by Kathy Sanford and Heather Blair
Introduction
In Canadian schools there is a continuing concern about
issues of gender, the inequities between boys and girls (Canadian Teachers’
Federation; 1990a; Canadian Council of Education Ministers, 1994, 1995,
1998; Rice & Russell, 1995), the gendered nature of school harassment
(Canadian Teachers’ Federation, 1990b; Kaufman, 1993, 1997; Larkin,
1994a, 1997; Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, 1994;
Larkin & Staton, 1993; Staton & Larkin, 1998), the need for discussions
of gender in curriculum and pedagogy (Ellis, 1993; Robertson, 1992; Rogers,
1985, 1997), and the gendered nature of literacy (Blair, 1998; Blair &
Sanford, 1999: Cherland, 1994; Gambell & Hunter, 1999; Ricker-Wilson,
1999; Wason-Ellam, 1997). Yet in spite of the advances and the contributions
of the feminist movement, of men’s movements, research, and teacher
development, issues of gender inequity continue to surface in public education.
In this paper we will discuss schools as one context in the lives of adolescents
where they are “doing gender” (Thorne, 1993), schools involved
in re-articulating what school, curriculum and pedagogy could be for girls
and boys. These are single sex programs in Canadian public schools.
Although our study has focused on three single-sex programs, many other schools across western Canada in the mid-1990s were experimenting with alternative gendered classroom constructions. These programs were only known about in their local areas, and often the experiments lasted only a brief year or two. It is our contention in this chapter that single-sex programs can provide an important way of increasing gender awareness and sensitivity in schools for adolescents, especially for girls. However, lack of gender equity policies, as well as lack of conceptualization for boys' programs, have not given the support and direction to new programs that would impact education as a whole.
In our classroom observations, it appears that issues of gender for children are easily be overlooked in policy and practice as teachers focus on individual identity rather than gendered identity. Our research has suggested that it is during early adolescence that students' gender and sex become visible characteristics for teachers to recognize. When teachers do become aware of gender issues, they think they face intractable patterns that have been firmly fixed outside of school. Two popular explanations of gendering are those of : 1) the socio-biological view that behaviour springs from the biological nature of humans, coded in the genes and a result of hormones; and 2) the internalization of gender roles following broad cultural expectations for men and women. From this perspective schools are believed to be conduits for society-wide norms, and children are passive recipients of socialization (Connell, 1996, p. 212).
Gender is firmly embedded in the institutional arrangements of schools, and creates a “gender regime.” This regime can clearly be identified in four ways:
- power relations, including supervision and authority among teachers and patterns of dominance, harassment, and control over resources among pupils;
- division of labour, work specialization among teachers such as women in humanities and men in sciences, and informal specializations among pupils;
- patterns of emotion, often associated with specific school roles such as “tough” administrators, and a prohibition on homoxexuality; and
- symbolization, such as dress and language codes.(Connell 1996, p. 215).
In our work in single-sex programs over the past five years separation by gender, or biological sex, has raised and made explicit issues such as these. In this chapter we use the both of the terms gender and sex, recognizing the limitations and essentialness of the categories of male and female, a classification based primarily on biology. We use the term gender to represent the social construction of a gendered identity. Among teachers and administrators in single sex settings, we are seeing a growing awareness of curriculum needs, pedagogical concerns, and concerns over relations of power. There is also, especially in these settings, a recognition of the gendered nature of schools, the social construction of gender, and the implications for a deeper understanding of gender for equity of outcomes. In single-sex schools and programs, gender, by virtue of its prominence, is changing the nature of these schools.
According to the public media, single-sex classrooms and programs in public schools emerged in western Canada in the mid-1990s (Chatelaine, 1996; Krueger, 1998). This marks a shift, as coeducational schooling based on the premise that the same means equal for both genders has been the norm in public education in Canada as in the U.S. for most of this century (Riordan, 1990, Tyack & Hansot, 1990). Public school policies and practices have been such that few parents, teachers or administrators considered that a return to the single sex schooling of the prior century had much educational value to offer their children. Until recently, most single-sex programs in Canada have fallen within the jurisdiction of private schools.
In 1995 there were 15 private girls’ schools in Canada. (Cannon, 1995). The long-standing and traditional girls schools such as Balmoral Hall in Winnipeg, established in 1901, the Sacred Heart School of Halifax, established in 1849, and in Montreal, established in 1861, as well as The Study in Montreal established in 1915, have histories of providing exceptional educational opportunities where girls are empowered to be both learners and leaders. Each of these schools set out to provide for their girls an excellence of academic preparation as well as curriculum that includes the contributions of women. These schools have provided for the daughters of the Canadian elite what many parents would want for their daughters. As a testimony to their academic success, the graduates of these schools have produced an inordinate number of women in leadership in both the public and private sectors in Canada. (www.bss.inforamp.net). The more recently established Linden School in Toronto, established in 1993, as Canada’s first self proclaimed “woman-centered school” (Cannon , 1995, p. 20) has emerged in a very different time and to a parent “generation weaned on the glories of equal education for all” (Cannon, 1995, p 21). Linden School administration has put women, feminism and equity on top of the agenda for their program.
