Single sex debate ... again

[MN164]

Gut feeling, single sex feels wrong and co-ed is "natural".

It's a topic of hot debate and strong feelings. It's also a choice that isn't available to many students anyway so is only relevant to about 10%-15% of parents/students.

All that said today, yet another piece in the press causes me to ask again - given the levels of misogyny in society but also amongst teenage boys wouldn't you choose single sex education for your daughter if you had such a choice available?

Here's today's piece in the Guardian

"Up to 60% of girls and young women aged 13 to 21 report sexual harassment at school or college, according to the Girls’ Attitudes survey."

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/dec/02/sexual-harassment-party-daily-life-british-girls-girlguiding-uk

There is also quite well established research that shows that not only do girls perform better academically in a single sex school environment, they are also more likely to choose maths and science more freely plus there appears to be no damage to their ability to form relationships with men later in life. On top of that they tend to earn more.

www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/page.aspx?sitesectionid=363&sitesectiontitle=Single-sex+schools

Then there is also the perhaps self-perpetuating dominance of single sex schools in the league table, but that's even more narrow a focus.

(leaves the door open and waits for various posters - TP? )

So I did some more digging. This report pulls together a lot of research into STEM subjects and includes some words on Gender and school types.

On top of that the "survey" they did shows that society at large continues to hold strong gender stereotypes for certain subjects and careers.

It shows that the picture is improving, but very slowly, and it confirms that there is better balance at single sex (and independent) schools for girls.

"At school level, the same proportion of girls and boys take all three sciences up until age 16. At A-level however, some gender gaps appear, slightly in favour of girls for biology with larger gaps in favour of boys for mathematics and physics. The number of females taking Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics A-level has increased, but at a lower rate than for males. This does mean that nationally, more young people of both sexes are studying STEM subjects, which is to be celebrated. An often quoted figure is that only one in five A-level physics students are female, a proportion that has not improved in 20 years. The uptake of physics does vary by school type with independent and single sex schools enrolling a higher proportion of girls to study STEM A-levels. Nearly half of state schools, however, didn’t send a single girl on to do A-level physics. In Wales figures even are more worrying. In 2013 there were falls in the number of girls studying every science subject at A-level, alongside an increase for boys. This was most pronounced in Physics with an 11% fall for girls but a 5% increase for boys. It is a crisis in participation, not performance with girls outperforming or matching their male peers’ grades."

sciencecampaign.org.uk/CaSEDiversityinSTEMreport2014.pdf

I should hate my daughter to attend a single-sex school. Life is mixed sex. I went to both single-sex schools (with uniform) and a mixed-sex school (without uniform) and the massive relief I felt on starting at a non-uniform mixed sex school remains with me to this day! I never looked back. Men my age who went to single-sex schools are mostly awful. My friends, of both sexes, are always from mixed-sex schools.

However, I do think that both girls and boys need (plenty of) extra-curricular activities in which they can retreat into femaleness or maleness.

Bonsoir

"However, I do think that both girls and boys need (plenty of) extra-curricular activities in which they can retreat into femaleness or maleness."

None of the issues identified by the research would be issues if we had a gender-blind society with egalitarianism. The world isn't like that and is full of gender stereo-typing and embedded misogyny/patriarchy.

What do you mean by "femaleness or maleness"?

I don't think they are issues. The world over, more boys than girls want to study maths and physics.

Boys like playing football/rugby/chess with other boys. Males together. Etc

The world over, more boys than girls want to study maths and physics.

So how do you explain the huge variations in these figures between countries? Is this also innate? How come some countries have gender balance on undergraduate maths and physics courses but the UK averages at most 40% women on maths courses (less on the more academic, research oriented courses), 15-20% women on physics and engineering courses? Meanwhile the grandes ecoles in France have far fewer women again - a typically physics class will have only 1 or 2 women.

How can this all be innate - are French women really so different (genetically and otherwise) from their British counterparts? Are they both so different from the women in countries which have gender balance for maths and physical science degrees?

