Classroom Diversity in the Media:

With a move for equality and equity across all social circles in the recent years, some media

sources have attributed single-sex schools with inciting hegemonic masculinity in male

students; and subsequently, motivating structuralist self-concept indicative of a misogynistic

world-view. As equality and equity move into public conversations, parent and academic

concerns as to the material and life-long attitudes being cultivated in single-sex schools, are

being brought to public attention; more so are the concerns surrounding male students

attending all-boys schools, and the development of prejudicial attitudes toward women;

and to a lesser degree, the often passive and complacent sense of self, developed by

females as a result of similar single-sex schooling. This debate pertains to the effectiveness

and value of single-sex and/or coeducational schooling, specifically in relation to the

development of an individual’s self-concept, and personal attitudes toward gender equity

within society.

The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) recently released an online article written by

Samantha Selinger-Morris, titled ‘Warped views about women’: The shortcomings of single-

sex education (2016), that highlighted a parent’s concern about the “arrogant” attitudes her

son displayed in a recent conversation about the logic of men differentiating to that of

women; Selinger-Morris goes on to identify the increased “trend towards co-ed” (2016) in

Australian education as a solution to the ways in which “single-sex education leads to

gender stereotyping in both sexes”(2016). Selinger-Morris clearly highlights an equity issue

within the Australian school system: is there a direct correlation between the development

of males in single-sex schools and hegemonic masculinity.

Selinger-Morris’ text stressed the potentially adverse effect of single-sex schooling on male

students; therefore, in analysing Natasha Bita’s online text Co-ed or single-sex? Canberra
Grammar, The Armidale School, LaSalle Catholic College and All Saints make the leap (2016)

readers are provided with female perspectives of single-sex education. This female

perspective highlights both the positive and negative qualities of all-girls schools (Bita, 2016)

in relation to student self-concept; suggesting that females will greatly benefit from single-

sex education, as it provides the stage for uninhibited/confident expression whilst allowing

for the development of strong leadership characteristics essential for the workforce later in

life (Bita, 2016).

In addressing the developed beliefs of students, we are addressing their self: that is, their

self-esteem (sense of self-worth); self-concept (how do they define themselves); and social-

self (their role as a student, or member of the community), all of which are interchangeable

and essential to the recognition of their individual identities (Myers and Haslam, 2016).

Myers and Haslam (2016) state that as humans, we use ‘social comparison’ as a template by

which we describe and identify ourselves in relation to the wider community: whether we

are smart or dumb; masculine or feminine; attractive or unattractive; and as a result,

Selinger-Morris (2016) suggests that by placing males or females in single-sex education, we

are adversely affecting their processes of social comparison by seriously limiting interactions

with members of the opposite sex.

To look at how single-sex or coeducational environments affect the development of

students’ gender relations and subsequent sense of self, we must look at how gender is

constructed and performed within schools. Richardson defines gender as a performance

that is being:

“continually constructed and imposed on each of us, [gender is a] heteronormative script[s]

practically handed to us on day one. And the people in our lives (acting as producers,
 directors, and audience members) will continue to make sure we stick to the script no

improvising allowed; be your character, play your gendered performance”

(pg. 2, 2015).

This ‘script’ defined by Richardson, emphasizes the heteronormative dominant discourse

pertaining to gender: that a male performs masculinity, females perform femininity;

Rawlings concludes that “[g]ender can be…seen as the activity of regulating conduct in

recognition of the normative conceptions about what is appropriate for one’s sex” (pg. 40,

2016). Most commonly identified by the subjects within which genders usually excel: males

are for sciences, and maths; whilst females are for arts, and literature, this heteronormative

script reminds student that as participants of certain genders, they will excel (and

potentially struggle) in certain areas of the curriculum. Richardson attempts to explain the

detrimental effects of the institutionalisation of heteronormative performances on gender,

within not only educational environments, but also within the wider community; he seeks to

highlight that whilst society attempts to squash differentiating and diverse performances of

gender, we are also “limiting our children’s capabilities to be fully human” (pg. 3, 2015) that

if society were to allow multiple performances of gender, and encourage excellence in a-

typical subjects:

“their [children’s] potential to become more whole, well-rounded, and relatable would be

exponentially greater…[children] deserve the chance to be fully human, to become self-

determine and self-actualised without the imposing boundaries of gendered performances”

(Richardson, pg. 3,2015).

Dominant discourse derived from Selinger-Morris’ text suggests that males in single-sex

schools display higher levels of hegemonic masculinity with relatively low levels of
equalitarianism; whilst in Bita’s text, we can identify a trend of poststructural feminism in

female students with relatively high levels of equalitarianism in single-sex schools.