Boys' only programs such as Upper Canada College in Toronto, established in 1829, Selwyn House in Montreal, established in 1908, and St George’s School in Vancouver, established in 1931 focusing on scholarship and rigorous athletics, provide a university-preparatory education for boys. Schools such as St John’s School for Boys in Alberta, established in 1957, focus on character building and discipline. Military programs also exist such as the Robert Land Academy in Ontario, established in 1978, that prepare boys for life in the military.
The establishment of single sex programming for girls in public schools, established at approximately the same time as the Linden school, demonstrates a new phenomena and awareness among a growing number of parents and educators in Canada that coeducational schooling might not be truly equitable, particularly for girls. At the time of their emergence, educational research suggested the need to provide a different kind of education for girls. There was a view that girls needed more math, science, and technology to make their education equal to that of boys. Canadian girls, it appeared by reviewing test score results, were lagging behind the boys in these critical areas (Haggerty, 1991; Erickson, 1991; Randhawa, 1991; Randhawa & Gupta, 2000).
In the mid-1990s, several school jurisdictions in western Canada instituted girls and boys separated classes at the junior high level in order to improve the girls’ performance in these areas. Included in this initiative were the school sites reported in the case studies described later in this chapter. These sites were established by interest groups such as school administrators, staff, and parents, and were established for a variety of different, often conflicting purposes. Although parental concern for educational equity was one impetus for considering single-sex schooling, there were other reasons for considering single-sex schools, including school district interest in bolstering falling school enrolments in communities with declining school age populations, a heightened public profile for some schools, an interest in financial support from industry for developing partnerships, and a concern to save public education by staving off the onset of privatization. The mid-1990s was at a time when schools had become increasingly concerned with accountability and there was a strong interest in privatization of public education (Western Report, 1996). These programs came about in a neo-conservative political climate; as Staton and Larkin (1998) suggest, a time when “there has been a return to the 'equal opportunity’ or 'lets treat everyone the same' thinking about equality, and a move away from the more political concept of ‘equity'.” ( p. 1).
With increased pressure for publicly funded independent schools the province of Alberta moved slowly toward legislation to allow Charter schools. Framed as "educational reform," legislation to allow publicly funded independent schools was passed in 1994. By 2000 there were ten charter schools in the province (www.charterschools.ca/acs.html). In response to this growing demand, some school districts opened options for “schools of choice” within public education. It is within these parameters that single-sex programs emerged.
In western Canada we found that single-sex programs emerged at the junior high and middle schools levels. There was some consensus that this is a time where schools fail girls. Adolescence is a critical time for the construction of gendered identity, and often academic success can be jeopardized. It is at this point where many girls begin to lose confidence in themselves as learners (Barbieri, 1995; Gilligan, 1982, 1993a, 1993b) and begin to question their own knowledge and authority. As we looked at the research on early adolescent girls, it became obvious that there were many questions of equity for girls that single sex programs could address.
Boys' programs were later to emerge and are more scarce. Issues for boys such as literacy and the declining interest in schools appeared in the press. The popular press highlighted selected issues for boys such as literacy achievement, exam results and concerns over their continuation to higher education and made little mention of issues of gender such as masculinity or abuse of power. The boys' only programs, and programs such as hockey schools1 created to stimulate and maintain an interest in school, often through physical activities, may deflect and /or disguise issues of gender equity by creating alternative focuses.
Certainly another reason for the development of single sex programs was parental motivation for the improvement of educational opportunities for their adolescent children by offering a broadened set of learning opportunities, safety from harassment, and elimination of distractions, i.e., the “opposite” sex. These fledgling single sex initiatives came in a variety of configurations and contexts. Those taking leadership roles in developing these programs had few models to follow and found themselves facing many new and many challenging questions. The case studies reported in this chapter show concern with all of these issues.
Equality of opportunity and equity have fundamentally different characteristics and different results; the failure to explicitly articulate the difference between the two created confusion and difficulty for the single-sex schools discussed in this chapter. As Staton and Larkin point out, "Equity is concerned with the elimination of systemic barriers and the development of policies and practices that will support equal outcomes. The 'equal opportunity’ notion of sameness overlooks structural inequities and focuses on transforming individuals to fit the dominant mold." (p.1) The lack of understanding of the differences between equity and equality on the part of program developers, administrators, and other interest groups, and the implications of these differences for schools, was one reason that single-sex programs were created without supporting foundational theory or policy.
Staton & Larkin (1993) have framed gender equity in Canadian schools in terms of access, inclusion, climate, and empowerment (AICE), a framework that we have found useful in examining the single-sex programs described in this chapter. The AICE Model of Equal Opportunity is a comprehensive and inclusive look at equity initiatives in schools.
ACCESS: Encouraging equal opportunity in instruction, particularly in fields related to nontraditional jobs; enabling young people to choose from a range of careers.
INCLUSION: Looking at gender bias in teaching and learning materials both in terms of inclusive language and content.
CLIMATE: Creating an educational atmosphere that is safe and supports equity; dealing with sexual harassment and violence against women and those of alternative sexual orientations; looking at what goes on the walls [and] what goes on in the halls.
