on time or late, there was no significant difference in self-reported delinquency. 

57
Table 17—Delinquency (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

3) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls attending SS high schools had no significant differences with girls in CE schools on incidents of disciplinary behavior and unexcused absences. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. For boys, there were also no significant differences between students in SS and CE high schools on incidents of disciplinary behavior and unexcused absences. 

Null Null Null 

4) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in disciplinary troubles over the course of the study between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: –.32, sd = .44 vs. Catholic CE mean: –.28, sd = .28) (N = 10,507). 

Null 

Attitudes Toward School 

Attitudes toward school refer to any cognition by a student about school in general regardless of whether it 

behavioral manifestation. Examples of these attitudes might include study commitment, sense of belonging, or fea

might lead to anxiety. One example of this type of anxiety is science trait and science state anxiety (Cipriani-Sklar

researcher defined science state anxiety as the anxiety felt at an exact moment that is associated with science coursanxiety was defined as the anxiety associated with science course that is experienced over the course of a normal d

that examined the relationship of single-sex schooling to general attitudes toward school, one (20 percent) reported single-sex schooling, one (20 percent) study reported findings in favor of CE schooling, one (20 percent) study reptwo (40 percent) reported mixed results. When comparing single-sex and coeducation for girls, one of three studie

58
results supporting single-sex schooling, one (33 percent) study reported results supporting CE schooling, and the o

reported findings in favor of coeducation. Three studies compared single-sex and coeducation for boys, and two (6

results supporting single-sex schooling while one reported null results. Four of the five studies used high school stwith one (25 percent) reporting null results, one (25 percent) reporting findings in favor of CE schooling, and two mixed results. The one study that used an elementary school sample reported results supporting single-sex schooli

Table 18—Attitudes Toward School 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

Brutsaert and Bracke (1994), in comparing SS versus CE schools (elementary Catholic), found significant differences in sense of belonging for boys; CE boys reported a higher sense of belonging than SS boys (N = 1,130 boys; 965 girls). Differences were no in the case of sense of belonging between SS girls and CE girls. 

1) Brutsaert and Bracke (1994) 

Brutsaert and Bracke (1994), in comparing SS versus CE schools (elementary Catholic), found significant differences in school commitment for boys; SS boys reported higher school commitment than CE boys (no numbers reported but listed in results) (N = 1,130 boys; 965 girls). Differences were no when comparing school commitment for SS girls and CE girls. 

Mixed √ √ 

Brutsaert and Bracke (1994), in comparing SS versus CE schools (elementary Catholic), found significant differences in study commitment for boys; SS boys reported higher study commitment than CE (no numbers reported but listed in results) (N = 1,130 boys; 965 girls). Differences were not significant when comparing study commitment for SS girls and CE girls. 

59
Table 18—Attitudes Toward School (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

2) CiprianiSklar (1996) Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools (ninth-grade girls; public vs. Catholic), found 

no significant differences in science state anxiety for females (SS mean: 2.6240, sd = .2325 vs. CE mean: 2.5877, sd = .1987; F (1,213) = 3.33) (n = 213). Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools (ninth-grade girls; public vs. Catholic), found significant differences in science trait anxiety for females, such that females in SS schools have higher science trait anxiety than their counterparts in CE schools (SS mean: 2.4862, sd = .3453 vs. CE mean: 2.1873, sd = .2206; F(1,213) = 55.71). (n = 213). 

√ √ 

3) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls in SS high schools had more positive attitudes toward academics than those in CE schools. These students were more likely to associate with academically oriented peers (d = .23) 

and to express interests in both mathematics (d = .23) and English (d = .26). All effects were calculated 

including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. There were no significant differences between girls in SS and CE schools in attitudes toward socially active peers or student athletes. For boys in SS high schools, there were no differences in interests in math and English, as well as in their associations with academically oriented friends, when compared with boys in CE schools. Boys in SS schools had more positive attitudes toward socially active peers (d = .26) and 

athletes (d = .30). 

Mixed Null √ 

60
Table 18—Attitudes Toward School (cont’d) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

4) Marsh (1989) 

Marsh (1989) compared attitudes for seniors in Catholic SS and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school, and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one type of school over another. 

Null 

5) Sanders (1992) 

Sanders (1992), in comparing SS versus CE African American elementary schools (grades 3, 4, and 5), found no differences for third- and fourth-grade males (p > .05; based on F test), and significant differences for fifth-grade males (p = .027; based on F test) (total n = 196) when looking at academic achievement responsibility. Results for fifth-graders showed that self-reports of academic achievement responsibility were higher for students in SS school than for students in the CE school when pretest scores on academic achievement responsibility, as well as vocabulary and math ability scores, were used as covariates. However, this limited study used just two schools with quite different curricula, so conclusions should be drawn cautiously. 

√ √ 

Time Spent per Week on Homework 

Time spent per week on homework has been used in the past as an indicator of effort by students, which ca

to success. Two studies examined the relationship of single-sex education to time spent per week on homework. Oreported null results while the other reported results favoring SS schooling. Only one study examined time spent oand reported results favoring single-sex schooling for both boys and girls. Both studies looked at high school stude

61
Table 19—Time Spent per Week on Homework 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls attending SS high schools spent significantly more time on homework (d = .36) when compared with girls in CE schools, although there were no differences between amount of television watched. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. Boys attending SS high schools also spent significantly more time on homework (d = .23) than those in CE schools, although there was no significant difference on amount of television watched. 

√ √ √ 

2) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in time spent per week on homework in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 5.43, sd = 1.15; Catholic CE mean: 5.05, sd = 1.21). 

Null 

Attitudes Toward Working Women 

This outcome refers to any cognition by a student toward the notion of women working rather than staying 

for SS education, researchers have argued that girls’ SS schools combat negative attitudes toward working women

schools foster negative attitudes toward working women. One study examined the relationship between SS school

toward working women, reporting null results in the case of boys and results favoring SS education in the case of ghigh school students as participants. 

62
Table 20—Attitudes Toward Working Women 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Riordan (1990) 

Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school public vs. private/Catholic), found significant differences in attitudes toward working women; white females in SS schools expressed a more accepting attitude than white females in CE schools (30 percent of 1 sd) when controlling for initial ability, initial attitude, preparatory track, homework, adolescent subculture, and home background. This same significant difference (identical) was found for at-risk females. For males (white or otherwise), there were no differences in attitudes toward working women. 

√ Null √ 

Long-Term, Quantifiable Indicators of Individual Student Adaptation and Socioemotional D

Similar to their short-term counterparts, long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation 

development include attitudinal outcomes as well as objective outcomes that reflect a wide range of effects of sing

development and adaptation. In particular, single-sex proponents argue that students of single-sex schools do not dmuch as coed students, experience greater success, and have fewer problems situating themselves after their seconThe following tables (Tables 20 to 27) summarize findings for school completion, postsecondary success, unemplodisorders, choice of college major, sex-role stereotyping in the workplace, and political involvement. 

School Completion 

One study examined the impact of single-sex education on dropping out. The reduction of dropouts has bee

stakeholders because of the desire to ensure that all students increase their functionality and employability by grad

school. In the case of this study, results favoring single-sex schooling for both sexes were reported. This study use

63
Table 21—School Completion 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Woodward et al. (1999) 

Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999), in comparing SS versus CE high schools in New Zealand, found significant differences for males (SS score: 11.3 percent vs. CE score: 33.0 percent; p < .0001 based on t-test) and significant differences for females (SS score: 7.5 percent vs. CE score: 30.0 percent; p < .0001) on percentage of students leaving school before the age of 17 (n = 657). Findings for both sexes showed that SS schools had lower dropout rates, and no SES by type of school interaction was found. When parental background variables, previous school behaviors, and previously measured cognitive ability were controlled, SS schools still scored significantly better, albeit to a smaller degree (SS score: 15.4 percent vs. CE score: 25.1 percent; p < .05). 

√ √ √ 

Postsecondary Success 

One study examined the relationship between single-sex education and postsecondary success. Postsecond

as participation in collegiate activities including academics, athletics, and clubs over the course of a four-year peridropping full-time enrollment at a postsecondary institution. Null results were reported in this study. This study lostudents. 

64
Table 22—Postsecondary Success 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in postsecondary success between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 5.53, sd = 3.24; Catholic CE mean: 5.23, sd = 3.29) (N = 10,507). 

Null 

Postsecondary Unemployment 

Postsecondary unemployment refers to the likelihood of a student of a single-sex or coed high school being 

high school graduation. Two studies examined the impact of single-sex education on postsecondary unemploymenreported results supporting single-sex schooling while the other (50 percent) reported null results. One study reporsingle-sex education for boys and for girls. Both studies used high school students as participants. 

65
Table 23—Unemployment 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Marsh (1991) 

Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in postsecondary unemployment between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: -.32, sd = .44 vs. Catholic CE mean: -.28, sd = .28) (N = 10,507). 

Null 

2) Woodward et al. (1999) 

Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999), in comparing SS versus CE high schools in New Zealand, found significant differences for males (SS score: 7.0 percent vs. CE score: 16.7 percent; p < .05) and significant differences for females (SS score: 5.3 percent vs. CE score: 18.0 percent; p < .001) on percentage of students who had been unemployed for three months or longer in the past two years (n = 657). Findings for both sexes showed that students from SS schools had lower rates of unemployment, and no sex by type of school interaction was found. When parental background variables, previous school behaviors, and previously measured cognitive ability were controlled, SS schools still scored significantly higher (SS score: 7.5 percent vs. CE score: 15.8 percent; p < .05). 

√ √ √ 

Eating Disorders 

Eating disorders can be defined as syndromes where individuals develop an unhealthy view of their body a

This leads them to attempt to alter that body image by excessive weight change and through unhealthy means. One 

66
likelihood of developing an eating disorder. Eating disorders occur predominantly in females and, as such, no resu

males. This study reported results favoring coeducation for high school females and measured eating disorders dur

Table 24—Eating Disorders 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS CE 

SS CE 

males males females fema

1) Mensinger (2001) 

Mensinger (2001), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school, private, Australian, n = 142), found significant differences for females on eating disorders as measured by scores on a truncated version of the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI), with higher scores for SS students (F(1,138), =14.623, p= .000). SS students were more likely to develop an eating disorder than CE students. 

√ √ 

Choice of College Major 

One study examined the likelihood of choosing a major that is “gender mixed” (typical to both males and f

choosing a feminine-oriented major (one traditionally dominated by females). This study reported results favoring for high school females as more likely to lead to choice of a nontraditional major. 

67
Table 25—Choice of College Major 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Thompson (2003) 

Thompson (2003), in comparing SS versus CE secondary schooling (level: high school, public CE vs. private CE vs. Catholic SS girls), found significant differences between SS females and CE females when choosing a college major that is a gender-mixed major, as opposed to a feminine one (SS females are 1.6998 times more likely to choose a mixed major over a feminine one than CE females) (n = not listed; High School and Beyond data). Even when SES, religiosity, sophomore test scores, sophomore attitudes toward feminism, course work, senior test scores, and senior attitudes toward feminism were controlled for, the effect of all-girls schooling never loses statistical significance. 

√ √ 

Sex-Role Stereotyping 

Sex-role stereotyping refers to the endorsement of traditional attitudes toward the roles that men and wome

workplace. In general, stereotyping of this nature refers to the notion that women can take only certain roles in the men can take broader, more powerful roles in the workplace. Two studies examined the likelihood that others will based on sex roles. One study (50 percent) reported results in favor of SS schooling and the other (50 percent) repocoeducation. Both studies examined SS and CE differences in sex-role stereotyping for girls with one study (50 peof coeducation and the other (50 percent) finding in favor of SS schooling. In the case of boys, one study examineSS and CE and yielded a null result. All participants were high school students. 

68
Table 26—Sex-Role Stereotyping (Work-Related) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Lee and Bryk (1986) 

Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond data, found girls in SS high schools had significantly less sex role stereotyping in their senior year (d = -.25) and in gain scores between sophomore and senior years (d = -.17) when compared with girls in CE schools, although there was a no difference for sophomores. All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. For boys in SS high schools, there were no significant differences in students’ views of stereotypical adult sex roles for sophomores, seniors and gain scores when compared to boys in CE schools. 

√ Null √ 

2) Lee and Marks (1990) 

Lee and Marks (1990) found a significant difference for women, in that those women who attend SS Catholic high schools experienced more work-related sex-role stereotyping than did women who attended CE Catholic high schools (d = 0.23). 

