This week I’ve decided to postpone the continuation of my previous post on what and who is school for, in light of a recent article in the SMH regarding the gender-based school argument. The article in question begins with a story of a family who desperately want to send their three girls to a co-ed school, but claims that there are few co-ed options in the part of the eastern suburbs where family lives. As a former resident of the eastern suburbs of Sydney, I actually have a lot to say about the lack of public high-school options in the eastern suburbs, but suffice to say that despite there not being enough public-school options for my linking, there are both single-sex and co-ed public high school options in the eastern suburbs. These may not be in the specific suburbs where this family lives, but there are options. However, those are the public high schools, once we get to independent private schools and systemic Catholic schools, the co-ed options seem to disappear.
The gendered school debate is not a new one, nor is it going to be resolved anytime soon, but since it is in the news, I thought that I might be able to shed some light on the debate, albeit a one-sided light of my choosing. The arguments presented in the article for both single-sex and co-ed schools are all valid, but what the article and the people quoted in the article miss is that simply having a choice is more important than the choice that one might make when it comes to schooling. One point put forward toward the beginning of the article suggests is that it is difficult to do high-quality research comparing single-sex and co-educational schools, which is abjectly wrong. It would not be difficult at all to compare like v like single-sex versus co-educational schools. While the point made about the students and the teachers being different is correct, that doesn’t make the research hard or the results contentious. There are numerous ways to account for variables and there have even been single-sex schools that have recently amalgamated into co-educational schools, which would make for ideal environments to do the research. I think what makes the research difficult is knowing what metrics by which to compare schools. If they are looking at academic achievement, this can be as easy as compering NAPLAN scores or HSC results at various single-sex and co-educational schools that are similar on other metrics. If, on the other hand, they are trying to measure the confidence levels of a specific gender in. specific school or are trying to negate the stereotypes that affect boys and girls in co-educational settings then a different set of metrics need to be applied. If the schools are moving to co-ed to prepare students for life post-school when they will have to deal with all these issues in a co-mingled workplace and society, then yet another set of metrics need to be measured? While all these are discussed in the article as reasons why a school might stay single-sex or become co-educational, we simply don’t have any idea of what is driving these decisions and how the schools plan to measure the outcomes.
I hate to always come back to the same point, but what we really need to know is, what schools are trying to achieve by being or becoming either single-sex or co-educational? The article discussed various schools that are currently considering or have recently changed from single-sex to co-ed, without going into why the schools decided or are deciding to make the change. As an academic, I think it is imperative that schools are making rational evidence-based decisions on all matters that could impact on students’ achievement and well-being. But, from my perspective, it just seems like the decisions are based on populism, rather than on a strategy to achieve a certain end.
Are schools trying to raise achievement? Are they looking to improve well-being? If one of these or something else, they need to establish a baseline going into the change and then measure the impact to see if that change actually reaches the desired result. In an educational landscape that has seen so much of teachers’ work change in recent years in regards to measuring teacher impact on students, it seems that when we go a level higher to schools and systems, those same accountability measures don’t translate. I don’t have any particular insight into any of the schools mentioned in this article, but I do have particular insight into another amalgamation and what I can say in that regard and what I think applies to some or most of these schools, is that it seems to be more a case of trying it out and hoping it doesn’t fail miserably, than having a plan of action with measurable outcomes.
When we think about the impact of substantial changes to students’ schooling, one would often think about achievement, but those interviewed for the SMH article discuss almost every facet about schooling except achievement. This leads the readership to believe that these schools are focused on the social impact of school and student well-being, but the discerning reader should be cautious here.
While those quoted in this article are not talking about achievement or grades, which is something I would usually applaud, I think it is completely out-of-sync with what happens in schools. I can’t speak about any one of these schools with any authority, but schools in general are focused on improving results, which has resulted in 2/3 of teachers reporting teaching specifically to NAPLAN tests, which results in less time spent on other curriculum areas and school priorities, such as well-being and sociability. And when it comes to HSC results, the author of this SMH article wrote another SMH article only 5 months ago that reported on the ‘perverse incentive’ of schools trying to maximise HSC Band 6 results, because those are what gets published and impact on future enrollments.
If we really think about the importance of this article, what it may imply, but I think should say more specifically, is that there is no one-size fits all model for schooling. Different schools have different visions for their students. The real winner here is society writ large because there is a choice. Unfortunately, that choice often favours those who can pay for the school they want and/or who have the ability or desire to send their children farther then the local school to seek out the educational institution they believe will maximise their child’s potential. That said, what this article really highlighted for me is that schools don’t want to be portrayed as only interested in the achievement of their students, although this is likely what they really care about, but rather they want to be seen as holistic educational institutions that are focused on student well-being and helping students become the best version of themselves. While this sounds amazing and something to be lauded, it is diminished by the perpetuation of standardised tests; a focus on NAPLAN and HSC results; and, an outdated system of marks, grades and reporting that only values academic achievement.
Maximising Student Potential 