EMPOWERMENT: Creating a space within the school where young women can develop a sense of solidarity; providing an antidote to counter the negative messages young women receive both within and beyond their schools.
Staton & Larkin (1993) suggested that, to be effective, programs of equal opportunity must give equal weight to all four components. “It’s a lot like baking a cake; you can’t leave out the eggs or the flour. Similarly, if an equal opportunity program doesn’t include all the essential ingredients, it won’t be very effective” (p. 152). Staton and Larkin also suggested that through a comprehensive approach such as the AICE Model of Equal Opportunity, educators will be tackling specific problems such as sexual harassment in a wider context of gender inequity. Examining single-sex programs from this framework may give us a way to examine existing policy and practice and a way to understand the role these can play in the transformation of current policy and practice.
Research
methods
We have investigated, through observation, interviews,
and document analysis, a range of single sex programs in Western Canada
during a four-year period from 1996 to 2000, and have focused on three
having both similar and unique features, as described in the case studies
following. These programs were identified through public media and subsequent
invitations from school administration to visit the school sites. Our
research is qualitative in nature and our goals included:
1. the exploration of the students’ perceptions
of gendered issues in single sex programs;
2. the examination of the pedagogical and curricular
practices of teachers in single-sex classrooms;
3. the analysis of local and provincial policy in relation
to these programs.
Three schools
doing single sex education
In this research we have used Staton and Larkin's AICE model
to examine the practices and policies of these three single-sex programs
in Western Canada to better understand how these single-sex programs have
contributed to gender equity for early adolescents and the implications
for policy and practice. Single-sex programs provide an important contrast
to the more commonly experienced co?educational programs and are one context
where gender becomes explicit. It is our contention that these programs
are potential sites for a transformation of educational practice that
can benefit both boys and girls. However, when applying the AICE gender
equity framework to the three sites, it appears that some components are
more easily developed in the programs than others. While access, climate,
and empowerment are evident in the programs, inclusion, i.e., examining
gender bias in classroom materials and teaching practices, requires more
action and conscious commitment on the part of the administrators and
staff.
Northpark Elementary/Junior High School
Northpark
Elementary/Junior High School is a K-8 school located in a small northern
Canadian city populated largely by people connected to the oil industry.
The oil industry attracts workers from across the country, and some families
stay only as long as there is work; others who are involved in management
are often well-established residents. The school is located in a residential
area of the town some distance from the downtown core. The single sex
program was established in 1996 for the all of the grade 7 and 8 students,
consisting of two classes of each grade. The school offered separate girls
and boys classes for math, science, and physical education, and co-ed
classes for language arts, social studies and optional classes. The student
body was comprised of approximately 120 students, the majority of whom
of European descent.
The program was initiated by the school vice-principal
and supported by the principal, who felt it important to address the educational
inequities and opportunities for girls in the areas of mathematics and
science. The reorganization involved all the students attending the school
and no additional recruitment was attempted. Parents of the students were
informed of the change and the rationale for the change through public
meetings. Rationale given by the administrative team involved research
evidence indicating improvements for girls' grades in the areas of math
and science.
The girls' classes were staffed by women and the boys’
classes were staffed by men; the same-sex modelling was seen as an important
aspect of the program. The teachers of both the boys’ and girls’
classes worked closely together to plan and develop curriculum materials,
thus offering the same content to all of the students. Parents and students
were surveyed regularly regarding their satisfaction with the program,
and, as reported by the school administration and teachers, overwhelmingly
reported their enthusiasm for the single-sex classes. The students moved
to a Grade 9 – 12 high school after their grade 8 year, and the
teachers of the high school reported a noticeable strength of the girls
in their co-ed mathematics classes (teacher interview, 1999).
The teachers, interviewed after two years of involvement in the program,
expressed a desire to continue the program, their only concern being the
lack of focus on courses not segregated by sex, i.e., language arts, social
studies, and options. From our own observations, there seemed to be a
less positive atmosphere in the coeducational classes than in the single-sex
classrooms; students arriving from a single-sex class to a coeducational
class spent considerable time in interacting to class members of the opposite
sex, gaining their attention by calling out remarks and gesturing.
In relation to Staton and Larkin's gender equity model,
there is clearly greater access to a wider range of educational opportunities
in all areas, especially for girls. Science and mathematics was the focus
of the program, ensuring that girls had increased access and encouragement.
A female math and science teacher provided the girls with a model of genuine
interest and expertise in these more traditionally male subjects. However,
the same access was not considered for the boys in terms of literacy or
humanities. As previously mentioned, the educational atmosphere in the
coeducational language arts and social studies classes was less focused
and more disruptive. There was not the same emphasis on literacy needs
for boys and less recognition of the gendered needs of boys. The climate
in the single-sex classes was one of comfort and security; in our classroom
visits we observed math and science that were taught through examples
from the students' own personal (and gendered) experiences, which enabled
students to ask more questions and relate concepts to their own previous
understandings. Teachers of the same sex were assigned to the boys' and
girls' classes, providing a further element of trust and communication.