√ √ 

Political Involvement 

Political involvement (activism) refers to one’s involvement in activities of a political nature. These activit

attending debates, campaigning for office, and volunteering for elections, among others. These activities are viewemale activities. One study examined the relationship between single-sex schooling and political involvement amonreported results in favor of single-sex education for women, meaning that female students of single-sex schools weinvolved. All participants were high school students. 

69
Table 27—Political Involvement (Activism) 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Lee and Marks (1990) 

Lee and Marks (1990) found a significant difference for women, in that women who attended SS Catholic high schools are more likely to be involved in political activism than were women who attended CE Catholic high schools (d = 0.19). 

√ √ 

Percent Married to First Spouse 

The percentage of graduates of a school still married to their first spouse has been offered up as an indicato

socioemotional development (Riordan, 1990). One study examined the relationship between single-sex schooling 

former students still married to their first spouses. This study reported null results for graduates of SS and CE high should be noted that results for this study might be altered by considering what percentage of those not still marriewere widows or widowers. 

Table 28—Percent Married to First Spouse 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Riordan (1990) 

Riordan (1990) found no differences between SS and CE males when comparing the percentage still married to first spouse. The same was true for females (n = 75–100). 

Null Null Null 

Indicators of Process and Outcome Measures of Gender Inequity 

A fifth type of outcome measure of interest reflects indicators of process and gender inequity. These outcom

interaction processes taking place in the classroom. For example, differential treatment of students by teachers rep

faulty process. Gender inequity is an example of a situation in which there is a perceived imbalance between the te

70
allotted to girls and those allotted to boys. During the search portion of this study, efforts were made to acquire as 

topic area as possible. However, as studies were identified, it became apparent that there were no studies looking a

or gender inequity that might be included in this review. Empirical studies of gender inequity were not focused on 

coeducation in the classroom. Other studies were excluded because of the improper operationalization of the intervsubjects not characteristic of this study. Still others that did examine the relationship between gender composition equity or process failed to employ the appropriate statistical controls for inclusion in the review. As such, we were studies treating this outcome.

Perceptual Measures of the School Climate or Culture That May Impact Performance 

Another type of outcome measure may be organizational culture variables. These are variables that do not 

differences in the students but instead focus on the quality of interactions in the school, such as parental involvemebullying in the school. Proponents of single-sex schooling argue that the environment or culture in a single-sex sch

toward fostering pro-academic attitudes and increased growth opportunities. The following tables (Tables 28 to 30outcomes. 

Climate for Learning 

Climate for learning refers to a collection of attitudes, values, and beliefs about learning and schooling, sha

teachers, students, and parents, that support student learning (Ellsberry, 1999). Climate for learning is a vital outco

potential impact on other outcomes such as self-concept and achievement. One study examined the impact of singlclimate for learning. This study reported results in favor of single-sex education for high school boys and girls. 

71
Table 29—Climate for Learning 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE femal

Schneider and Coutts (1982), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school, private/Catholic, 10th and 12th grade), found significant differences for SS males on valuing grades and leadership activities more. SS males were also found to value athletics, looks, and money less than CE males. Significant differences for SS females were also found on valuing grades, leadership activities, and athletics more, and looks and money less, than CE females. However, scores on the HSCI Environmental Press Scale did not show SS schools to have a significantly more favorable academic environment. 

1) Schneider and Coutts (1982) 

√ √ √ 

Opportunities for Leadership Roles

Opportunities for leadership roles refer to the opportunity for females to participate in traditional leadership 

extracurricular activities, which have generally been held by males. Two studies examined the impact of single-sex 

opportunities for leadership roles. One (50 percent) study reported results favoring single-sex schooling; the other 

null findings. Both studies examined the relationship between single-sex and coeducation for girls; one (50 percen

and the other (50 percent) reported results in favor of single-sex schooling. One study compared single-sex and coHispanic boys, and it (100 percent) reported results favoring single-sex schooling. Finally, it is also important to n

found that coeducational schools seemed to provide better leadership opportunities for Asian girls, although it was 

sample. Both studies employed only high school students as participants. 

72
Table 30—Opportunities for Leadership Roles 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Garcia (1998) 

Garcia (1998), in comparing SS versus CE schools (12th-grade females in two public high schools) on membership and leadership in extracurricular activities, found little differences between girls in SS and CE schools, except that Asian girls (total n = 47) in the CE school had more membership in these activities than Asian girls in the SS school. When controlling for initial ability, SES, and quality of previous education, this difference remained consistent, showing that Asian girls in the CE school participated in more activities than in the SS school. However, this individual finding is minor when compared with the overall null findings in the rest of the analysis. 

Null Null 

2) Riordan (1994) 

Riordan (1994), in considering a large sample of black and Hispanic Catholic high school students (N = 690), found significant effects favoring SS schools on opportunities for leadership for both males and females. When controlling for home background and initial cognitive ability, males and females in SS schools still had significantly more leadership opportunities (standardized d score = .24 and .26, respectively). When other formal and informal school variables were accounted for, the differences between SS and CE schools were not statistically significant, although the direction of the differences still favored SS schools. 

√ √ √ 

73
School Environment 

School environment refers to an academic setting comprising a facility and staff that support the welfare of 

educational achievement by fostering safety and protection from outer elements. School environment is a crucial o

potential impact on student safety and functionality. One study examined the impact of single-sex schooling on sch

study reported null results for high school students. 

Table 31—School Environment 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE fema

1) Cuddy (2000) 

Cuddy (2000), in comparing public CE schools with Catholic SS schools, found no differences in the effect of grade or school environment on false selfattributes. Null 

Subjective Satisfaction with the School Experience by Students, Parents, and Teachers 

The final type of outcome measure involves satisfaction with either the academic milieu or the social atmo

and may be of lesser interest than the previous three categories. Because these are not related to individual outcomtype opinion questions, it may be hardest to find high-quality studies with these outcome measures. The outcomes category are satisfaction with the learning environment and college satisfaction. Tables 31 and 32 examine the findoutcomes. 

Satisfaction With School Environment 

Satisfaction with the school environment refers to the overall attitude of pleasure with the academic setting

school may or may not be important to learning and in fact could indicate a nonacademic subculture. One study exsingle-sex schooling on satisfaction with the school environment. This study reported results in favor of coeducatistudents. 

74
Table 32—Satisfaction with School Environment 

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE femal

Schneider and Coutts (1982), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school, private/Catholic, 10th and 12th grade), found significant differences between school environments as perceived by students. CE schools were seen as more affiliative and pleasure oriented, with less emphasis on control and discipline. 

1) Schneider and Coutts (1992) √ 

College Satisfaction 

Satisfaction with college academics refers to the overall attitude of acceptance or pleasure with one’s colle

One study examined the impact of single-sex schooling on satisfaction with college academics. When comparing s

with coeducation for girls, the study reported results in favor of single-sex schooling. Participants attended either a or a coeducational high school. 

75
Table 33—College Satisfaction (Academic)

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females CE femal

1) Lee and Marks (1990) 

Lee and Marks (1990) found a significant difference for females, in that females who attended SS Catholic high schools were more likely to be satisfied with the academic part of their college experience than were women who attended CE Catholic high schools (d = 0.32). They also found a significant difference for females, in that females who attended SS Catholic high schools were more likely to be satisfied with the non-academic part of the college experience than were women who attended CE Catholic high schools (d = 0.33). 

√ √ 

A table summarizing all of these findings is below. In each row, one of the 32 outcome categories is listed. 

studies related to that outcome category is listed, as well as the raw number and percent of findings that either suppsupport CE schooling, are null, or mixed (supporting both CE and SS schooling). While eight of the outcome categ

more findings, others have as few as one or two findings. For any outcome category, the percentage of studies fall

dispositions (supporting SS, supporting CE, null, or mixed) and the confidence with which one can use the finding

number of studies. Therefore, the percentages in Table 33 should be treated with caution when only one or two stu

outcome as the dearth of studies in a given outcome category might skew the percentage associated. 

76
77

Table 34—Summary of Findings

Pro-SS Pro-CE Nu

Outcome 

Total 

Number 

of 

Studies 

Number 

of 

Studies Percent 

Number 

of 

Studies Percent 

Number 

of 

Studies 

Concurrent Academic Accomplishment 

 

 

 

 

 

1) All-Subject Achievement Test Scores 9 6 67% 1 11% 2 2) Mathematics Achievement Test Scores 14 3 22% 0 0% 8 3) Science Achievement Test Scores 8 2 25% 0 0% 5 4) Verbal/English Achievement Test Scores 10 3 30% 0 0% 7 5) Grades 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 6) Social Studies Achievement Test Scores 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 Subtotal 43 15 35% 1 2% 23 Long-Term Academic Accomplishment 7) Postsecondary Test Scores 2 1 50% 0 0% 1 8) College Graduation 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 9) Graduate School Attendance 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 Subtotal 4 1 25% 0 0% 3 Concurrent Adaptation and Socioemotional Development 10) Self-Concept 7 4 57% 0 0% 3 11) Self-Esteem 6 1 17% 2 33% 3 12) Locus of Control 5 3 60% 0 0% 2 13) School Track and Subject Preference 14 5 36% 2 14% 6 14) Educational Aspirations 3 2 67% 0 0% 1 

2 2 100% 0 0% 0 4 2 50% 0 0% 2 

15) Career Aspirations 16) Delinquency 17) Attitudes Toward School 5 1 20% 1 20% 1 18) Time Spent per Week on Homework 2 1 50% 0 0% 1 19) Attitudes Toward Working Women 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 Subtotal 49 22 45% 5 10% 19 
78

Table 34—Summary of Findings (cont’d)

Pro-SS Pro-CE Nu

Outcome 

Total 

Number 

of 

Studies 

Number 

of 

Studies Percent 

Number 

of 

Studies Percent 

Number 

of 

Studies 

Long-term Adaptation and Socioemotional Development 20) School Completion 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 21) Postsecondary Success 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 22) Postsecondary Unemployment 2 1 50% 0 0% 1 23) Eating Disorders 1 0 0% 1 100% 0 24) Choice of College Major 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 25) Sex-Role Stereotyping 2 1 50% 1 50% 0 26) Political Involvement 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 27) Percent Married to First Spouse 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 Subtotal 10 5 50% 2 20% 3 Perceived School Culture 28) Climate for Learning 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 29) Opportunities for Leadership Roles 2 1 50% 0 0% 1 30) School Environment 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 Subtotal 4 2 50% 0 0% 2 Subjective Satisfaction 31) Satisfaction with School Environment 1 0 0% 1 100% 0 32) College Satisfaction 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 Subtotal 2 1 50% 1 50% 0 TOTALS 112 46 9 50 
Expected Outcomes Not Seen in the Review

Teenage pregnancy, college performance, differential treatment by teachers, parental satisfaction, bullyin

teacher satisfaction were among the many outcomes that we expected to see in the review. However, no studies e

outcomes met the criteria for inclusion in this review. 

QUALITATIVE REVIEW

The qualitative review of literature yielded four quality studies that present observations about single-sex 

impact on various outcomes. These authors also provide explanations built on phenomena observed throughout sTheir work is summarized briefly below. 

Datnow, Hubbard, and Woody’s (2001) three-year, longitudinal case study of SS middle and high school

concerned less with the effects of single-sex education on individual students and more with the problems encoun

implementing SS education in the public sector. The monograph describing their research describes six pairs of s

Insights are offered on parental choice, educational ideology, and moral guidance. The authors conclude that situ

state funding, additional available resources, low achievement, poverty, violence, and geographic isolation playe

decision making than did attitudes about the value of single-sex education. 

Svartoien-Conway’s dissertation (2000) was a retrospective study of 20 college seniors that tried to determ

their attendance at all-girl high schools had on their subsequent leadership involvement. The scope of the study w

of the other studies and somewhat peripheral to school achievement. The attempt to gain a broader understanding impact of single sex education, however, is a useful addition to a literature dominated by shorter-term outcomes. 

Shmurak (1998) followed girls at four schools (two SS, two CE) throughout her five-year longitudinal ca

literary device whereby one girl from each school was made part of a quartet described by typological descriptor

Superstars, Students of Color, Athletes, Scientists, Artists and Actresses, and Different Drummers. This approach 

appreciate the complexity of the circumstances and personal factors that influenced individual decisions. Howev

general trends that might have led to hypotheses. Shmurak’s typological approach produced little direction for ca

provided a healthy corrective to the broad generalizations of quantitative studies. 