And looking at engineering and physical sciences jobs: typically at most 10% of the top jobs (professors, team leaders, lab directors etc) are taken by women in the UK, but the percentages are often higher in other countries. Again is this all innate: women in the UK just don't want these jobs, they're happy sitting there at lecturer level or at other relatively junior positions, happy not to progress, but women in other countries feel differently and that's why have more representation at senior positions? For the 20-40% of women who start out in engineering and physical science: did this figure drop to 10% at higher levels simply because women don't want to carry on working - the evidence is against this explanation, many women see a glass ceiling at lower levels despite working full-time, despite not having children.

Even if we accept that far fewer women than men want to go into engineering and physical sciences, this is not sufficient on its own to explain why the percentage of women falls off at every transition point. On the other hand the latter is at least partially explained by the widespread reporting by women working in these areas of gender discrimination, which is at its worst in fields in which women are particularly under-represented.

You can tweak the relative attractivity of maths and physics at different points in the education system (and you cannot compare Grandes Ecoles d'Ingenieur to UK Engineering degrees - the former are much further down the line in terms of a heavy diet in maths/physics) to have greater female participation but, as you illustrate in your post, it largely comes out in the wash.

It is just not true that it comes out in the wash: there is considerable variation in the percentage of women in higher level positions between countries (both within Europe and elsewhere). Why would it be OK for the representation of women in the UK in a given field to be 10% if it averages 20-30% throughout most of the world?

The Grandes Ecoles have very low female participation and I just don't see how that can be acceptable: if around the world (in the very very top universities) at least 10-15% of a given field is female, why is it OK for the Grandes Ecoles to have less than 5% women at the undergraduate level in that same field (and far less at researcher/professor levels)? Surely the onus is on them to explain why so few women are accepted.

Grandes Ecoles are not undergraduate level: they recruit students after two extremely intense years of Prepa and a brutal competitive entrance examination. Getting into a good Prepa (a prerequisite for getting to a good Grande Ecole) is itself highly competitive. The degree you leave a Grande Ecole with is a European (ie Bologna standard) Masters.

have been at work
will do some data mining tomorrow when less tired

Grandes Ecoles de Commerce have 50% female participation. Same arms race to get to a good Prepa, same brutal two year cramming and competitive entrance.

Bonsoir

"I don't think they are issues. The world over, more boys than girls want to study maths and physics."

Wow. Just wow. That's exactly the sort of blind acceptance of subject stereotyping and patriarchy that exists "the world over".

Are you really saying that women just don't like maths and physics because of their gender or, worse, because they just aren't as good at it?

Sorry, but that it nonsense, utter nonsense.

Uilen's incorrect French Grandes Ecoles example is a case in point: why do as many French girls choose Prepa Grande Ecole de Commerce as boys, while so few girls choose Prepa Grande Ecole d'Ingenieurs? It is actually less competitive to secure a decent Prepa place for Ingenieurs than Commerce and 99.9% of French lycées are mixed and the good students for the best Prepa all do Bac S... There is no institutional bias but there is personal preference.

I know perfectly well what the grandes ecoles are and I was clearly referring to physical sciences (engineering) rather than commerce, since the entire debate was about female participation in maths, physics and engineering.

It is frankly ridiculous to say that grandes ecoles students are automatically better than students majoring in physical sciences/maths/engineering at MIT or Caltech. Of course academically one has to compare first year grande ecole with junior/senior year at US but the female participation in the latter is considerably higher than in the grandes ecoles programmes. (Again, I am referring to physical sciences.)

It's hysterical that Bonsoir doesn't think there is a problem - please go talk to any women associated with these programmes to find out about institutional sexism at its worst. (I am talking from direct experience here.)

This debate seems to have been going on for years OP. The Institute of Physics has published a report recently see link www.agsa.org.au/icms_docs/139324_School_influence_on_girls_studying_physics.pdf but little progress seems to have been made in recent years. These seems to suggest that it's not just the school but that there are also other issues here e.g. socioeconomic background.