Spaces were created within the school for a sense of empowerment to be
generated, again in the sciences, math and in physical education through
the single-sex settings. As reported by the teachers in this school and
the receiving high school, students, especially females, entered their
high school with a heightened sense of confidence in their abilities in
traditionally male subjects. Inclusion was acknowledged in classrooms
more through teachers' comments and examples rather than an examination
or change of materials being used, i.e., textbooks and worksheets. One
of the teachers acknowledged possibilities of the genderedness of her
practice, for example, the collaborative, dialogic nature of students'
work that was evident in her classes, but stressed the fact that the girls
and boys received the same subject content as she co-planned with her
male counterpart. The content of both math and science classes has been
traditionally viewed as "male" and resource materials such as
textbooks reinforce the male bias. However, these teachers, through their
gendered personalizing of the content, were attempting to connect the
content to students' previous personal knowledge and experiences.
Nancy Major Girls Junior High is an alternative program of choice in a large western Canadian city initiated in the fall of 1995 by local parents who wanted an option for academic achievement and leadership possibilities for their early adolescent girls. The parents’ council of the school was very active in the support and development of this program. There is no boys' only counterpart in the program. Nancy Major All Girls Junior High School consists of a program located in three school sites within one school jurisdiction. The first is located in a working class inner-city neighborhood very close to the downtown district. It is a multicultural neighborhood, but the students are not primarily neighborhood youth. They come to the program from all areas of the city and parents are responsible for their daughters' transportation. Some students take the public transit, others are driven, while a few of the students who live in the vicinity walk to school. In the first year, 1995, there were 80 girls, 160 in the second year, and 225 in the third. While the students are predominantly of white, middle-class backgrounds, there is a small percentage of students of Asian descent (ten percent). Apart from the students who live locally in this working class neighbourhood, they are predominantly from middle-class families. There is a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, which caused some friction in the first years of the program between some of the students and some of the parents. There are presently three classes at each grade level, Grades 7 to 9, with 220 girls in the program. After three years of operation, the program expanded to a second site that currently includes another 200 junior high girls. This site is situated in a middle class neighborhood in another district of the city, but also draws students from across the city, and includes similar racial and socioeconomic mixes as the first site. The third site was developed at the request of local parents who did not want their daughters bussed across the city to participate in the program. It is located in an area of more transient, working-class families and draws more from local areas than do the other two sites. Currently the third site has 48 girls and plans to expand to include 70 girls in the 2001 – 2001 school year. Parents and their daughters apply to get in to all three locations and in some years there have been waiting lists for entry. Student selection is made on a first-come first-serve basis upon application to the specific program site. In the spring of each year, local elementary schools are visited with presentations about the program to acquaint students with the program option, and an open house event is held at each school site for interested parents and students.
The program’s focus on science has won the school awards in recent years such as the selection of two grade nine students to go to the Canada-wide science fair. It is rare that two students from one local school are selected, and in 1999 they were the only two students selected from the entire city. One student won a gold medal. The performance was repeated in 2000, with two grade eight girls winning silver medals. Other program innovations include communication and writers’ events as well as a focus on opportunities for the girls to bridge classroom learning to the outside community and world.
The Nancy Major programs explicitly emphasize equal opportunity in all fields, and their teachers are exemplary role models particularly in the areas of mathematics and science, demonstrating their expertise and personal interest in science and mathematics. These teachers have themselves excelled in their field, and are able to demonstrate their knowledge to the students. One of the teachers orchestrated an extended Grade 9 science experience at the Bamford Marine Station on the west coast of Vancouver Island, in British Columbia provides an intensive marine biology fieldwork opportunity. The success of the trip is due, in part, to her expertise as a biologist. The field trip is challenging both intellectually and physically, and is viewed as one of the highlights of the program. Students and their parents do extensive fund-raising throughout the year in order to finance this trip which is available to all of the students. Students have access to knowledge about many types of careers, through guest-speakers and field trips to workplaces. Women in engineering, science, and the military have been invited to speak, as well as artists, writers, and other non-traditional careers.
The climate in these programs is clearly different from that of co-educational programs. Students commented about the class and school climate more than any other aspect of their single-sex programming. Some of the girls' comments included: "I feel like I can say more things, talk out loud more than I could before. Last year the boys were usually all the class clowns and everything, and they got most of the attention. And the teachers usually spent more time with them. We get more attention right now this year." This supportive climate empowers the students to envision their futures differently. They have worked with local professionals and charity organizations, volunteered as hospices, retirement homes, and environmental groups. They successfully undertake real-world problem-solving ventures, develop their own research projects, provide plans to visit research sites unaccompanied, conduct and present their own research. Students become more willing and able to take risks and assert their own voices. Inclusion is an important component of this single-sex program. Although existing traditional textbooks and examinations are still used, teachers have explicitly made changes to their teaching practices and learning materials. Students have considerable choice in areas of study, and voice in the decisions made both in the classroom and in the school as a whole. They have implemented a weekly program that involves integrating the curriculum in the community. Students develop projects that involve local organizations, research in archives and libraries throughout the city, and community events. They are expected to demonstrate collaboration and individual initiative in developing their own learning experiences. Language arts curriculum includes female author studies, writers' workshops are led by local women authors, units of study on women in media and advertising are developed.