The bulk of Streitmatter’s (1999) book is anecdotal, but it also contains sections on the history and literat

debate and a section on the implications for Title IX. It was reviewed because it included a case study of a single

79
addition to case studies of all-girl classes in otherwise coeducational schools. The book documents student attitud

about single-sex education. Its contribution is largely in providing compelling illustrations of girls’ experiences. 

Table 35—Qualitative Studies

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fe

Datnow, Hubbard, and Woody (2001) report on a three-year, longitudinal case study of twelve (six boys; six girls) public SS middle and high schools in California. Researchers found that, in some cases, situational concerns of state funding, additional available resources, low achievement, poverty, violence, and geographic isolation overwhelmed SS/CE distinctions. SS choice did not increase diversity of offerings in all cases and student distractions were not necessarily reduced. In several schools, curriculum and instruction were tailored to different needs of sexes, whereas in other schools, efforts were made to keep curriculum and instruction consistent for both sexes. Soon after the study five of the six school districts studied closed their SS schools and impending closure may have affected results. 

1) Datnow, Hubbard, and Woody (2001) 2) Shmurak (1998) 

Shmurak (1998) reported on a five-year longitudinal case study of SS and CE girls in four high schools. There were no differences between groups on a gender attitude measure. There were no significant differences in SAT scores, but SS girls had significantly higher Advanced Placement (AP) test scores, whereas CE girls took more science and got into significantly higher rated colleges. Girls in CE schools were more interested in sports, and girls in SS schools were more interested in art. Career aspirations for SS and CE were not different. 

√

80
81

Table 35—Qualitative Studies (cont’d)

Advantage to: 

Authors Study Findings SS CE SS males CE males SS females 

fe

3) Streitmatter (1999) 

Streitmatter’s (1999) case study studied a private day school for girls in preschool through high school. Two students and one teacher interviewed supported SS education, but other comments were idiosyncratic to the person interviewed. The study was limited in scope and generalizability. Svartoien-Conway (2000) conducted one-hour interviews with 20 female college seniors in 1999 who had attended SS high schools to determine its effect on leadership involvement in college. Results suggested that women from SS high schools may have self-confidence impeded in CE colleges. 

4) SvartoienConway (2000) 
82
Implications of Review 

Specific Implications 

We begin our synopsis of this review by summarizing the findings within each broad 

domain of outcome measure, using the structure of the original research questions: 

Are single-sex (SS) schools more effective than coeducational (CE) schools in terms of 

concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishments? Conversely, are any adverse effects 

associated with single-sex schools in this realm? 

In general, more studies reporting the positive effects of SS schools on all-subject 

achievement test scores were found than studies reporting the positive effect of CE schools on 

the same outcomes. Studies examining the mathematics, science, English, and civics 

achievement outcomes for SS schools reported findings similar to those of overall academic 

achievement with one caveat. In each case, roughly a third of all studies reported findings 

favoring SS schools, with the remainder of the studies split between null and mixed results. In 

the one study (Garcia, 1998) favoring CE schooling, the advantages accrued only to white 

females, but not to Asian or black females. Given this small to medium support for SS schooling, 

it is important to note that this finding applies to both males and females and in studies 

pertaining to both elementary and high schools. This is consistent with Mael’s (1998) finding 

that “the assertion that SS schooling has positive benefits for the academic achievement of both 

sexes is supported by the predominance of research, though effects appear more pronounced and 

less ambiguous for females than for males” (p. 117). Males continue to be underrepresented in 

this realm of research. 

Are SS schools more effective than CE schools in terms of long-term, quantifiable academic 

accomplishment? Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools in 

this realm? 

As opposed to concurrent indicators of academic achievement, any positive effects of SS 

schooling on longer-term indicators of academic achievement are not readily apparent. No 

differences were found for postsecondary test scores, college graduation rates, or graduate school 

attendance rates. However, all the findings in this domain came from only two studies (Marsh, 

1989; Riordan, 1990), indicating the lack of research on these important criteria. Although some 

evidence favors single-sex education in the case of postsecondary test scores, there is a dearth of 

recent studies using controls. There has been a similar lack of research on other potential criteria 

in this domain, such as college grade point average, meritorious scholarships or funding attained, 

postgraduate licensure test scores, and any career achievement that could ostensibly be tied to 

quality of schooling. This severely limits the ability to come to any conclusions about the 

efficacy of SS schooling in this domain. A series of studies by Tidball and colleagues, as well as 

additional studies supporting and refuting her findings (Oates and Williamson, 1978; Rice and 

Hemmings, 1988; Tidball, 1973; Tidball and Kistiakowsky, 1976), deal with the postschool 

accomplishments of graduates of women’s colleges and are not directly relevant. 

83
Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in terms of concurrent, 

quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional development? 

Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm? 

This category includes a range of outcomes that are not easily grouped together, and the 

results are mixed. More studies reporting positive effects of SS schools on self-concept and locus 

of control were found than those reporting positive effects of CE schools. However, results 

regarding self-esteem were indicative of the opposite as the majority of studies were pro-CE—at 

least for males—or reported no differences between SS and CE schools. For males, the single 

high school study favored CE schools, whereas for elementary school males, one study each 

favored either CE or SS schooling. Thus, it is difficult to draw any conclusions about this 

variable. It is also noteworthy that in a wide-ranging review of the self-esteem literature, 

Baumeister et al. (2003) concluded that self-esteem’s relationship to school success, 

occupational success, better relationships, leadership, delinquent behavior, and other desirable 

outcomes is modest to nonexistent, and in each case the direction of causality is unclear. 

Although self-reported self-esteem is correlated with happiness, they found no evidence that 

efforts to boost self-esteem were successful. Thus, even if more studies were to show SS 

schooling to be associated with high or low self-esteem, the implications of that finding might be 

minimal, given that self-esteem is a relatively poor indicator of a type of school’s efficacy. 

A majority of studies supported the position that SS schooling resulted in higher 

academic aspirations, as evidenced by students showing more interest in and taking more 

difficult courses. The findings of a recent unpublished study by Spielhofer et al. (2002) with a 

large sample and excellent statistical controls were especially impressive. SS schools also 

resulted in higher educational and career aspirations for girls. A category called “attitudes toward 

school” showing mixed results was actually a combination of single studies using different 

outcome variables, thus reducing the meaningfulness of the category. In terms of actual 

behaviors, a few studies looked at delinquency. Although none found advantages for CE schools, 

any differences in favor of SS schools were moderated by individual developmental differences. 

This is one of a number of socioemotional outcome variables that can be measured by objective 

criteria and would benefit from additional studies. A single study showed SS females to have 

more positive attitudes toward working women (Riordan, 1990); however, the study was 

published 15 years ago and participation in the workplace for all women has increased so much 

that the data and the SS-CE differences may be dated. Generally, across this category, the 

preponderance of new studies and previous ones that Mael (1998) did not properly highlight 

support the view that SS schooling is associated with more positive attitudes toward and 

aspirations about education and careers. 

What is lacking is a conceptual framework to tie together the myriad academic-attitude 

outcome measures used in this realm so that studies will be more directly comparable. The same 

can be said for the studies using the relatively amorphous “self-concept” as an outcome variable. 

In particular, the research is sketchy about how malleable self-concept and self-esteem are as a 

function of type of school, holding all other life influences constant. 

84
Are SS schools more effective than CE schools in terms of long-term, quantifiable 

indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional development? Conversely, 

are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm? 

The outcomes in this domain generally do not appear in more than one or two studies that 

made it to Phase III review. Therefore, we must be cautious in generalizing from these results. 

Having said that, the results still suggest the potential that SS schooling could be associated with 

a number of post–high school, long-term positive outcomes. These include postsecondary 

success or participation in collegiate activities while maintaining full-time enrollment for a fouryear period, reduced unemployment (males and females), reduced propensity to drop out of high 

school (males and females), the choice of a nontraditional college major (for females), and 

political activism (for females). The sole exception is eating disorders, in which one study found 

negative effects for SS schooling on eating disorders. However, Mensinger’s relatively small 

Australian sample highlights the need for additional research. 

Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in terms of addressing 

issues of procedural (e.g., classroom treatment) and outcome measures of gender inequity? 

Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools related to gender 

equity? 

This question could not be addressed because we did not come across any quantitative 

studies that used gender equity as an outcome variable at the school level. Any studies that 

compared SS and CE classrooms within a CE school were outside the purview of this study and 

were not reviewed. 

Are SS schools more effective than CE schools in terms of perceptual measures of the 

school climate or culture that may have an impact on performance? Conversely, are any 

adverse effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm? 

School culture or climate refers to the informal rules, norms, and “ways things work” that 

create expectations for students and socialize students into certain modes of behavior. Culture 

and climate have the potential to increase aspiration levels and open new opportunities for 

students or, conversely, to teach students to stay within certain culturally mandated constraints 

deemed appropriate for persons like themselves (e.g., females, Hispanics). Advocates of SS 

schooling have argued that the cultures in SS schools foster greater academic aspirations and 

make it acceptable to be interested in academics more than in socializing. In addition, it has been 

argued that all-female schools allow women to pursue non-stereotypical courses and majors and 

hold leadership roles and that all-male schools for disadvantaged youths allow their students to 

pursue academic interests without peer censure. Evidence supporting claims that better culture 

leads to better organizational outcomes has been mixed, as is much research attempting to tie 

organizational culture to performance (Wilderom, Glunk, and Maslowski, 2000). This category 

includes a number of disparate, single-study results. The only study addressing leadership 

opportunities found more opportunities for both males and females in SS schools (Riordan, 

1990); however, and the statistical significance of this finding depended on what other variables 

had been controlled for. Another study found that SS schools put more value on grades and 

85
leadership and less on attractiveness and money for both males and females (Schneider and 

Coutts, 1982). However, there remains a dearth of high-quality empirical studies using this class 

of outcome variables as criteria. 

A final category of outcomes examined as a subset of culture was the realm of subjective 

satisfaction of students, parents, and teachers with the school environment. Extensive research in 

the late 1960s and 1970s found that CE schools had friendlier and more relaxed atmospheres, 

with more opportunities for pleasure-centered social contact (Dale, 1971, 1974; Hyde, 1971). 

Although not formally part of the K-12 sample of this study, it is useful to note that at the college 

level, Astin (1977) and Smith (1990) also found that CE colleges were rated as having more 

enjoyable campus social life by males and females, respectively. Whether enjoyment of campus 

life should take priority over other academic and socioemotional criteria is debatable. The one 

study (Schneider and Coutts, 1982) in this review that found the social environment more 

appealing in CE schools is a good case in point because the same study found that SS students 

are more interested in grades and leadership and less interested in money and looks. Although 

some qualitative studies have looked at why certain parents prefer SS schooling, we did not 

review any empirical studies comparing current parental satisfaction in equivalent SS and CE 

schools. Studies in other cultures have found mixed results regarding teacher satisfaction with 

CE versus SS schooling (Marsh, Owens, Myers, and Smith, 1989; Payne and Newton, 1990). 

There remains a lack of research both on this class of criteria and on the relationship of 

subjective satisfaction to other more critical criteria. 

General Trends 

A few trends are apparent across all outcomes. The preponderance of studies in areas 

such as academic accomplishment (both concurrent and long term) and adaptation or 

socioemotional development (both concurrent and long term) yields results ranging from 

supporting SS schooling to no differences between SS and CE schooling. A limited number of 

studies throughout the review provide evidence favoring CE schooling. It is more common to 

come across studies that report no differences between SS and CE schooling than to find 

outcomes with support for the superiority of CE schooling. In terms of outcomes that may be of 

most interest to the primary stakeholders (students and their parents), such as academic 

achievement, self-concept, and long-term indicators of success, there is a degree of support for 

SS schooling. The one outcome variable that might be of most concern to parents of high school 

females is eating disorders; however, the single study suggesting greater problems in SS schools 

must be replicated in the United States with a larger, more diverse population of subjects. Special 

attention must be given to individual differences in this regard because conversely, Caspi’s work 

suggests that for some girls, delinquency is a greater concern in CE schools. 

