This article first appeared in the 2002 Edition of the Parents League Review. ©2002 Parents League of New York • (212) 737-7385 • www.parentsleague.org

A LOOK AT BOYS' SCHOOLS

by Diane J. Hulse

For some years now, girls’ schools have received favorable publicity and are gaining broad acceptance by educators, parents and much of the general public. Girls are thought to prosper in a school environment that excludes boys. Long gone are the days when girls were sent to girls’ schools to ensure their acquisition of the social graces and to enhance their chances of find-ing a suitable husband. Today, girls’ schools pride themselves on developing their students’ skills in leadership, self-assertion, scholarship, independence and professional competence.

It is still widely assumed, however, that boys are best educated in coeducational schools. Girls are necessary to help civilize boys, common wisdom suggests. Boys will become sexist, aggressive and unfeeling men unless girls exert a humanizing influence on them.

It is time to dispel the myth that girls’ schools may be beneficial for girls, but coeducation is better for boys. The truth is: single sex schools are beneficial to boys as well as girls. In a boys’ school that supports and nurtures boys’ healthy, holistic development, many of the problems faced by boys in coeducational schools seem to diminish. Just like girls in girls’ schools, if given the proper guidance, boys can flourish when the other gender is not present.

In a boys’ school, boys seem to have more options available to them as they define their own masculinity. They are not as likely to be stereotyped by their own and other’s expectations for what a boy should be. Boys in boys’ schools can simultaneously sing in the chorus and be terrific basket-ball players. They can love poetry and be budding young scientists. It is common for boys in my school to love opera, ice hockey and history all at the same time. We have violinists and chess players, debaters and artists, wrestlers and politicians. Sometimes these characteristics are found simultaneously in one boy; other times they are spread among many boys. In a coeducational school, on the other hand, the number of boys in chorus or other traditionally female activities is often limited. Coeducational schools may have their fair share of male poets, dancers and opera fanatics, but it is less likely that coed school boys who have these interests will be able to avoid being suspected of unmanliness.

The public single sex school initiatives in California, which warranted front page coverage in The New York Times on October 9, l997, suggest that the advantages of a boys-only environment for boys are being recognized on a national level. This is not surprising to many of us who work in boys’ schools. My research comparing boys in single sex and coed schools and an extensive review I made of the research literature on elementary school children, adolescents, the adolescent subculture, academic achievement, sexism, gender roles, self-esteem and the history of coeducation delineate many advantages of a single sex school education for boys.

Research shows that boys’ school boys (and girls’ school girls) are less stereotypical in their subject choices and area preferences than are boys (and girls) in coeducational schools. Other research demonstrates that Lower School boys lag behind girls in many skills. Research shows that American elementary school classrooms have a female orientation and a feminine inclination. Behaviors that are traditionally female, such as sitting quietly and listening, processing language aurally and being polite and neat, are favored by teachers. Boys do not do as well with these expectations as girls do. Boys are often less successful than girls in Lower School, and the female orientation of coeducational classrooms may explain the discrepancy. Compelling data show that single sex school students are less susceptible to peer pressure than students in coed schools. In my recent study of Middle School boys, boys’ school boys were found to have more egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles for both men and women than coeducational school boys.

If these research studies are accurate, how might one explain the differ-ences that are found between a supportive, nurturing boys’ school environment and a supportive, nurturing coeducational school environment? Several possible explanations warrant inclusion here.

First, boys in boys’ schools do not get cast as the opposite of girls. Boys are not expected to act manly in contrast with girls’ womanliness. In a single sex school, neither gender is perceived as the opposite of the other gender. Comparisons among students are drawn only within one gender, not to the other gender. Boys’ school boys can be themselves with less self-consciousness because their myriad interpretations of maleness are less stereotyped by expectations of others. They are not expected by others to act like a preconceived notion of boy-ness and masculinity. They are boys; they are male.

Because of the endless variations of masculinity in a boys’ school, it seems easier for the boys themselves -- and for other people -- to accept boys as they are without prejudging what they might be. Perhaps that factor is as liberating for boys in a boys’ school as it is for girls in a girls’ school. A shy, intelligent, sensitive boy is less likely to be labeled a nerd in a boys’ school, just as an assertive female in a girls’ school is not usually perceived as un-feminine.

Second, in a boys’ school, boys can focus on learning, and teachers can focus on boys’ specific learning needs. When there are no girls present, boys can proceed at their own pace, unencumbered by the comparisons to girl’s achievement. Elementary school girls learn better through oral language than boys do, and girls’ fine motor skills are more fully developed than boys’. Boys are more physically active than girls and have a shorter attention span. Boys learn better by manipulating their environment, not listening to it. Boys mature more slowly than girls. Classroom lessons in a boys’ school, designed around boys’ ability to focus and boys’ learning styles, do not place boys at a disadvantage.