Wood Harbour Junior High is situated in a suburban satellite community, largely white and middle-class, adjacent to a large Canadian city and has a student body of 550 students, with seven classes of each grade level. This single-sex program began at the initiative of the school guidance counselor and principal in the fall of 1997. The counselor was new to the district and had come from a school where some single-sex programming had been implemented. She thought the idea had merit, had read some research suggesting the strengths of single-sex programs for girls, and wanted to offer this alternative to the students at her new school. As a counselor, she had become very aware that many of the students' difficulties were issues relating to gender, and thought that single-sex classes would be beneficial to some students. The principal and the counselor discussed the possibilities with the school parents' council and teachers, and a decision was made that a single-sex program might benefit both boys and girls although the benefits for boys were not articulated in the same way that they were for girls. In addition to the counselor's observations that students have difficulties with the opposite sex in junior high years, there was research suggesting curriculum benefits for girls regarding math and science. Students from the elementary schools in the area were recruited to this single-sex alternative, and an open house was given for interested parents. The students were designated to the single-sex classes based on the parents’ and students’ choice, similar to the way that children were placed in the French immersion strand at this school. During its first year there were five single-sex classrooms in the school, one girls’ class for each of Grades 7 to 9, and one boys’ class in Grades 7 and 8. In the second year, the program was reduced to girls’ only at the 7th and 8th grades. The entire program was abandoned after two years, as explained below. We were involved as researchers in the spring before the program was first implemented until its finish two and a half years later. Throughout this time we had opportunities to visit this school site on a regular monthly basis, attend open-house events, staff meetings, talk informally with staff and students, act as liaison with other programs, present with staff members at conferences, visit classrooms and interview participants. The school administration was welcoming and supportive of research practices.
In this program the students took their core classes—math, science, English language arts, and social studies—as single-sex and then combined in co?educational classes for their optional courses. During the first year most of the teachers felt that the program was more successful for the girls than it was for the boys, based on the relationships they developed with the students, the relationships the girls developed with each other, the behaviour of the students, and the grades of the students at the end of the year; at the end of the year a decision was made to have only the girls component for the second year. As reported by one teacher, "It's been a really positive experience for a lot of the students; a lot of them will help each other. One girl that gets really high marks says that she will help the other girls, they'll phone her on the weekend and she'll help -- she's volunteered to help the class." The girls' math teacher also reported her observations: "I know a few girls, when we did problem solving, they wouldn't even attempt it. They'd look at the question, they'd read the question and say, 'I don't get it,' where now there is a little more -- they realize that maybe they can, and they might have to pull out a manipulative to do it, but they can figure it out. So it seems to be more risk-taking."
During the second year, although no major curriculum changes or special events were planned for the single-sex programs teachers started to talk about the selection of the material and the way they related to the girls and boys in the classes. One teacher commented, "I will approach issues in a way that is more gender oriented sometimes. I think in terms of relationships, I can ask the boys, 'What do you think the girls' point of view is here?' … And so if there's a gender issue, we are going to have an interesting input of what may not come out if that gender was in the classroom." For the third year, the school planned to reinstate the boys’ program at the 7th grade and to look at ways in which the boys’ program would be more tailored to the need of boys. The teachers were hoping to increase the time for the physical education and outdoor education component of their program, after recognizing some of the boys' needs -- "Grade seven boys are very physical, they see things physically; they see solving problems physically as the way to go at this point." The English language arts teacher was also redesigning her language arts curriculum in order to address issues of literacy for boys, examining both topics and genre in her selection of literature, the range of their media literacy, and methodological considerations to build the reader-writer connection. However, due to lack of interest on the part of the boys and their parents, and lack of support of the staff, these plans did not materialize and the entire single-sex program was discontinued. As one boy in the single-sex class reported, "My mom doesn't care if I'm in the single-sex class or not; she just thought she'd try it to see if anything would change." Although a small group of teachers on staff was committed to the concept of single-sex classes, there was considerable disinterest or opposition from other members of staff. One such teacher involved in teaching a girls' class expressed her scepticism, "In the co-ed class they meet the boy challenges all the time, and they just have to learn to put up with them if they're being teased or whatever; they're going to be right back in it next year, so what good did this experience do them?" Timetabling of a large junior high school was problematic in involving all of the interested teachers, and excluding all of the teachers who were disinterested. Therefore the commitment of some of the teachers did not exist and served to undermine the intent of the program. Additionally, the program was implemented quickly without a strong theoretical foundation and when problems arose, responses were not immediately apparent.
Nevertheless, during the two years of this program's existence, there was an obvious change in the educational climate, as noted by the girls: "It's nice because you don't get teased a lot, because they say that boys are two years behind girls in maturity, psychologically and everything, but we're all at the same level pretty much in this class, so it's nicer that way." "You're not really as embarrassed in the classes and stuff. The classes are pretty loud sometimes, but that's just because we're having friendly conversations -- we're not like we don't get our work done." The boys commented," Nobody is really mad or angry at anyone we are all just doing our own thing and stuff like that." "I like being around boys who aren't trying to influence girls to like them, because then they do bad stuff too." "You get treated differently … you get more respect from your friends, other people in your class, because there is no girls around, you get a little more respect from the teacher because he doesn't have to worry about all of those other kids."