The overwhelming majority of studies employed high school students, with a small 

minority using elementary school students. Not a single study in the quantitative review reported 

findings from a sample of middle school students. One possible explanation for this is that the 

preponderance of single-sex schooling research has been conducted in Catholic schools. In 

Catholic schools, students are separated by gender only when entering adolescence, which 

86
coincides with the beginning of high school. Prior to high school, most Catholic students attend 

CE schools. Therefore, opportunities to study the phenomenon of SS schooling in either public 

or private schools have been limited. It is evident that studies comparing students from 

elementary and middle public schools are needed. This one-sidedness is also exhibited when 

considering studies that focused on one sex or another exclusively. The twenty findings drawn 

exclusively on girls were split evenly between support for SS schooling and no differences. Only 

two of these girls’ findings resulted in pro-CE. No generalizations could be made for exclusive 

boys’ studies as there were only three in the entire review. 

There is a dearth of quality studies (i.e., randomized experiments or correlational studies 

with adequate statistical controls) across all outcomes. From the perspective of the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC), which requires randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs 

with matching (QED), or regression discontinuity designs to build an evidence base, virtually no 

studies would inform this topic. Even using the more relaxed criterion of allowing correlational 

studies, each outcome has only limited candidate studies. Too few researchers report descriptive 

statistics or effect sizes. Providing such information would allow the aggregation of such effects 

and the correction of statistical artifacts. Of all the outcomes of interest, only mathematics 

achievement test scores and school track and subject preferences had more than 10 studies 

appropriate for our review. 

Even within these categories, the studies differ in the criteria they use, the criterion 

measures they use, and the statistical controls they use to compare SS and CE schooling. This 

somewhat limits the arguments that can be built and extended from this quantitative review and 

render it nearly impossible to conduct meta-analysis on any outcome area. In fact, Hunter and 

Schmidt (1990), who have written extensively on meta-analysis and validity generalization, have 

advised against generalizing from any findings taken from meta-analyses using fewer than 15 

studies, even with a homogeneous set of criteria and criterion measures. According to their rule 

of thumb, not one of the outcomes of interest would yield generalizable findings from a metaanalysis. Many of the remaining studies have other conceptual or interpretive flaws. These 

studies lacked well-developed hypotheses, and the hypotheses were often not linked directly to 

the outcomes being studied. Often, the availability of data was the driving force in using a 

specific outcome measure. Finally, the list of outcomes of interest needs to be expanded in future 

research and defined more clearly. Outcomes such as teenage pregnancy and bullying in school 

did not appear in a single study of sufficient quality to be reviewed. Other outcomes implicit in 

arguments for and against SS schooling need to be addressed explicitly. These include workrelated long-term outcomes such as job performance, leadership performance, performance in 

mixed-sex work teams, performance and leadership in volunteer associations, job involvement, 

and organizational commitment. Expansion of this domain could prove useful in extending 

theory and changing practice. 

These general implications of the review provide a stepping-stone for future research 

through the continuation of quality research on extant outcomes, the refinement of methodology, 

87
better statistical reporting, and the expansion of the theoretical domain. If heeded, these 

implications can improve the generalizations made about single-sex schooling and coeducation. 

The Difficulties in Doing Single-Sex Research 

This review should not be interpreted as a condemnation of the work of the dedicated 

researchers who have chosen to study SS-CE differences. Unlike other interventions that can be 

studied in a controlled environment, such as educational techniques, a randomized experiment 

for this topic would take significant effort to design and implement. Randomized assignment to 

groups presumes that subjects (students) can be assigned to either treatment or control groups 

without their knowledge or permission. In actuality, for legal and other reasons, it is unlikely that 

students would be assigned to single-sex schools, other than voluntarily. As soon as parental 

preference is allowed to determine assignment to group, the possibility that the two parent bodies 

(and hence the students) will differ significantly is real. In principle, the administrations and 

staffs would have to be assigned randomly to each school, although in fact at least some of those 

working in SS schools do so because they believe in the concept. Moreover, the staff may 

embrace a particular view of women’s education or the need for Afrocentric education that goes 

beyond the value associated with simply absenting the other sex. This would move the schools 

being compared even further from being randomized, matched groups. If the SS school is new or 

relatively new compared with the comparison CE school, one must question whether the relative 

immaturity of the SS school’s culture and socialization processes is a cause for SS-CE disparities 

in outcomes. Moreover, if a previously CE school is split into a CE and SS school, or vice versa, 

the possibility of a Hawthorne effect, which can be manifested as an increase in student 

performance produced by the psychological stimulus of being singled out and made to feel 

important, in the new school cannot be discounted. 

Thus, although, assuming that a randomized experiment could be performed practically, 

ethically, and consistent with the laws prohibiting sex discrimination, it could surely be 

worthwhile to conduct a randomized experiment, it would be unfair to criticize previous 

researchers who may not have had the resources to conduct a study requiring significant social 

engineering. Rather, we argue that instead of trying to conduct only all-or-nothing studies of 

whether SS schooling is better or worse, more careful specification of hypotheses and direct 

linkage of hypotheses to specific outcomes may show ways to conduct smaller studies that prove 

whether certain aspects of SS or CE schooling are beneficial. 

Moderators and Individual Differences 

In his 1998 review, Mael noted that with few exceptions (described below), the 

possibility that either SS or CE schooling might be more beneficial for some students and 

harmful to others has not been considered. Moderator variables (Baron and Kenny, 1986) may 

change or limit the relationship between type of school and one or more outcomes in important 

ways. Using moderator variables may show that SS schools are effective or are especially 

effective only in some situations or for some groups of students. The most obvious moderator is 

the sex of the student. In a number of studies in this review, SS schools are associated with 

88
different outcomes for girls and boys. This is understandable, considering that some proposed 

reasons for valuing SS schooling are unique to either males or females. Another common 

moderator is the age of the student, reflected in differentiating between effects at elementary and 

high school levels. This is also understandable, given that some explanations for the value of SS 

schools are relevant only at the elementary or high school level. 

A number of authors have also proposed that SS schools are particularly effective for 

students of lower socioeconomic status and perhaps specifically for those who are members of 

minority or disadvantaged communities (Riordan, 1994, 2002; Salomone, 2002). This is another 

important moderator variable to consider. Unfortunately, an insufficient number of studies in this 

review focused on race or ethnicity as a moderator. Only three studies addressed this moderator. 

Another type of moderator does not deal with group characteristics, but rather with 

specific personality or developmental characteristics of boys and girls that might moderate the 

effects of SS schooling. An example is Caspi’s finding that SS schooling has differential effects 

on girls depending on the onset of menarche (Caspi, 1995). Although this and myriad other 

observations are of interest, their implications for policy are more limited. Additional research on 

individual differences and other moderators may help parents make more informed decisions. 

The Limits of a Systematic Review on This Topic 

The purpose of a systematic review in the model of the Campbell Collaboration and the 

What Works Clearinghouse is to demonstrate whether evidence exists for the efficacy of an 

intervention. When the desired intervention has a single, unambiguous criterion of success (e.g., 

retention of learned material or scores on tests), evidence of efficacy can also be relatively 

unambiguous. However, when an intervention is being judged by multiple criteria, and all 

stakeholders do not share the hierarchy of these criteria, then the real limits of resolving debate 

through systematic review are evident. 

89

References 

References in Text 

Astin, A. W. (1977). On the failure of educational policy. Change, 9, 40–45. 

Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social 

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. 

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., and Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem 

cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? 

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–45.

Caspi, A. (1995). Puberty and the gender organization of schools: How biology and social context 

shape the adolescent experience. In L. J. Crockett and A. C. Crouter (eds.), Pathways through 

adolescence: Individual development in relation to social contexts (pp. 57–74). Mahwah, 

N.J.: Erlbaum. 

Cho, M. K., and Bero, L. A. (1994). Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies 

published in the medical literature. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 

101–104. 

Dale, R. R. (1971). Mixed or single-sex school? Volume II: Some social aspects. London: Routledge 

and Kegan Paul. 

Dale, R. R. (1974). Mixed or single-sex school? Volume III: Attainments, attitudes, and overview. 

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

Datnow, A. and Hubbard, L. (2002). Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and 

coeducational schooling. New York: Routledge and Falmer. 

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., and Woody, E. (2001). Is single gender schooling viable in the public 

sector? Lessons from California’s pilot program. Toronto, Ont.: Institute for Studies in 

Education. 

Ellsberry, J. (1999). Auditing a school’s climate for learning and working. Education Digest, 65, 

11–17. 

Fox-Genovese, E. (1991). Feminism without illusions: A critique of individualism. Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press. 

Fox-Genovese, E. (Aug. 1, 1994). Save the males? National Review, 49–52. 

Garcia, D. M. (1998). Single-sex vs. Coeducational public schooling for girls: A high school 

comparison study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(07), 2434A. (UMI No. 9839064) 

Gilder, G. E. (1973). Sexual suicide. New York: Quadrangle. 

91
Hamilton, S. F. (1986). Raising standards and reducing dropout rates. In G. Natriello (ed.), School 

dropouts: Patterns and policies (pp. 148–167). New York: Teachers College Press. 

Hanson, E. H. (1959). Do boys get a square deal in school? Education, 79, 597–598. 

Hunter, J. E., and Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in 

research findings. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. 

Hyde, S. (1971). The case for coeducation. Independent School Bulletin, 31, 20–24. 

Kenway, J., and Willis, S. (1986). Feminist single-sex educational strategies: Some theoretical flaws 

and practical fallacies. Discourse, 7, 1–30. 

Lee, V. E., and Bryk, A. S. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement 

and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 381–395. 

Lee, V. E., and Bryk, A. S. (1989). Effects of single-sex schools: Response to Marsh. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 81, 647–650. 

Levine, D. (1964). Coeducation—a contributing factor in miseducation of the disadvantaged. Phi 

Delta Kappan, 46, 126–128. 

Lipsey, M. W., and Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. 

Mael, F. A. (1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and 

academic development. Review of Educational Research, 68, 101–129. 

Marsh, H. W. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational high schools on achievement, 

attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 70–85. 

Marsh, H. W., and Rowe, K. J. (1996). The effects of single-sex and mixed-sex mathematics classes 

within a coeducational school: A reanalysis and comment. Australian Journal of Education, 

40(2), 147–162. 

Marsh, H. W., Owens, L., Myers, M. R., and Smith, I. D. (1989). The transition from single-sex to 

coeducational high schools: Teacher perceptions, academic achievement, and self-concept. 

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 155–173. 

Mensinger, J. (2001). Conflicting gender role prescriptions and disordered eating in single-sex and 

coeducational school environments. Gender and Education, 13(4), 417–429. 

Murphy, K. R., and Davidshofer, C. O. (2001). Psychological testing: Principles and applications

(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 

Oates, M. J., and Williamson, S. (1978). Women’s colleges and women achievers. Signs: Journal of 

Women in Culture and Society, 3, 795–806. 

Payne, M. A., and Newton, E. H. (1990). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the major 

advantages and disadvantages of coeducational secondary schooling. Australian Journal of 

Education, 34, 67–86. 

92
Purkey, W. W. (1970). Self-concept and school achievement. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall. 

Rice, J. K., and Hemmings, A. (1988). Women’s colleges and women's achievers: An update. 

Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13, 546–559. 

Riordan, C. (1985). Public and Catholic schooling: The effects of gender context policy. American 

Journal of Education, 93, 518–540. 

Riordan, C. (1990). Girls and boys in school: Together or separate? New York: Teachers College 

Press. 

Riordan, C. (1994). Single-gender schools: Outcomes for African and Hispanic Americans. Research 

in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 10, 177–205. 

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 coeducational schooling (pp. 10–30). New York: 

Routledge and Falmer. 

Rowe, K. J. (1988). Single-sex and mixed-sex classes: The effects of class type on student 

achievement, confidence, and participation in mathematics. Australian Journal of Education, 

32, 180–202. 

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of 

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.

Salomone, R. C. (2002). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven, Conn.: 

Yale University Press. 

Schneider, F. W., and Coutts, L. M. (1982). The high school environment: A comparison of 

coeducational and single-sex schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 898–906. 

Sexton, P. C. (1969). The feminized male: Classrooms, white collars, and the decline of manliness. 

New York: Random House. 

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental 

designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

Shmurak, C. B. (1998). Voices of hope: Adolescent girls at single-sex and coeducational schools. 

New York: Peter Lang. 

Silber, E. and Tippett, J. S. (1965) Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation. 

Psychological Reports, 16, 1017–1071. 

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Best-evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. Journal of 

Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 9–18. 