In high school, the boy/girl success relationship is often reversed. Boys become favored, and girls may withdraw. Boys are called upon by teachers more frequently in class, and girls’ self-esteem has been shown to decline. Girls disappear into them-selves. Girls’ schools are committed to and successful at positively altering this tendency of girls. I would suggest that the withdrawal of girls, however, in coeducational schools may be just as disconcerting to boys as it is to girls. Boys’ perceptions of girls may replicate the girls’ perceptions of themselves. The boys are undoubtedly aware that girls are being less assertive than boys in coeducational classrooms, and boys may consequently believe that girls are less assertive because they are less able. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, the serious implications for this possibility suggest that stereotypes may actually be reinforced when boys and girls are taught together. My data support this hypothesis.

Third, in Middle School, other needs of boys become apparent. Boys’ schools often devote a significant amount of time to physical education because of boys’ need to be active. In my own school, for example, we have seven physical education periods per week for boys in grades five through eight. It barely feels sufficient to meet boys’ needs. In the Middle School classroom, boys’ school boys may feel safer taking risks and making mistakes because they can hone their academic foundation skills without worrying about what the girls think. Middle School girls’ verbal skills are often more highly developed than boys’ and boys can be viciously targeted by girls’ sharp tongues. In response, some boys in coeducational classrooms withdraw from trying, masking their pain with bravado.

Fourth, in many coed schools, dating pressure starts as young as fourth and fifth grades, and continues throughout Middle and Upper School, dominating social relationships. This is rarely a factor at a boys’ school where boys do not need to have a girlfriend in order to be popular. The mating and dating scene is less of a presence or a pressure on students in single-sex schools.

Even the most casual observer knows that physical and emotional maturity differences between adolescent boys and girls are often huge. Whereas many adolescent girls are already young women, many adolescent boys are still children who want to play rough and tumble, jump on each other’s backs and chase their buddies around the beverage table. In a single sex school, students can concentrate on academics. Distraction, concerns about sexual prowess and worry about being accepted by the opposite gender are less likely to usurp part of the academic day in a single sex school.

What about boys in our society in general? How are they faring? Does the fact that 99% of America’s children are educated in coeducational schools have anything to do with problems that face our boys? It is impossible to ignore the fact that many of America’s male children are not flourishing. Whether one looks at drop out rates, domestic violence, male suicide rates, the number of boys in special education, the preponderance of prisoners who are male or the unethical practices of some of our highly placed government officials, the evidence of a crisis for boys is powerful. There is no doubt that our society continues to discriminate against girls, but boys are not faring well either. In fact, if girls are supposed to be exerting a civilizing influence on boys in coeducational schools, then girls are not doing their job effectively.

Although independent schools may be isolated from many of the vicissitudes of society’s problems, they are not immune. Gender role contradictions, conflicting images of maleness, behavior expectations that deny feelings and the resultant difficulties are the common lot of all of our boy children. All boys are deluged with images of maleness that include violence, aggression and ruthlessness, images that contrast sharply with what we want our boys to become when they grow up.

We want boys to become good parents, supportive mates, contributing citizens. Yet, we expect them to be powerful, stalwart, manly and ambitious. We say that we want boys to be sensitive, but they are not supposed to cry. We expect males to be successful, but we don’t want them to be unnecessarily competitive. We want boys to become supportive fathers, but few of our textbooks show males as caregivers. Few workplaces offer paternity leave. It should be no surprise that many boys act out in a variety of ways, finding these contradictions stressful, disconcerting and difficult to assimilate.

By any measure, it is tough to grow up in today’s world. The pressures and the expectations that are placed on young people are well documented for both boys and girls. As we seek solutions to the problems facing our schools and our children, it behooves us to question some of our very basic assumptions about schooling. Do boys need a school environment that removes gender role expectations from the equation? Do boys have a better chance of becoming balanced human beings if they are in a single sex school? Do boys and girls learn better together or separately? What works best for girls? What works best for boys?

These questions may be difficult to consider, but they must be addressed. Our children spend 10,000 hours of their adolescence in school. We need to get it right.

When writing this article, Diane J. Hulse was the Head of the Middle School at Collegiate Schoo. She is  author of “Brad and Cory: A Study of Middle School Boys,” a monograph comparing boys in single sex and coeducational schools published by the International Boys’ Schools Coalition.

Suggested Bibliography:

Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys by Daniel Kindlon and Michael Thompson. Ballantine Books.1999.

Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood by William Pollack, Forward by Mary Pipher. Owl Books. 1999.