The change in classroom climate influenced the access teachers offered their students to alternative perspectives, focus, and content. Because of the obvious element of gender in these classes, the teachers began to consider their choices in material and in their teaching strategies. The language arts teacher redesigned her curriculum in order to address issues of literacy for boys. She looked at both topic and genre in her selection of literature, the range of their media literacy, and methodological considerations to build the reader-writer connection. The social studies teacher described a difference in her class discussions: "We’ve just been talking about WWII and Japan's role in the war and the American dropping of the atomic bomb, and almost unanimously the boys said that they should have dropped the bomb. The girls said unanimously "no". Some people say that we're socialized differently as boys and girls, and that how we perceive what's just and right comes from quite different perspectives." The introduction of acceptable alternative views and interests empowered the students to speak up and voice their opinions, as well as accepting other perspectives. One teacher commented: "What is different in these classes is that I have all the girls' hands up. Every time an issue comes about, we have a lot of eagerness. Everybody has a story to tell, right? And that is also true of the boys. So there is a lot more discussion, particularly with the girls' classes." At the beginning of this program, teachers made a deliberate choice not to change their curriculum or teaching strategies. At the end of the second year, some teachers had begun to consider changes to the materials used in classes and to imagine a greater range of perspectives, but change in practice was not considered in any depth. Although inclusion was not explicitly considered in the two years of the program, due in part to the initial decision deliberately not to make any changes to the materials or methods of teaching, by the end of the second year teachers were considering changes to their approaches and resources.
As the three programs developed and teachers reflected on the realities of having student groups of only one sex in their core subject areas, they began to examine their own educational practices and pedagogy. These programs increased the teachers’ awareness of issues of gender both in education and society, such as what is valued, what is encouraged, what is ignored, and for whom. Our investigation created a window of understanding for ourselves as teachers and teacher educators, and for the teachers with whom we worked.
The Model of Equal Opportunity presented by Staton and Larkin offered a way to examine four critical aspects of single-sex programs, i.e., access, inclusion, climate, and empowerment. Using these criteria as lenses, we have examined these three western Canadian programs. Climate is clearly the aspect of single-sex programs that changes most quickly and most dramatically. Comfort, security, and trust are key elements of single-sex programs continually remarked upon by students, teachers, and parents. This positive and safe climate provides spaces within schools and classrooms that empowers adolescents to recognize and believe in themselves, which then affords them greater access to alternative careers and lifestyles. The aspect of inclusion, however, is a greater challenge to educators and administrators. Lack of supportive gender equity policy does not enable a recognition of the need for new materials, spaces in which to examine teaching practices, and examination of existing configurations of adolescents in classrooms and in schools. It is this area that demands the greatest effort, and perhaps will be the aspect that determines the success or demise of single-sex programs in western Canada.
The purposes and objectives of each of the three programs we investigated are varied, depending on the perceived needs and desires of each community and school. Underlying the inception of each of the programs was a belief in the need to address issues of gender for adolescents. Although two of the programs offered boys' only classes as well as classes for girls, the impetus for the shift has been an increasing focus on equality of educational opportunities for girls. Some of the original purposes of these single-sex classes, as suggested by the teachers and administrators in all three programs include: (a) providing opportunities for adolescents to focus more on their academic learning rather than their social concerns; (b) providing “safe and comfortable” environments for students to discuss issues of importance to them as gendered people; and (c) the need for girls to gain skills and confidence in the areas of math, science, and technology; and a developing concern for boys and literacy.
The policies and practices in each of these programs have been driven by the overall program goals, some of which have been more clearly defined than others. Several goals for single-sex education in relation to girls have been identified. The programs all list among their objectives increased confidence on the part of the girls. They want the girls to believe in their own capability (empowerment). The programs all explicitly delineated their attempt to increase opportunities for girls in math, science, and technology, the traditionally “male” subjects (access). Safety in the classroom and school and freedom from bullying, violence, and intimidation were mentioned as important (climate). Parents clearly wanted to see a greater focus on schoolwork for their daughters via a removal of distractions caused by boys in the class.
The objectives for boys were less clear, including, again, a greater focus on schoolwork and a focus on increased literacy skills and interests. Results of the 1994, 1995, and 1998 Council of Ministers of Education in Canada literacy study indicate that girls score better than boys in terms of literacy assessment. This is not to disregard the seriousness of the gender inequities in schools for girls, but rather to recognize that there may well be just as serious issues for boys when it comes to literacy. Numerous questions remain as to how Canadian schools may be shortchanging or failing boys and what role literacy plays.