Smith , D. G. (1990). Women’s colleges and coed colleges: Is there a difference for women? Journal 

of Higher Education, 61, 181–197. 

93
Spielhofer, T., O’Donnell, L., Benton, T., Schagen, S., and Schagen, I. (2002). The impact of school 

size and single-sex education on performance (Local Government Association Report 33). 

Berkshire, U.K.: National Foundation for Educational Research. 

Streitmatter, J. L. (1999). For girls only: Making a case for single-sex schooling. Albany, N.Y.: 

SUNY Press. 

Svartoien-Conway, J. (2000). In search of connection: How graduates from all-girls high schools 

describe their leadership involvement at a coeducational university. Dissertation Abstracts 

International, 61(05), 1704A. (UMI No. 9973604) 

Tidball, M. E. (Spring 1973). Perspective on academic women and affirmative action. Educational 

Record, 130–135. 

Tidball, M. E., and Kistiakowsky, V. (1976). Baccalaureate origins of American scientists and 

scholars. Science, 193, 646–652. 

Valentine, J. C., and Cooper, H. (2003). What Works Clearinghouse Study Design and 

Implementation Assessment Device (Version 1.0). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Whitaker, C. (March 1991). Do black males need special schools? Ebony, 46(5), 17. 

Whitehead, B. D. (October 1994). The failure of sex education. The Atlantic Monthly, 55–80. 

Wilderom, C. P. M., Glunk, U., and Maslowski, R. (2000). Organizational culture as a predictor of 

organizational performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, and M. F. Peterson 

(eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 193–210). Thousand Oaks, 

Calif.: Sage. 

Yin, R. Y. (2002). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. 

Quantitative Phase III-Coded References 

Ainley, J., and Daly, P. (2002). Participation in science courses in the final year of high school in 

Australia: The influences of single-sex and coeducational schools. In A. Datnow and L. 

Hubbard (eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational 

schooling (pp. 243–263). New York: Routledge and Falmer. 

Baker, D. B., Riordan, C., and Schaub, M. (1995). The effects of sex-grouped schooling on 

achievement: The role of national context. Comparative Education Review, 39(4), 468–482. 

Bornholt, L., and Moeller, J. (2003). Attributions about achievement and about further study in social 

context. Social Psychology of Education, 6(3), 217–231. 

Brutsaert, H., and Bracke, P. (1994). Gender context in elementary school. Educational Studies, 

20(1), 3–10. 

Carpenter, P., and Hayden, M. (1987). Girls' academic achievements: Single-sex versus 

coeducational schools in Australia. Sociology of Education, 60, 156–167. 

94
Caspi, A. (1995). Puberty and the gender organization of schools: How biology and social context 

shape the adolescent experience. In L. J. Crockett and A. C. Crouter (eds.), Pathways through 

adolescence: Individual development in relation to social contexts (pp. 57–74). Mahwah, 

N.J.: Erlbaum. 

Caspi, A., Lynam, D., Moffitt, T. E., and Silva, P. A. (1993). Unraveling girls’ delinquency: 

Biological, dispositional, and contextual contributions to adolescent behavior. Developmental 

Psychology, 29(1), 19–30.

Cipriani-Sklar, R. (1996). A quantitative and qualitative examination of the influence of the 

normative and perceived school environments of a coeducational public school vs. a singlesex Catholic school on ninth-grade girls’ science self-concept and anxiety in the area of 

science education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(10), 4312A. (UMI No. 9706808) 

Conway, K. E. (1996). Differential effects of single-sex versus coed education on the mathematical 

reasoning ability, verbal reasoning ability, and self-concept of high school girls. Dissertation 

Abstracts International, 57(12), 5047A. (UMI No. 9717537) 

Cuddy, A. R. (2000). The development of self-concept in adolescent girls attending single-sex and 

coeducational schools: Exploring the influence of cognitive and social factors. Dissertation 

Abstracts International, 63(10), 4941B. (UMI No. 3067808) 

Daly, P. (1995). Science course participation and science achievement in single sex and coeducational schools. Evaluation and Research in Education, 9, 91–98. 

Daly, P. (1996). The effects of single-sex and coeducational secondary schooling on girls’ 

achievement. Research Papers in Education, 11(3), 289–306.

Daly, P., and Ainley, J. (n.d.) Student participation in mathematics courses in Australian secondary 

schools. 

Daly, P., Ainley, J., and Robinson, L. (1996). The influence of single-sex secondary schooling on 

choice of science courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 

Educational Research Association, New York, N.Y. 

Daly, P., and Shuttleworth, I. (1996). Determinants of public examination entry and attainment in 

mathematics: Evidence on gender and gender-type of school from the 1980s and 1990s in 

Northern Ireland. Evaluation and Research in Education, 10, 1–11. 

Garcia, D. M. (1998). Single-sex vs. Coeducational public schooling for girls: A high school 

comparison study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(07), 2434A. (UMI No. 9839064) 

Harker, R. (2000). Achievement, gender, and the single-sex/coed debate. British Journal of 

Sociology of Education, 21(2), 203–218. 

Harker, R., and Nash, R. (March, 1997). School type and the education of girls: Co-ed or girls only? 

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 

Chicago, Ill. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED410633) 

95
Lambert, J. (1998). An investigation of the difference in multidimensional self-concept between 

adolescent girls in single-sex and coeducational school settings. Dissertation Abstracts 

International, 59(02), 876B. (UMI No. 9824795) 

Lee, V. E., and Bryk, A. S. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement 

and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 381–395. 

Lee, V. E., and Lockheed, M. E. (1990). The effect of single-sex schooling on achievement and 

attitudes in Nigeria. Comparative Education Review, 34(2), 209–231. 

Lee, V. E., and Marks, H. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience 

on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 

578–592. 

LePore, P. C., and Warren, J. R. (1997). A comparison of single-sex and coeducational Catholic 

secondary schooling: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. 

American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 485–511. 

Marsh, H. W. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational high schools on achievement, 

attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 70–85. 

Marsh, H. W. (1991). Public, Catholic single-sex and Catholic coeducational high schools: Their 

effect on achievement, affect, and behaviors. American Journal of Education, 99(3), 320–

356. 

Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., Marsh, M., and Owens, L. (1988). The transition from single-sex to 

coeducational high schools: Effects on multiple dimensions of self-concept and on academic 

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 237–269. 

Mensinger, J. (2001). Conflicting gender role prescriptions and disordered eating in single-sex and 

coeducational school environments. Gender and Education, 13(4), 417–429. 

Proach, J. A. (2000). A study of the attitudes and academic achievement in biology of females in a 

single-sex school vs. a coeducational school in the Philadelphia Archdiocesan secondary 

schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(03), 937A. (UMI No. 9966004) 

Riordan, C. (1985). Public and Catholic schooling: The effects of gender context policy. American 

Journal of Education, 93, 518–540. 

Riordan, C. (1990). Short-term outcomes of mixed- and single-sex schooling. In Girls and boys in 

school: Together or separate? (pp. 82–113). New York: Teachers College Press. 

Riordan, C. (1994). Single-gender schools: Outcomes for African and Hispanic Americans. Research 

in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 10, 177–205. 

Sanders, E. (November 1992). Black inner-city males and the Milwaukee Public Schools Immersion 

Program: A progress report. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council 

for Educational Administration, Minneapolis, Minn. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service 

No. ED397212) 

96
Spielhofer, T., O’Donnell, L., Benton, T., Schagen, S., and Schagen, I. (2002). The impact of school 

size and single-sex education on performance (Local Government Association Report 33). 

Berkshire, U.K.: National Foundation for Educational Research. 

Schneider, F. W., and Coutts, L. M. (1982). The high school environment: A comparison of 

coeducational and single-sex schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 898–906. 

Stables, A. (1990). Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex schools in their enjoyment 

of school subjects and attitudes to science and to school. Educational Review, 42, 221–230. 

Steinback, M., and Gwizdala, J. (1995). Gender differences in mathematics attitudes of secondary 

students. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 36–41. 

Thompson, J. S. (2003). The effect of single-sex secondary schooling on women's choice of college 

major. Sociological Perspectives, 46, 257–278. 

Watson C. M., Quatman, T., and Edler, E. (2002). Career aspirations of adolescent girls: Effects of 

achievement level, grade, and single-sex school environment. Sex Roles, 46, 323–335. 

Woodward, L. J., Fergusson, D. M., and Horwood, L. J. (1999). Effects of single-sex and 

coeducational secondary schooling on children's academic achievement. Australian Journal 

of Education, 43, 142–156. 

Young D. J., and Fraser, B. J. (April 1992). Sex differences in science achievement: A multilevel 

analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, San 

Francisco, Calif. 

Quantitative Phase III-Excluded References 

Armstrong, J., and Price, R. (1982). Correlates and predictors of women’s mathematics participation. 

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 99–109. 

Bastick, T. (2000, April). Mediation of anti-social adolescent behavior by single-sex and coeducational schooling. Revision of paper presented at the Western Psychological Association 

convention, Portland, Oreg. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463042) 

Bornholt, L. J. (1988). Perceptions of achievement: The effects of gender, school type, and grade.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and 

Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED305989) 

Bornholt, L. J. (2001). Self-concepts, usefulness and behavioural intentions in the social context of 

schooling. Educational Psychology, 21, 67–78. 

Brody, C., Fuller, K., Gosetti, P. P., Moscato, S., Nagel, N., Pace, G., and Schmuck P. (April 1998). 

Gender and the culture of schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 

Educational Research Association, San Diego, Calif. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service 

No. ED421575) 

97
Broyles, J. (1992). An examination of self-concept and academic achievement in a newly 

coeducational environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(10), 3475A. (UMI No. 

9238139) 

Dorman, J. P., and Queensland (March 1997). Classroom environment in Australian Catholic 

schools: A study utilising quantitative and qualitative methods. Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill. (ERIC Document 

Reproduction Service No. ED412647) 

Fennema, E., and Sherman, J. (1978). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement and 

related factors: A further study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 189–203. 

Flanders, J. A. (1992). An investigative study of the relationship between single-sex/coeducational 

school transition and sex role identity and achievement motivational factors. Dissertation 

Abstracts International, 53(08), 2758A. (UMI No. 9238174) 

Fox, M. L. (1993). A comparison of female student leaders in single gender and coeducational high 

schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(06), 2110A. (UMI No. 9332759) 

Fritz, R. A. (1996). An inferential study comparing science achievement in single-sex and mixed-sex 

schools: Testing for interactions between gender and instructional environment. Dissertation 

Abstracts International, 57(03), 1082A. (UMI No. 9625081) 

Gilroy, M. K. (1990). Single-sex schooling and its effect on achievement, attitudes and behaviors. 

Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(07), 3611B. (UMI No. 9034425) 

Gilson, J. E. (1999). Single-gender education versus coeducation for girls: A study of mathematics 

achievement and attitudes toward mathematics of middle-school students. Paper presented at 

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec. 

Holz-Ebeling, F., Gratz-Tummers, J., and Schwarz, C. (2000). Are boys profiting from coeducation? 

An empirical study of the significance of coeducation to boys. Zeitschrift fur 

Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie, 32, 94–107. 

Holz-Ebeling, F., and Hansel, S. (1993). Are there differences between girls in single-sex and mixed 

schools—A contribution to the coeducation debate. Psychologie in Erzeihung und Unterricht, 

40, 21–33. 

Hyde, J. S., and Linn, M. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. 

Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53–69. 

Jacklin, C. N., and Maccoby, E. E. (1978). Social behavior at thirty-three months in same-sex and 

mixed-sex dyads. Child Development, 49, 557–569. 

James, A. N. (2001). Educating boys: A comparison of educational attitudes of male graduates of 

single-sex and coed schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(01), 77A. (UMI No. 

3000181) 

98
Katsurada, E., and Sugihara, Y. (2002). Gender-role identity, attitudes toward marriage, and gendersegregated school backgrounds. Sex Roles, 47, 249–258. 

Kleinfeld, J. (1999). Student performance: Males versus females. Public Interest, 134, 3–20. 

Kysor, D. (April 1993). Transitioning from single-sex to coeducational high school: A study 

exploring the effects on self-concept using the Self Description Questionnaire II. Paper 

presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, 

Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED364795) 

Lawrie, L., and Brown, R. (1992). Sex stereotypes, school subject preferences, and career aspirations 

as a function of single/mixed-sex schooling and presence/absence of an opposite sibling. 