Dominant discourse recognises that boys and girls learn differently, that they are two

separate beings (Ullman, pg42, 2015) and naturally will be capable of different things; males

are seen to be more physical learners: they excel at math, sciences, and physical education,

whilst females are seen as emotional leaners: excelling at literature, arts, and social

sciences.

Much like Selinger-Morris’ (2016) article describes, this distinction has the potential to allow

for the increase in hegemonic masculinist views: guaranteeing the dominant position of

men, the subordinate position of women (Ullman, pg 43, 2015), effectively confirming

dominant gender discourse seen in the current workforce: male leaders, and female carers.

The NSW Department of Education and Training has designed and outlined a Gender Equity

Policy (2000) that defines gender; influences of nature and nurture on boys’ and girls’

gender; the multiple masculinities and femininities; concerns for boys’ and girls’ education:

as well as, how the involvement in a positive community allows young adults to interact

positively with their own definition of gender. The Gender Equity Policy (2000) is supported

by the Boys’ and Girls’ strategy support document (2001), which emphasizes the importance

of ‘open’ and inclusive teacher pedagogical practice, in creating equality and equity across

all gender identifications. Government Gender Equity Policy gives teachers and academic

administrators guidelines as to positively incorporate all genders in activities/subjects that

dominant discourse has deemed, too masculine or feminine for their prescribed gender.

In line with these guidelines, and contrary to Selinger-Morris’ views on single-sex education,

Sullivan (2009) suggests that single-sex environments allow for the open and un-judged

opportunity for males to explore subject a-typical of their prescribed gender discourse (pg
264, 2009). Sullivan (2009) suggests that males feel pressure to conform to dominant

discourse in co-ed schools, they fear being social ostracised or punished (pg 263) for a-

typical behaviour, and therefore will often underachieve or simply avoid typically feminine

subjects; this pressure however, as Sullivan (2009) states, is practically non-existent in

single-sex education, with males often seeing themselves as “above average in English” (pg

281) in these environments. Whilst Selinger-Morris (2016) identifies single-sex schools as

petri dishes for negative male social and behavioural development, and advocates that male

development is better suited for coeducation; Sullivan (2009) opposes this view in stating

that coeducation is detrimental to male education, with single-sex schools providing an

open platform for uninhibited learning.

As stated previously, Bita had suggested that females within single-sex environments often

display poststructural feminism with relatively high levels of equalitarianism; Sullivan (2009)

suggests, that much like the males in single-sex schools, females are free from social

constraints and are able to challenge dominant gender discourses in single-sex education.

Bita highlights Sullivan’s theory of single-sex education for females in including Karen

Spiller’s comment that “an all-girls environment gives girls a lot of confidence to speak up

and be heard, so that when they go out business world they’re used to being leaders

themselves” (Spiller as cited in Bita, 2016); conversely, Bita also includes comments on how

desperate for male attention some female students tend to become in single-sex

environments, as she promotes coeducation for females: “A girl who is engaging with boys

every day is more likely to stand up for herself and say “Get lost!” because she’s not so

desperate [for their attention]” (Anderson as cited in Bita, 2016). Sullivan, suggests that

single-sex education is imperative for the positive development in sense of self, and
educational practices for female students; highlighting the guidelines and strategies

developed by the Department of Education (2000).

In challenging gender binaries, poststructural feminism rely on challenging foundations in

biological determinism (Rawlings, pg 38, 2016) imposed by structuralist and masculinist

stereotypes; in attending a single-sex school, students are given the opportunity to

challenge dominant discourse and hegemonic masculinity, by enrolling in gender a-typical

subjects. Poststructural femininity acts to establish active performance of gender that

constantly shift depending on the choices of the individuals; in this sense, being able to

choose from a multitude of subjects without social constraint or discourse, allowing

students to actively engage with and alter their gender identity (Ullman, lecture given on

31/07/2017 at Western Sydney University).

In response to the Department of Education’s policies, as well as, the rising anxiety

surrounding the development of young adults, many schools developed single-sex classes

within coeducational schools; Martino, Mills, and Lingard (2005) explore this idea within a

number of schools across Australia, one of which had implemented single-sex classes for

“25 ‘naughty’ boys” (Martino et al, 2005). As these ‘naughty’ boys were supposedly

segregated from girls, into single-sex classes, it is worth noting that not all the boys within

this experiment were allocated to the single-sex class; in actuality, the school had conducted

research on a single-sex boys class, in relation to a co-ed. And found that in examining the

students’ reactions to both the single-sex and co-ed classroom, it was suggested that:

“for certain kinds of boys, the single-sex strategy had positive effects in terms of behaviour

and social outcomes, but in this case, appears to have been dependant on the teacher and

the kind of relationship he was able to develop and foster with his students”

(Martino, et al, pg 245, 2005).