Similarly educational research in Great Britain has indicated the concerns for boys in educational settings—for example, boys don’t view education positively, they don’t like to read, and some don’t read very well—and a growing percentage of boys are “failing” at school (Millard, 1997). Phillips (1998) described how British boys are faced with many pressures as they enter and progress through school. She suggested that there are few acceptable gender positions for males and that boys are expected to be tough, competitive, and independent. Application of the AICE model to boys' only classes enables us to recognize and more clearly articulate goals and objectives for boys as well as for girls.
Access, inclusion, climate, and empowerment for the young women appear to be represented in some way in each of these programs, although inclusion will require teachers and administrators to examine their own beliefs and practices in more depth and "necessitates the asking of questions which may bring discomfort and in some cases, disharmony" (Larkin & Staton, 1998). The classrooms and schools reflect a range of practices, curriculum adaptations, and school wide events that support these components of the AICE model (Staton & Larkin, 1993; Larkin & Staton, 1998). The AICE Model of educational opportunity (Staton & Larkin, 1993; Larkin & Staton,1998), while premised on the needs of girls may also have some applicability to boys. However, it is our contention that these boys programs are under-conceptualized in terms of addressing issues of gender for boys and need to clarify and focus their goals and efforts. The AICE model has offered us a coherent framework by which to examine single-sex programs and has provided us with: 1) a focus by which we can examine the impact of these three single-sex programs upon teachers, students, parents, and broader community; 2) a common language to use in discussions with teachers, administrators, researchers, and teacher educators; 3) a set of criteria to apply to other single-sex schools; and 4) a lens through which to examine the effect of single-sex schools for boys as well as girls. The AICE model has enabled us to recognize the positive effects of single-sex programs in terms of access, climate, and empowerment, while making us aware of the need to push further with policy development, research, and teaching practice to make inclusion a reality.
In terms of practice, there were both strengths and problems in the three single-sex programs described. There are shifts taking place in practices in these single-sex schools, some more obvious than others. Even the fact that there were discussions of gender in some of these schools was a major step. Teachers were coming to understand the implicit gendered nature of schooling and to explore the ways to celebrate and extend learning for both girls and boys. These teachers began to look at the gendered nature of their curricula and to change some of the resources and materials they had been using. There were, however, still problems. The fact that these discussions occurred in relative isolation remained a concern. These teachers had few places to go to discuss their common recognitions, experiences, issues, and problems. In some cases this was even true on their own staff. The hiring of staff, commitment among appointed staff, and recruitment were not easy in times of school financing cutbacks. School administrators found themselves looking for competent teachers from within their school division with little opportunity for hiring based on discussions of issues of gender. The logistics of timetabling remained a major factor and problem, in both large and small schools. With limited staff resources, administrators juggled to balance essential resources.
In terms of policy, we think that it is fair to say that these programs were developed and continue to operate, not on established policy, but rather on local working policies. It is important to note that the Canadian context is different from the United States in that there is no legislation comparable to Title IX that would challenge the establishment of these programs. Canada does have human rights legislation, but single sex programs in public education have not been challenged at any level of jurisprudence. In the western Canadian province in which this research was done there is no school division policy or province wide policy to impede or to support these single-sex initiatives. Provincial policy makes limited reference to gender equity with regard to issues of stereotyping, resources, inclusive language, and career counselling (www.teachers.ab.ca/policy, 1999). Local school board policy makes brief reference to gender: “Students shall show respect for ethnic, racial, religious, and gender differences”, (www.epsb.edmonton.ab.ca, 1998) but makes no mention of gender equity.
One local school district offers a variety of gender-suggestive alternative programs, such as a cadet/ballet academy and a "sports alternative" program. These very different programs, while suggestive of strong gender interest, are indicative of the lack of consistent board vision or policy, and demonstrate a lack of explicit focus on gender issues. Absence of policy in the school jurisdictions where the research occurred demonstrates lack of any explicit support for these gender equity alternatives.
Few school districts in Western Canada have a comprehensive gender-equity policy that encompass equity for students, and even fewer have any in?depth plan for implementation of equity initiatives. In the absence of policy and planning, these programs are carving out their own place in terms of policy development.
Yet, in conclusion, we want to reiterate that the single-sex programs we studied are changing the nature of their schools and educators' conversations about gender equity, albeit slowly. It is important that teachers, students, and administrators are beginning to acknowledge that gender matters in school. In Western Canada these programs are taking place in public schools and are looking at gender issues for both boys and girls. We acknowledge that there has been little research to support what is happening in these programs and that we have a long way yet to go, especially with the lack of support and direction of gender equity policies at provincial and national levels, to ensure that access, inclusion, climate, and empowerment are realized for all the youth in our schools regardless of their construction of gender.
References
Alberta's Charter Schools(September, 2000). Canadian Charter Schools Centre. Available: http://www.charterschools.ca/acs.html [2001, May 28].
Charter Schools in Canada: What Are Charter Schools? Canadian Charter Schools Centre. Available: http://www.charterschools.ca/wacs.html [2001, May 28].
Edmonton's Public School Board Gives Ground (Nellie McClung Junior High, A School for Girls in Edmonton). (1996). Western Report, 11(33), 42.
Where the Girls Are: All-Female Classes in Public Schools Are Catching On. (1996). Chatelaine, 69(4), 30.