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 132–138. 

Lepore, P.C., and Warren, J. R. (1996). The advantages of single-sex Catholic secondary schooling: 

Selection effects, school effects, or ‘much ado about nothing’? Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, N.Y. 

Lockheed, M. E. (1985). Sex and social influence: A meta-analysis guided by theory. In J. Berger 

and M. Zelditch Jr. (eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 406–427). San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Marsh, H. W. (April 1992). What makes a difference during the last two years of high school: An 

overview of studies based on High School and Beyond data. Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif. (ERIC 

Document Reproduction Service No. ED349314) 

McDonald, M. C. (1996). The importance of single-gender education for females as reported by 

parents, teachers and administrators associated with independent schools. Dissertation 

Abstracts International, 57(09), 3767A. (UMI No. 9705700) 

Mensinger, J. L. (2003). Disordered eating, adherence to the superwoman ideal, and gender 

socialization in coeducational and single-sex school environments. Dissertation Abstracts 

International, 64(03), 1552B. (UMI No. 3085692) 

Moore, M., Piper, V., and Schaefer, E. (1993). Single-sex schooling and educational effectiveness: A 

research overview. In D. K. Hollinger (ed.), Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice 

and research (pp. 7–68). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

Norfleet, J. A., and Richards, H. C. (2003). Escaping stereotypes: Educational attitudes of male 

alumni of single-sex and coed schools. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4(2), 136–148. 

Richardson, A. G. (1990). Classroom learning environment: Some differences among school types. 

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 518. 

Riordan, C. (Nov. 17, 1999). The silent gender gap: Reading, writing, and other problems for boys. 

Education Week, 19(12), 46–48. 

99
Riordan, C. (2000). Student experiences in home and school: Gender gap comparisons among 1990 

sophomores in the National Educational Longitudinal Study. Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C. 

Robinson, P., and Smithers, A. (1999). Should the sexes be separated for secondary education—

Comparisons of single-sex and coeducational schools? Research Papers in Education, 14, 

23–49. 

Rost, D. H., and Pruisken, C. (2000). Together weak? Separated strong? Girls and coeducation. 

Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psycholgie, 14, 177–193. 

Schlosberg, K. J. (1998). A comparison of girls’ attitudes toward mathematics in single-sex and 

coeducational independent schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(09), 3384A. 

(UMI No. 9905526) 

Schneider, F. W., Coutts, L. M., and Starr, M. W. (1988). In favour of coeducation: The educational 

attitudes of students from coeducational and single-sex high schools. Canadian Journal of 

Education, 13, 479–496. 

Shapka, J. D., and Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum during adolescence: 

Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American 

Educational Research Journal, 40, 929–960. 

Shields, N. (1991). The effects of single-sex schooling on female attitudes toward mathematics, 

achievement in mathematics, and college and career aspirations. Dissertation Abstracts 

International, 51(10), 3380A. (UMI No. 9033972) 

Shmurak, C. B. (April 1993). Career patterns of women graduates of independent schools: A 

comparison of coeducational and all-girls high schools. Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Ga. (ERIC Document 

Reproduction Service No. ED359913) 

Steinbrecher, M. J. (1991). A comparison between female graduates of single-sex and coeducational 

Catholic high schools and the attainment of career leadership positions. Dissertation 

Abstracts International, 52(04), 1169A. (UMI No. 9128427) 

Tartre, L., and Fennema, E. (1995). Mathematics achievement and gender: A longitudinal study of 

selected cognitive and affective variables [Grades 6–12]. Educational Studies in 

Mathematics, 28, 199–217. 

Taylor, L. (2002). A comparison of academic and non-academic self-concepts of 11th-graders within 

and between single gender and coeducational schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 

63(09), 3079A. (UMI No. 3063654) 

Tiggermann, M. (2001). Effect of gender composition of school on body concerns in adolescent 

women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 239–243. 

100
Trickett, E. J., Trickett, P. K., Castro, J. J., and Schaffiler, P. (1982). The independent school 

experience: Aspects of the normative environments of single-sex and coed secondary 

schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 374–381. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). Single-sex 

schooling: Perspectives from practice and research (Vol. 1.). Hollinger, D. K., and 

Adamson, R. J. (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). Single-sex 

schooling: Proponents speak (Vol. 2). Hollinger, D. K., and Adamson, R. J. (eds.). 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

Valentine, J. C., and Cooper, H. (2003). What Works Clearinghouse study design and 

implementation assessment device (Version 1.0). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Walter, H. M. (1997). An investigation into the affective profiles of girls from single-sex and coeducational schools, as they relate to the learning of mathematics (Master’s thesis, 

University of Exeter). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439015) 

Yin, Z., and Ryska, T. A. (1999). Perceived competence, social anxiety about physique, and 

enjoyment in testing situations among groups of mixed sex and girls only. Psychological 

Reports, 84, 381–385. 

Qualitative Phase III-Coded References 

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., and Woody, E. (2001). Is single gender schooling viable in the public 

sector? Lessons from California’s pilot program. Toronto, Ont.: Institute for Studies in 

Education. 

Shmurak, C. B. (1998). Voices of hope: Adolescent girls at single-sex and coeducational schools. 

New York: Peter Lang. 

Streitmatter, J. L. (1999). For girls only: Making a case for single-sex schooling. Albany, N.Y.: 

SUNY Press. 

Svartoien-Conway, J. (2000). In search of connection: How graduates from all-girls high schools 

describe their leadership involvement at a coeducational university. Dissertation Abstracts 

International, 61(05), 1704A. (UMI No. 9973604) 

Qualitative Phase III-Excluded References 

Gilson, J. (2002). Single-gender or coeducation for middle-school girls: Does it make a difference in 

math? In A. Datnow and L. Hubbard (eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on 

single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 227–242). New York: Routledge and Falmer. 

Hendrickson, P. K. (2002). Audience experience and response within the single-sex secondary 

military boarding school: A dramaturgical analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 

64(02), 655A. (UMI No. 3080525) 

101
Kirwin, P. (1992). Sex role perceptions of adolescent males and females: The effects of a transition 

from a single sex to coeducational school environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 

53(08), 2691A. (UMI No.9238206) 

Madigan, J. (2002). The Latina voice in special education: Classroom behaviors, school attitudes, 

and gender identity of female students in single-gender secondary-level special education 

classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(02), 558A. (UMI No. 3045027) 

Monaco, N. M., and Gaier, E. L. (Fall 1992). Single-sex versus coeducational environment and 

achievement in adolescent females. Adolescence, 27(107), 579–594. 

Parker, R. L. (1998). Boys’ education and the arts: A case study of boys’ attitudes about art and 

music education in an independent school for boys. Dissertation Abstracts International, 

59(09), 3337A. (UMI No.9908882) 

Rizza, M. G. (1997). Exploring successful learning with talented female adolescents. Dissertation 

Abstracts International, 58(08), 3003A. (UMI No. 9806187) 

Sanford, K., and Blair, H. (2002). Engendering public education: Single-sex schooling in Western 

Canada. In A. Datnow and L. Hubbard, Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on 

single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 90–108). New York: Routledge and Falmer. 

Schmuck, P., Nagel, N., and Brody, C. (2002). Studying gender consciousness in single-sex and 

coeducation high schools. In A. Datnow and L. Hubbard (eds.), Gender in policy and 

practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 196–211). New York: 

Routledge and Falmer. 

Signorella, M. L., Frieze, I. H., and Hershey S. W. (1996). Single-sex versus mixed-sex classes and 

gender schemata in children and adolescents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(4), 599–

607. 

102
APPENDIX 1: QUANTITATIVE STUDY CODING GUIDE

Background 

What is the Study ID number? ________ 

On what date was data extraction completed? ________ 

Primary reviewer: ______________________________ 

Secondary reviewer: ____________________________ 

Sample Characteristics 

1. Were subjects individually randomly assigned? Yes ___ No ___ 

2. Were subjects drawn from the same local area (such as school district, 

high school pyramid, town or named area in city)? 

Yes ___ No ___ 

3. Were subjects matched by demographics or other stated similarity? Yes ___ No ___ 

Psychometric Properties 

For 4 through 7: Acceptable psychometric properties will be assumed to 

exist for studies employing large national NCES data sets such as NLS, 

HSB, and NELS or for those using data gathered using published tests, 

even if not described in the paper. Student achievement data is 

acceptable as is. Survey data is not assumed to be valid unless individual 

evidences are reported. 

Yes ___ No ___ 

4. Were temporal stability/test-retest reliability statistics or an outside 

source such as a standardization study reported, or was reliability stated 

to be acceptable? (Temporal stability or test-retest reliability statistics 

can be reported as a correlation (r) between test scores at time 1 and test 

scores on the same test at time 2. Acceptable levels are correlations 

greater than .40.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

5. Was inter-rater reliability assessed and considered to be acceptable? 

(Inter-rater reliability is often reported as a correlation amongst raters but 

can also be reported as an intraclass correlation (ICC) or within-group r 

(rwg). A good example of inter-rater reliability would be if the authors 

mention a measure of agreement (r, ICC, or rwg) between two teachers 

who rate students on their academic orientation.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

6. Was internal consistency assessed and considered to be acceptable? 

(Internal consistency estimates include Cronbach’s alpha, coefficient 

alpha, item-total correlations, inter-item correlations, or the KR-20. 

Acceptable internal consistency estimates are greater than .70.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

103
7. Was evidence presented that the operationalized measure reflects the 

construct of interest? (This can be evidence it predicts future measures, 

distinguishes groups otherwise identified or yields outcomes similar to 

those of other instruments.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

Controlling Variables 

For 8 through 12: Evidence for this will include authors indicating that 

they have controlled for preexisting differences between students by 

accounting for the variance in the outcomes that can be attributed to 

these extraneous variables. Accounting for variance in the outcomes 

attributable to preexisting differences can be accomplished by treating 

these variables as covariates (e.g., dummy or binary coded vectors) in 

statistical procedures such as regression, structural equation modeling 

and/or ANOVA. These variables can include the four listed below or 

any variables that are uncommon but extraneous. If there is no evidence 

of having controlled for preexisting differences, the study should not be 

coded. The coder should note in the notes section of the coding form 

(bottom of last page) that study was not coded because authors did not 

control for preexisting variables. 

8. Language Yes ___ No ___ 

9. Ethnic/racial minority status Yes ___ No ___ 

10. Socioeconomic status Yes ___ No ___ 

11. Grade level or age. [Here all subjects must be of same age or grade 

level. “Fifth and Sixth Graders,” for instance, is not acceptable.] 

Yes ___ No ___ 

12. Did the authors equate the subjects on or control for other variables 

such as preexisting academic ability, curriculum, parental aspirations, 

etc? [Here, the goal is to ensure that researchers who have applied 

statistical control or accounted for preexisting differences other than the 

common ones receive credit for doing so.] 

Yes ___ No ___ 

Issues of Internal Validity 

13. Was the study free of evidence that the equating procedure produced 

differential statistical regression? (Note: For example, you would 

answer “no” to this question if students in the SS group were chosen 

from poorly-performing students within a high-achieving school and 

comparison students were chosen from high-achieving students within a 

poorly-performing school.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

104
14. Was the outcome measure adequately aligned to the intervention? 

(Note: An example of under-alignment would be when students are 

taught math but tested on reading. An example of over-alignment 

would be when, in a study of reading comprehension, the intervention 

students were exposed to reading passages during the intervention that 

were on the posttest, but comparison students did not receive this 

exposure.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

15. Was the unit of assignment or selection the same as the unit of 

statistical analysis? (Note: For example, if each student was 

individually selected, statistical analyses should be conducted using the 

student as the unit of analysis. If entire classrooms were selected for the 

SS or CE condition, statistical analyses should be conducted using the 

classroom as the unit of analysis.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

16. Was SS or CE assignment implemented as defined? (An example of a 

“no” response would be inclusion of some of opposite sex in some 

single-sex classes or other non-uniform assignment of students.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

17. Was the study free from evidence that one group might also have 

experienced a changed expectancy, novelty and/or disruption effect that 

was not also experienced by the other group? 

Yes ___ No ___ 

18. Was the study free from attrition or change in composition effects? Yes ___ No ___ 

19. Was the study free from local history events? (A local history event is 

an event that (a) occurred during the study period (b) affected one of 

two comparison groups, but not both, and (c) could have produced the 

observed outcome in the absence of the intervention.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

Effect 

20. Was a mean and standard deviation or variance available for both 

comparison groups? 