I did a project on girls studying Science at advanced level in the 1990s as part of my PGCE. Most of the research showed that the reason most girls opted for Biology rather than Physics at A level was that girls were more interested in careers working with people, whereas Physics was perceived as being about "things". The other factor that was important in girls studying Science was having an adult role model, usually a parent (either mum or Dad) but could also be a sibling, who had studied Science at an advanced level. So girls with parents already working as Scientists, Engineers, Computing or in medical careers are more likely to have daughters who also enter these fields. Since these careers are high earning there may be more pupils with this type of background at single sex independent schools so it may not just be the teaching.
It does also have to be said though that these careers are not particularly family friendly and that many women to move into other areas when they have families so yes there are issues in the real world beyond education.

See also www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/half-of-all-britains-coed-state-schools-dont-have-a-single-girl-studying-physics-at-alevel-9756200.html for a recent newspaper report but the IOP is more factually accurate.

You are still getting it wrong, Uilen. You cannot possibly compare a first year Grande Ecole student to a third year university student for the simple reason that the Grande Ecole student has gone through two extremely difficult selection procedures, not one. Every time there is an additional hurdle based on pure academic competition (and not the spurious mixture of extra curricular and academic that still hasn't been properly exposed as rigged for entrance to US universities), you eliminate those who are less able and less motivated. It is hardly a secret that US university entrance is full of quotas. The French system isn't. Thank goodness.

A friend of ours who is a mathematics professor in three HE establishments, one in the US, one in the UK and one in France (X) and a genius mathematician) does not rate US undergraduates one little bit.

45% of Terminale S (Maths and Sciences bac) which is the prerequisite for Prepa Ingenieurs (and for the best Prepa Commerce) are girls.

31% of girls passing Bac S get > 14/20 mean mark (minimum needed for Prepa Ingenieur or Commerce) versus 26% of boys.

catslife I wish that someone would tell girls then that some parts of physics need communicators desperately and they can only make a positive difference. I'm in medical physics and it's particularly good for equality. (And in the NHS, good maternity leave! Not insignificant...) Not all physics sub-specialities are as friendly.

Another couple of soundbites: I don't have parents in science, Dad worked a desk in the local council and Mum a secretary. They still don't know where I came from . It was a hard slog getting past family prejudices/snarky comments about being an eternal student or doing a man's job. Ugh. (Have thick skin - good job.)

{Soapbox alert} However among the PhD students I was with, the men have all done better (mostly) than the women - me included - as they have the perceived freedom to go and become parts of the bigger organisations, like the professional bodies, or travel to conferences, and thus progress their careers more, as they weren't expected to be the ones to take on school runs etc once they had families. Societal expectations for adult female roles are a much bigger issue than expectations for schoolchildren. I would dearly love to take on some responsibility in my professional body, but they require overnight meetings, or ones that go on in London way past school run time, and DH works f/t too and he is expected to leave all that crap to me and not do half the runs. I have to negotiate a week's academic conference months in advance so he can reorganise his workplace so he can do one damn week's worth of wife-work. (I am bloody a bit cross here, sorry.)

The only women I know who have surmounted this one, have jobs (or husbands!) with ridiculous salaries and so they can afford a nanny. Aka they have a wife to do the running about.

And breathe...

Moonbells

That's a very enlightening story. It neatly shows that females have challenges that males don't in all quarters. Family prejudices, peer pressures, education, professional and work/life balance.