Fostering positive relationships between teachers and students is being identified as a

crucial element in combating gender biases in schools, the Department of Education

devotes sections of gender inclusive policies, in recognition of the impact that teacher

behaviour and attitudes have on student beliefs.

Taking this into consideration, should we as a society, not be able to challenge the

institutionalisation of heteronormative gender through positive teacher pedagogy, and the

reinforcement of gender inclusive behaviour. The NSW Department of Education’s Boys’

and Girls’ Education strategy (2001) highlights pedagogical practice supporting “boys and

girls to achieve their potential without being constrained by gender stereotypes or limiting

notions around achievements and behaviour” (pg4). This initiative emphasizes the

importance of teacher and school culture/community in changing gendered thinking,

through three focus areas of the school framework: teaching and learning, social support,

and home, school and community partnerships (Department of Education, pg 4, 2001); this

government framework supports the importance of environmental learning that is touched

on in Martino, Mills, and Lingard’s (2016) text; and briefly touched on in Selinger-Morris’

(2016), as she quotes Dr Judith Gill:

“the quality of the educational experience – centrally involving the teachers and the school

leadership – is much more important in student’s outcomes than the ‘label’ (...single-sex or

co-ed) of the school”

(Gill cited in Selinger-Morris, 2016).

Research suggests that both single-sex and coeducational schooling, are advantageous and

detrimental, albeit that they differed in how they affected this development of self, both

contained positive and negative qualities that could prove to be harmful in the maturation

of young adults. The effectiveness co-education has in ‘crushing’ (Selinger-Morris, 2016)

hegemonic masculinity, relies on the ‘kind’ (Martino et al, pg 245, 2005) of student that is

enrolled in the school; although there is correlation between single-sex schooling and

masculinist views, there is also a correlation with coeducation schools. In an effort to

eliminate or even minimise gender bias in schools, parents, and broader community

members need to challenge biological determinism; most importantly, the need for

teachers to alter their pedagogical practices using the Department of Education’s Gender

Equity Policy (2000) and Boys’ and Girls’ strategy support document (2001) to reinforce

poststructural feministic ideals.

 Reference list:

Department of Education and Training. (2001). Leading the way in school and classroom

practice: Boys’ and Girls’ Strategy support document In Equity Programs and Distance

Education Directorate (Ed.), (pp. 54). Retrieved from:

https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-2883079-dt-content-rid-

23593110_1/courses/102083_2017_2h/BoysGirlsEd_SupportDoc_NSW.pdf

Bita, N. (2016, November 13). Co-ed or Single-sex? Canberra Grammar, The Armidale School,

LaSelle Catholic College and All Saints make the leap. ABC News. Retrieved from

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/coed-or-

singlesex-canberra-grammar-the-armidale-school-lasalle-catholic-college-and-all-

saints-make-the-leap/news-story/86ae62a3bccec3c190ddad51d6293589

Martino, W. M., Martin; Lingard, Bob (2005). Interrogating single-sex classes as a strategy for

addressing boys’ educational and social needs. Oxford Review of Education, 31 (2),

237-254 doi:10.1080/03054980500117843

Selinger-Morris, S. (2016, November 12). ‘Warped views about women’: The shortcomings of

single-sex schools. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-

11-12/he-shortcomings-of-single-sex-schools/8012090

Sullivan, A. (2009). Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling British Educational

Research Journal, 35(2), 259-288. doi:10.1080/01411920802042960

Rawlings, V. (2016). Gender Regulation. Gender regulation, violence and social hierarchies in

school: 'sluts', 'gays' and 'scrubs'. (pp31-78). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Richardson, S. (2015). Dear Mrs. Baldwin, I’m Concerned. Gender lessons: patriarchy,

sextyping & schools. (pp1-35). USA: SensePublishers. Retrieved from

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Myers, D.G. Haslam, N. (2016). The self in a social world. In T. Griffin (Ed), 101557: the

individual in Society, (3rd ed., pp73-114). North Ryde, Australia: McGraw-Hill Australia.

Ullman, J. (2015). Regulating ‘gender climate’: Exploring the social construction of gender and

sexuality in regional and rural Australian schools. Understanding sociological theory for

educational practices (pp. 39-57), Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University

Press.

Department of Education and Training. (2000). Gender Equity Policy. Retrieved from:

https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-2883078-dt-content-rid-

23593176_1/courses/102083_2017_2h/GenderEquityPolicy_2000.pdf