Yes ___ No ___ 

21. For this study, could effect sizes be generated? Yes ___ No ___ 

22. Could the direction of the effect be identified for this outcome 

measure? (The direction of the effect can be determined by using r, t, z, 

or d. Any directionality in these indicators can be viewed as indicating 

the direction of the effect.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

105
Issues of Bias 

23. Was the study published in a peer-refereed journal? (For example, you 

would answer yes if the paper is published in a journal reviewed by 

peers but no if the study is a conference paper.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

24. Did the authors test properly operationalized hypotheses? (For example, 

if the authors of the study test hypotheses or a model that clearly 

depicts the relationship amongst clearly defined variables, you would 

answer “Yes.” On the other hand, if they claim the goal was to examine 

certain relationships because of trends or controversy over the existence 

of single-sex schooling, you would answer "no" because no clear 

hypotheses are provided.) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

Total ____ 

Describe the Result of Study 

a. Concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishment 

a1. Academic Achievement: (Name of Study) in comparing ss versus coed schools (level: HS, 

Elementary; Public/Private/Catholic) found (significant/non-significant) differences for males (score: mean, 

sd, t, or F) and (significant/non-significant) differences for females (score: mean, sd, t or F). (n = XXX). 

[Then, any moderators. An example of a moderator would be finding that single-sex schooling has an 

impact on academic achievement only for girls who reach menarche early, but not for those who reach 

menarche on time or late. Time of menarcheal development serves as a moderator.] 

a2. Mathematics Achievement Test Scores: 

a3. Science Achievement Test Scores: 

a4. Verbal/English Achievement Test Scores: 

a5. Other outcome in this category: 

b. Long-term, quantifiable academic accomplishment 

b1. Postsecondary test scores: 

b2. College Graduation: 

b3. Graduate School Attendance: 

b4. Other outcome in this category: 

c. Concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and 

socioemotional development 

c1. Self-concept: 

c2. Self-esteem: 

106
c3. Locus of control: 

c4. School Track/Subject Preference: 

c5. Career Aspirations: 

c6. Peer Delinquency: 

c7. Self-Reported Delinquency: 

c8. Other outcome in this category: 

d. Long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and 

socioemotional development 

d1. Teenage pregnancy: 

d2. Dropouts: 

d3. Delinquency: 

d4. Eating disorders: 

d5. Other outcome in this category: 

e. Indicators of process and outcome measures of gender inequity 

e1. Gender inequity: 

e2. Differential treatment by teachers: 

d3. Other outcome in this category: 

f. Perceptual measures of the school climate or culture that may impact performance 

f1. Climate for learning: 

f2. Quality of teacher-student interactions: 

f3. Opportunities for leadership roles: 

f4. Perceived bullying in school 

f5. Other outcome in this category: 

g. Subjective satisfaction with the school experience by students, parents, and/or 

teachers 

g1. Satisfaction with learning environment: 

g2. Other outcome in this category: 

107

APPENDIX 2: QUALITATIVE STUDY CODING GUIDE

Background 

What is the Study ID number? _____ 

What was the first author's last name and year of publication of the article? ________ 

On what date was data extraction completed? ________ 

What is the name of the primary reviewer? 

Primary reviewer ________________________________ 

What studies are linked to this one? ________________________________________ 

Literature Review 

1. The study question was sufficiently described. ("Thick, rich 

description") 

Yes ___ No ___ 

2. The investigators have no documented Yes ___ No ___ predispositions. ("Clarifying 

researcher bias") 

3. Subject characteristics were adequately reported. (Adequately 

means that a reader could identify a similar set of subjects for 

comparison with little ambiguity. “Thick, rich description,” 

“Dense description of participants”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

Methods 

5. Sample was compared to demographic data. (“Dense description 

of participants”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

6. Circumstances under which evidence was collected are indicated 

(times, places, etc.; “Chain of evidence,” “Audit trail”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

7. Initial study questions and the methods of data collection are 

linked conceptually. 

Yes ___ No ___ 

8. Methods were reported in a way that was transparent to the 

reader. (“Thick, rich description”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

9. Validity evidence for measures is presented (Such as, that the 

operationalized measure predicts future measures, distinguishes 

groups otherwise identified or yields outcomes similar to those of 

other instruments). 

Yes ___ No ___ 

10. An outside control group was used to which the study population 

was compared. 

Yes ___ No ___ 

109
11. Comparisons were made between groups within the study 

population. 

Yes ___ No ___ 

12. Was the study free of evidence that the study population (or part 

of the study population) experienced a change during the study 

period that could have affected interpretation of the data? 

Yes ___ No ___ 

13. Use of a database was stated. (“Audit Trail”) Yes ___ No ___ 

14. Use of a field journal was reported. (“Reflexivity”) Yes ___ No ___ 

15. The investigator field experience is documented. (“Prolonged 

field experience”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

Analyses 

16. A peer review was performed. (Here is a sample statement 

indicating peer review was conducted: “Draft copies of this report 

were shared with study participants and we wish to thank them for 

their feedback.” “Peer examination.”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

17. A code-recode procedure was used. (Data was coded, then 

recoded after an interval of time; “Code-recode”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

18. Analysis was conducted at the subgroup level (below assignment 

to male-female contingents). 

Yes ___ No ___ 

19. A protocol for the study was described. Yes ___ No ___ 

20. Specific documents, interviews, observations, etc. were 

consistently cited. (“Chain of evidence.”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

Findings and Conclusions 

21. Conclusions are supported by more than one piece of evidence. 

(Evidence must be specifically stated with conclusion; there must 

be two or more pieces of evidence; “Triangulation”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

22. Evidence cited was collected in ways consistent with the method 

described in the protocol. (“Chain of evidence”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

23. Key informants reviewed the draft report. (If no review 

documented, mark “no.” “Member checking”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

24. Data gathered matches previous findings (“Pattern matching”). Yes ___ No ___ 

110
25. Plausible post hoc explanation for observation is advanced. 

(“Explanation building”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

26. No alternative explanation is plausible. (“Explanation building”) Yes ___ No ___ 

27. Data gathered is consistent with theoretical expectations. (Survey 

papers with no cited expectations receive a “Yes,” “Explanation 

building”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

28. There is evidence for generalizability to other populations. (“Rich, 

thick description”) 

Yes ___ No ___ 

29. Literature review is linked to the study question. Yes ___ No ___ 

Total ____ 

111

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF QUANTITATIVE STUDIES EXCLUDED DURING 

PHASE III 

Excluded Studies 

Study Authors Reason for Exclusion 

1) Armstrong and Price (1982) Did not use elementary or high school 

students 

2) Bastick (2000) No statistical controls 

3) Bornholt (2001) No statistical controls 

4) Bornholt (1988) No statistical controls 

5) Brody, Fuller, Gosetti, Moscato, Nagel, 

Pace, and Schmuck (1998) 

No statistical controls 

6) Broyles (1992) Not a proper operationalization of singlesex schools 

7) Doorman and Queensland (1997) No statistical controls 

8) Fennema and Sherman (1978) Did not use elementary or high school 

students 

9) Flanders (1992) Not a proper operationalization of singlesex schools 

10) Fox (1993) No statistical controls 

11) Fritz (1996) No statistical controls 

12) Gilroy (1990) No statistical controls 

13) Gilson (1999) No statistical controls 

14) Hyde and Linn (1988) Did not compare single-sex and 

coeducational schools 

15) Holz-Ebeling, Gratz-Tummers, and 

Schwarz (2000) 

Written in German (not codable by 

researchers) 

113
16) Holz-Ebeling and Hansel (1993) Written in German (not codable by 

researchers) 

17) Jacklin and Maccoby (1978) Did not compare single-sex and 

coeducational schools but rather dyads 

18) James (2001) No statistical controls 

19) Katsurada and Sugihara (2002) No statistical controls 

20) Kleinfeld (1999) Review article 

21) Kysor (1993) No statistical controls 

22) Lawrie and Brown (1992) No statistical controls 

23) LePore and Warren (1996) Original manuscript of subsequently 

published paper 

24) Lockheed (1985) Review article 

25) Marsh (1992) Review of other research; same data 

explored 

26) McDonald (1996) Did not compare single-sex and 

coeducational schools 

27) Mensinger (2003) Did not compare single-sex and 

coeducational schools 

28) Moore, Piper, and Schaefer (1993) Review of other research 

29) Norfleet and Richards (?) No statistical controls 

30) Richardson (1990) No statistical controls 

31) Riordan (1999) Not a quantitative study; article published 

in weekly periodical 

32) Riordan (2000) Did not compare single-sex and 

coeducational schools 

33) Rost and Pruisken (2000) Written in German (not codable by 

researchers) 

114
115

34) Robinson and Smithers (1999) No statistical controls 

35) Schlosberg (1998) No statistical controls 

36) Schneider, Coutts, and Starr (1988) No statistical controls 

37) Shapka and Keating (2003) Did not compare single-sex and 

coeducational schools 

38) Shields (1991) No statistical controls 

39) Shmurak (1993) No statistical controls 

40) Steinbrecher (1991) No statistical controls 

41) Tartre and Fennema (1995) Did not compare single-sex and 

coeducational schools 

42) Taylor (2002) No statistical controls 

43) Tiggermann (2001) No statistical controls 

44) Trickett, Trickett, Castro, and 

Schaffiler (1982) 

No statistical controls 

45) U.S. Department of Education (1993) Not a quantitative study 

46) U.S. Department of Education (1993) Not a quantitative study 

47) Walter (1997) No statistical controls 

48) Yin and Ryska (1999) Study about single-sex classes, not schools 

117

APPENDIX 4: QUANTITATIVE CODING GUIDE FOR ALL STUDIES

Study 

Criterion 

Ainley and 

Daly (2002) 

Baker, 

Riordan, and 

Schaub (1995) 

Bornholt and 

Moeller (2003) 

Brutsaert and 

Bracke (1994) 

Carpenter and 

Hayden (1987) 

Caspi (1995) 

Caspi, Lynam, 

Moffitt, and 

Silva (1993) 

Cipriani-Sklar 

(1996) 

Conway 

(1996) 

Sample Characteristics 1) Were subjects individually randomly assigned? N N N N N N N N N 2) Were subjects drawn from the same local area? N N Y N N N N Y Y 3) Were subjects matched by demographics or other stated similarity? N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Psychometric Properties 4) Were temporal stability/test-retest reliability statistics or an outside source such as a standardization study reported, or was reliability stated to be acceptable? Y Y N N N Y Y Y N 5) Was inter-rater reliability assessed and considered to be acceptable? Y N Y N N N Y N N 6) Was internal consistency assessed and considered to be acceptable? Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y 7) Was evidence presented that the operationalized measure reflects the construct of interest? Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Controlling Variables 8) Did the author(s) control for Language? Y N Y N N N N N N 9) Did the author(s) control for Ethnic/racial minority status? N N N N N N Y Y N 10) Did the author(s) control for Socioeconomic status? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 11) Did the author(s) control for Grade level or age? Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y 12) Did the authors equate the subjects on or control for other variables such as preexisting academic ability, curriculum, parental aspirations, etc? Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Threats to Internal Validity 13) Was the study free of evidence that the equating procedure produced differential statistical regression? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 
118

Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies (cont’d)

Study 

Criterion 

Ainley and 

Daly (2002) 

Baker, 

Riordan, and 

Schaub (1995) 

Bornholt and 

Moeller (2003) 

Brutsaert and 

Bracke (1994) 

Carpenter and 

Hayden (1987) 

Caspi (1995) 

Caspi, Lynam, 

Moffitt, and 

Silva (1993) 

Cipriani-Sklar 

(1996) 

Conway 

(1996) 

14) Was the outcome measure adequately aligned to the intervention? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 15) Was the unit of assignment or selection the same as the unit of statistical analysis? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 16) Was SS or CE assignment implemented as defined? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17) Was the study free from evidence that one group might also have experienced a changed expectancy, novelty and/or disruption effect that was not also experienced by the other group? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 18) Was the study free from attrition or change in composition effects? N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N 19) Was the study free from local history events? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Effect Size 20) Was a mean and standard deviation or variance available for both comparison groups? N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y 21) For this study, could effect sizes be generated? N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 22) Could the direction of the effect be identified for this outcome measure? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Issues of Bias 23) Was the study published in a peer-refereed journal? N Y Y Y Y N Y N N N 24) Did the authors test properly operationalized hypotheses? Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N N 