There is a "feminist" thread through the issue of single-sex vs co-ed that I find fascinating but also rather pressing to get to a sort of "conclusion" on .... (DD year 4).

moonbells I can identify with what you're saying absolutely. I would have preferred to have a career in Scientific research, but found that most local employers weren't that keen on employing a married woman in her early 20s, when I finished my postgraduate degree, so opted for teaching as this fitted in better with having a family.
Yes I did A level Physics and went to an all girls school so perhaps that was a factor. But does it help if all that does is make a female less prepared for being out-numbered by men at degree level or in the world of work?
There is a shortage of engineers but perhaps if STEM careers were better at retaining staff (particularly female) that would help to address the skills shortage.
I am however faced with the question as with all types of education what is more important: having parents who support learning or the type of school or is it a mixture of both?
I have often wondered if I would have chosen Science subjects had I attended a co-ed school. However my daughter, who is at a co-ed comp, has chosen 2/3 STEM subjects as GCSE options despite being in classes dominated by boys, so perhaps that's my answer. On the other hand, has she chosen these subjects because both myself and my OH have degrees in STEM subjects? At the end of the day we cannot be sure, but at her school there has been no gender stereotyping regarding GCSE subjects and they are definitely her choice.
HTH

I have a definite preference for my DD to attend an all-girls secondary.

One of the main reasons is that she is likely to hit puberty late, for medical reasons as well as familial history - my mother, MIL and I were all late bloomers (around 17).

At my co-ed grammar school, there was huge pressure to have a boyfriend and it was very hard when friends all had boobs and were dating and I was stuck looking like a 10 year-old at 15/16. My self-esteem was fairly shot to pieces by the time I left.

I saw the same thing happen to my male cousin who didn't grow until he was nearly 18. All very well when the girls all think you are cute and sweet, but don't want to date you because you look and sound like a child.

Yes there is giggling about boys in an all-girls school and many may have boyfriends out of school, but it's not in your face at every lesson and every breaktime.

One of my friends had problems for the opposite reason - she matured early and had a very large bust than a lot of adolescent boys were rather fixated by. She felt quite threatened with 6th form boys coming on to her when she was 12 and basically being defined by her bust for years.

I mentioned the late puberty issues to an Ed Psych recently and her advice was to opt for a single-sex school.

My DD goes to an all girls school. though there is an extermely high level of bitchyness my DD has a group of friends who just don't care about being girly. In the mornings she doesn't feel the need to spend large amounts of time applying make up or doing her hair as her opinion is she goes to an all girls school, who is she gonna impress and she'd rather spend the extra time in bed.

There are groups of girls who do get obsessive over boys and we have a local boys school. However i feel its atleast good that they aren't constantly with them as they probably focus slightly more this way.

I'd be interested to see the reports of non sexual harrassment as well. I myself went to a co-ed school and most of the bullying I encountered was actually non sexual and equally spread across the genders i.e. the girls were equally likely to be "bullying" (I don't think we called it that then).
I have 2 DS and I worry that in a single sex school they won't learn to be courteous and respectful of women - I know growing up through the teenage years is tough for everyone but surely as parents, teachers, schools we all have a responsibility to help teach those teens that it's just not acceptable to harrass people. If we segregate them then that only solves the problem by removing it - and potentially pushing it to uni or work....
I guess it's hard to know - if I had girls maybe I would feel differently.

@moonbells - I totally agree with you. I remember years ago interviewing some senior women for a dissertation. One of them said "all the good and interesting jobs assume you have someone at home looking after your private life". That is still true today to a great extent. We are lucky enough to be able to afford a nanny. Not everyone is. And by and large it is more unusual to see men splitting the responsibilities equally - and certainly not expected by their work colleagues. Juggling 2 careers is a massive challenge.

dh and I both went to single sex secondary schools and one of our motivations in moving a few years back was to avoid having to send our children to single sex schools (very few other options in our old London borough).

One reason is that we wanted our children to go to the same school, another that I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of segregation, and the third was that dh in particular did not enjoy his schooling (I moved to a boys school with girls in the sixth form)

We are very happy with the mixed comprehensive that our children now attend. It's likely that dd will go down a more arty route than her brother but she has been that way inclined since she was fairly small. I think she will do biology as her required science where ds is thinking about chemistry and physics (our school system requires a science to grade 11).