American Association of University Women. (1992). How Schools Shortchange Girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
American Association of University Women. (1998). Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
Barbieri, M. (1995). Sounds of the Heart: Learning to Listen to Girls. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Blair, H. (1998). They Left Their Genderprints: The Voice of Girls in Text. Language Arts, 75(1), 11-18.
Blair, H., & Sanford, K. (1999). TV and Zines: Media and the Construction of Gender for Early Adolescents. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 103-105.
Canadian Council of Ministers of Education. (1994). School Achievement Indicators Program: 1994 Reading and Writing Assessment. Toronto, ON: Author.
Canadian Council of Ministers of Education. (1998). School Achievement Indicators Program: 1998. Reading and Writing Assessment. Toronto, ON: Author.
Canadian Teachers’ Federation. (1990a). The A Cappella Papers of the Canadian Teachers' Federation. Ottawa: Author.
Canadian Teachers’ Federation. (1990b). Thumbs Down: A Classroom Response to Violence Towards Women. Ottawa, ON: Author.
Cannon, M. (1995). No Boys Allowed: Liberating Our Daughters Used to Mean Getting Them Into Boys' Schools, But Girls' Schools are Bastions of Women's Liberation? Right On, Sister (Linden School, Toronto). Saturday Night, 110(1), 18-24.
Cherland, M. (1994). Private Practices: Girls Reading Fiction and Constructing Identity. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
Connell, R.W. (1996). Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity, and gender strategies for schools. Teachers College Record, 98 (2), 206-235.
Ellis, J. (1993). If I Were a Boy . . . : Constructing Knowledge About Gender Issues in Teacher Education. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(4), 367-393.
Erickson, G., & Farkas, S. (1991). Prior Experiences and Gender Differences in Science Achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 225-239.
Gambell, T. J., & Hunter, D. M. (1999). Rethinking Gender Differences in Literacy. Canadian Journal of Education, 24(1), 1-16.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. (1993a).
Joining the Resistance: Psychology, Politics, Girls, and Women. In L.
Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond Silenced Voices: Class, Race, and Gender
in United States Schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gilligan, C. (1993b). Meeting at the Crossroads. New York: Ballantine Books.
Haggerty, S. M. (1991). Gender and School Science: Achievement and Participation in Canada. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 195-208.
Kaufman, M. (1993). Cracking the Armour: Power, Pain, and the Lives of Men. Toronto: Penguin Books.
Kaufman, M. (1997). Working With Young Men to End Sexism. Orbit, 28(1), 16-18.
Krueger, L. (1998). Gender Contenders: Closing the Learning Gap Between Boys and Girls. Today's Parent, 15(5), 31-34.
Larkin, J. (1994a). Sexual Harassment: High School Girls Speak Out. Toronto: Second Story Press.
Larkin, J. (1994b). Walking Through Walls: The Sexual Harassment of High School Girls. Gender and Education, 6(3), 263-280.
Larkin, J. (1997). Confronting Sexual Harassment in Schools. Orbit, 28(1), 14-15.
Larkin, J., & Staton, P. (1998). "If We Can't Get Equal, We'll Get Even": A Transformative Model of Gender Equity. Canadian Woman Studies, 17(4), 16-22.
Millard, E. (1997). Differently Literate: Boys, Girls, and the Schooling of Literacy. London: Falmer Press.
Phillips, A. (1998). "It's Just So Unfair". Times Educational Supplement, pp. 14-15.
Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. (1994). Student to Student Sexual Harassment. Toronto: Author.
Randhawa, B. S. (1991). Gender Differences in Academic Achievement: A Closer Look at Mathematics. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 241-257.
Randhawa, B. S., & Gupta, A. (2000). Cross-National Gender Differences in Mathematics Achievement, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy Within a Common Intrinsic Structure. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 15(2), 51-66.
Rice, C., & Russell, V. (1995). Embodying Equity: Putting Body and Soul into Equity Education, Part II: Strategies for Change. Our Schools/Ourselves, 7(2), 42-54.
Ricker-Wilson, C. (1999). Busting Textual Bodices: Gender, Reading, and the Popular Romance. English Journal, 88(3), 57-63.
Riordan, C. (1990). Girls and Boys in School: Together or Separate? New York: Teachers College Press.
Robertson, H.-J. (1992). The Better Idea Book: A Resource Book on Gender, Culture, Science, and Schools. Ottawa: Canadian Teachers' Federation.
Rogers, P. (1985). Overcoming Another Barrier: Real Women Don't Do Math--With Good Reason! Canadian Women's Studies Journal, 6(4), 82-84.
Rogers, P. (1997). Changing Women or Changing Mathematics? A Mathematician's Story. Orbit, 28(1), 30-33.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at Fairness: How America's Schools Cheat Girls. Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan International.
Staton, P., & Larkin, J. (1993). Sexual Harassment: We Can Do Something About It. Toronto: Green Dragon Press.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender Play: Girls and Boys in Schools. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1990). Learning Together: A History of Coeducation in American Schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Wassam-Ellam, L. (1997).
If Only I Was Like Barbie. Language Arts, 74(6), 430-437.