Totals 16 18 19 15 15 13 15 20 15 15 

Percent of Criteria Met in Study 67% 75% 79% 63% 63% 54% 63% 83% 63% 63

Percent of Criteria NOT Met in Study 33% 25% 21% 38% 38% 46% 38% 17% 38% 38
119

Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies (cont’d)

Study 

Criterion 

Daly, Ainley, 

and Robinson 

(1996) 

Daly and 

Shuttleworth 

(1996) 

Garcia (1998) 

Harker and 

Nash (1987) 

Harker (2000) 

Lambert 

(1998) 

Lee and Bryk 

(1986) 

Lee and 

Lockheed 

(1990) 

Lee and 

Sample Characteristics 1) Were subjects individually matched (randomly assigned)? N N N N N N N N N 2) Were subjects drawn from the same local area? N N Y N N Y N N N 3) Were subjects matched by demographics or other stated similarity? N N Y N N N N N Y Psychometric Properties 4) Were temporal stability/test-retest reliability statistics or an outside source such as a standardization study reported, or was reliability stated to be acceptable? Y N N N N Y Y N Y 5) Was inter-rater reliability assessed and considered to be acceptable? Y N N N N N Y Y Y 6) Was internal consistency assessed and considered to be acceptable? Y N N N N Y Y N Y 7) Was evidence presented that the operationalized measure reflects the construct of interest? N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Controlling Variables 8) Did the author(s) control for Language? Y N N N N N N N N 9) Did the author(s) control for Ethnic/racial minority status? Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y 10) Did the author(s) control for Socioeconomic status? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11) Did the author(s) control for Grade level or age? Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 12) Did the authors equate the subjects on or control for other variables such as preexisting academic ability, curriculum, parental aspirations, etc? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 
120

Threats to Internal Validity 13) Was the study free of evidence that the equating procedure produced differential statistical regression? Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y 14) Was the outcome measure adequately aligned to the intervention? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 15) Was the unit of assignment or selection the same as the unit of statistical analysis? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 16) Was SS or CE assignment implemented as defined? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17) Was the study free from evidence that one group might also have experienced a changed expectancy, novelty and/or disruption effect that was not also experienced by the other group? Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y 18) Was the study free from attrition or change in composition effects? N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y 19) Was the study free from local history events? Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Effect Size 20) Was a mean and standard deviation or variance available for both comparison groups? N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 21) For this study, could effect sizes be generated? N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 22) Could the direction of the effect be identified for this outcome measure? N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Issues of Bias 23) Was the study published in a peer-refereed journal? N Y N N Y N Y Y Y 24) Did the authors test properly operationalized hypotheses? Y Y N Y N N Y N N 

Totals 15 16 16 12 15 14 20 15 20 

Percent of Criteria Met in Study 63% 67% 67% 50% 63% 58% 83% 63% 83

Percent of Criteria NOT Met in Study 38% 33% 33% 50% 38% 42% 17% 38% 17
121

Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies (cont’d)

Study 

Criterion 

Mensinger 

(2001) 

Proach 

(2000) 

Riordan 

(1985) 

Riordan 

(1990) 

Riordan 

(1994) 

Sanders 

(1992) 

Schneider 

and Coutts 

(1982) 

Speilhofer 

et al. (2002) 

Stables 

(1990) 

Steinback 

and 

Gwizdala 

(1995) 

Thompson 

(2003) 

Sample Characteristics 1) Were subjects individually matched? N N N N N N N N N N N 2) Were subjects drawn from the same local area? Y Y N N N Y N N N Y N 3) Were subjects matched by demographics or other stated similarity? N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N Psychometric Properties 4) Were temporal stability/test-retest reliability statistics or an outside source such as a standardization study reported, or was reliability stated to be acceptable? N N Y N Y Y N N N N Y 5) Was inter-rater reliability assessed and considered to be acceptable? N N N N Y N N N N N N 6) Was internal consistency assessed and considered to be acceptable? Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y 7) Was evidence presented that the operationalized measure reflects the construct of interest? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Controlling Variables 8) Did the author(s) control for Language? N N N N N N N N N Y N 9) Did the author(s) control for Ethnic/racial minority status? N N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y 10) Did the author(s) control for Socioeconomic status? Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 11) Did the author(s) control for Grade level or age? N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y 12) Did the authors equate the subjects on or control for other variables? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Threats to Internal Validity 13) Was the study free of evidence that the equating procedure produced differential statistical regression? Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 
122

Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies (cont’d)

Study 

Criterion 

Mensinger 

(2001) 

Proach 

(2000) 

Riordan 

(1985) 

Riordan 

(1990) 

Riordan 

(1994) 

Sanders 

(1992) 

Schneider 

and Coutts 

(1982) 

Speilhofer 

et al. (2002) 

Stables 

(1990) 

Steinback 

and 

Gwizdala 

(1995) 

Thompson 

(2003) 

14) Was the outcome measure adequately aligned to the intervention? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 15) Was the unit of assignment or selection the same as the unit of statistical analysis? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y 16) Was SS or CE assignment implemented as defined? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17) Was the study free from evidence that one group might also have experienced a changed expectancy, novelty and/or disruption effect that was not also experienced by the other group? Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 18) Was the study free from attrition or change in composition effects? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 19) Was the study free from local history events? Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Effect Size 20) Was a mean and sd or variance available for both comparison groups? N Y N N N N N N Y N Y 21) Could effect sizes be generated? N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 22) Could the direction of the effect be identified for this outcome measure? N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Issues of Bias 23) Was the study published in a peerrefereed journal? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y 24) Did the authors test properly operationalized hypotheses? Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y 

Totals 14% 15% 19% 12% 20% 15% 13% 14% 13% 12% 19% 

Percent of Criteria Met in Study 58% 63% 79% 50% 83% 63% 54% 58% 54% 50% 79% 

Percent of Criteria NOT Met in Study 42% 38% 21% 50% 17% 38% 46% 42% 46% 50% 21% 
123

Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies 

(Percentage of Studies Meeting/Not Meeting Criterion)

Criterion 

Total Meets Criterion Doesn't Meet Criterion 

Sample Characteristics 

1) Were subjects individually randomly assigned? 0 0% 100% 

2) Were subjects drawn from the same local area (such as school district, high 

school pyramid, town or named area in city)? 11 28% 73% 

3) Were subjects matched by demographics or other stated similarity? 15 38% 63% 

Psychometric Properties 

4) Were temporal stability/test-retest reliability statistics or an outside source such 

as a standardization study reported, or was reliability stated to be acceptable? 18 45% 55% 

5) Was inter-rater reliability assessed and considered to be acceptable? 14 35% 65% 

6) Was internal consistency assessed and considered to be acceptable? 27 68% 33% 

7) Was evidence presented that the operationalized measure reflects the 

construct of interest? 33 83% 18% 

Controlling Variables 

8) Did the author(s) control for Language to ensure that the language of instruction 

was English? 7 18% 83% 

9) Did the author(s) control for Ethnic/racial minority status? 20 50% 50% 

10) Did the author(s) control for Socioeconomic status? 35 88% 13% 

11) Did the author(s) control for Grade level or age? 30 75% 25% 

12) Did the authors equate the subjects on or control for other variables such as 

preexisting academic ability, curriculum, parental aspirations, etc? 33 83% 18% 

Threats to Internal Validity 

13) Was the study free of evidence that the equating procedure produced 

differential statistical regression? 36 90% 10% 

14) Was the outcome measure adequately aligned to the intervention? 40 100% 0% 

15) Was the unit of assignment or selection the same as the unit of statistical 

analysis? 36 90% 10% 

16) Was SS or CE assignment implemented as defined? 39 98% 3% 

17) Was the study free from evidence that one group might also have experienced 

a changed expectancy, novelty and/or disruption effect that was not also 

experienced by the other group? 35 88% 13% 

18) Was the study free from attrition or change in composition effects? 31 78% 23% 

19) Was the study free from local history events? 35 88% 13% 

Effect Size 

20) Was a mean and standard deviation or variance available for both comparison 

groups? 23 58% 43% 

21) For this study, could effect sizes be generated? 29 73% 28% 

22) Could the direction of the effect be identified for this outcome measure? 36 90% 10% 

Issues of Bias 

23) Was the study published in a peer-refereed journal? 25 63% 38% 

24) Did the authors test properly operationalized hypotheses? 25 63% 38% 

125

APPENDIX 5: TABLE OF STUDY OUTCOMES FOR BOYS

Pro-SS Pro-CE Null 

Outcome Total N Percent N Percent N Pe

Concurrent Academic Accomplishment 

 

 

 

 

 

1) All-Subject Achievement Test Scores 4 3 75% 0 0% 1 22) Mathematics Achievement Test Scores 9 3 33% 2 23% 4 43) Science Achievement Test Scores 3 1 33% 0 0% 2 64) Verbal/English Achievement Test Scores 6 2 33% 0 0% 3 55) Grades 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 6) Social Studies Achievement Test Scores 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 10Long-Term Academic Accomplishment 7) Postsecondary Test Scores 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 8) College Graduation 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 9) Graduate School Attendance 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 Concurrent Adaptation and Socioemotional Development 10) Self-Concept 3 1 33% 0 0% 2 611) Self-Esteem 3 1 33% 2 67% 0 12) Locus of Control 3 2 67% 0 0% 1 313) School Track and Subject Preference 7 2 29% 2 29% 3 414) Educational Aspirations 2 0 0% 0 0% 2 1015) Career Aspirations 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 16) Delinquency 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 1017) Attitudes Toward School 3 2 67% 0 0% 1 318) Time Spent per Week on Homework 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 19) Attitudes Toward Working Women 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 10Long-Term Adaptation and Socioemotional Development 20) School Completion 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 21) Postsecondary Success 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 22) Postsecondary Unemployment 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 23) Eating Disorders 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 
Table of Study Outcomes for Boys (cont’d) 

Pro-SS Pro-CE Null 

Outcome Total N Percent N Percent N Pe

24) Choice of College Major 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 25) Sex-Role Stereotyping 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 1026) Political Involvement 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 27) Percent Married to First Spouse 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 10Perceived School Culture 28) Climate for Learning 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 29) Opportunities for Leadership Roles 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 30) School Environment 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 Subjective Satisfaction 31) Satisfaction with School Environment 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 32) College Satisfaction 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 

126
127

APPENDIX 6: TABLE OF STUDY OUTCOMES FOR GIRLS

Pro-SS Pro-CE Null 

Outcomes Total 

N Precent N Precent N Precen

Concurrent Academic Accomplishment 

 

 

 

 

 

1) All-Subject Achievement Test Scores 8 5 63% 2 25% 1 13% 2) Mathematics Achievement Test Scores 11 3 27% 0 0% 8 73% 3) Science Achievement Test Scores 5 2 40% 0 0% 3 60% 4) Verbal/English Achievement Test Scores 8 1 12.5% 0 0% 6 75% 5) Grades 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6) Social Studies Achievement Test Scores 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% Long-Term Academic Accomplishment 7) Postsecondary Test Scores 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 8) College Graduation 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9) Graduate School Attendance 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Concurrent Adaptation and Socioemotional Development 10) Self-Concept 4 3 75% 0 0% 1 25% 11) Self-Esteem 3 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 12) Locus of Control 3 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 13) School Track and Subject Preference 8 5 63% 1 13% 2 25% 14) Educational Aspirations 2 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 15) Career Aspirations 2 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 16) Delinquency 3 2 67% 0 0% 1 33% 17) Attitudes Toward School 3 2 67% 1 33% 0 0% 18) Time Spent per Week on Homework 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 19) Attitudes Toward Working Women 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% Long-Term Adaptation and Socioemotional Development 20) School Completion 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 21) Postsecondary Success 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 22) Postsecondary Unemployment 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 23) Eating Disorders 1 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 
Table of Study Outcomes for Girls (cont’d) 

Pro-SS Pro-CE Null 

Outcome Total N Percent N Percent N Percen

24) Choice of College Major 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 25) Sex-Role Stereotyping 2 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 26) Political Involvement 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 27) Percent Married to First Spouse 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% Perceived School Culture 28) Climate for Learning 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 29) Opportunities for Leadership Roles 2 1 50% 0 0% 1 50% 30) School Environment 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Subjective Satisfaction 31) Satisfaction with School Environment 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 32) College Satisfaction 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 

128