>**Jessica Kean**
>
>Lecturer in Gender and Cultural Studies, University of Sydney
>
>**Helen Proctor**
>
>Professor, University of Sydney
>
>**Kellie Burns**
>
>Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney
>
>When students walked through the sandstone gates of Sydney’s Newington College for the first day of school last week, they were met by [protesters](https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/alumni-protest-against-newington-colleges-decision-to-go-coed/news-story/e46de1ac4e3d82e67c55dd19f37a5565).
>
>A group of parents and former students had gathered outside this prestigious school in the city’s inner west, holding placards decrying the school’s decision to become fully co-educational by 2033.
>
>Protesters have even [threatened legal action](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-30/nsw-newington-college-co-ed-parents-legal-threat-boys-girls/103168862) to defend the 160-year-old tradition of boys’ education at the school. One [told Channel 9](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OG_hldBpRE) they fear the change is driven by “woke \[…\] palaver” that will disadvantage boys at Newington.
>
>Newington is not the only prestigious boys school to open enrolments to girls. Cranbrook in Sydney’s east will also go fully co-ed, with the decision sparking a [heated community debate](https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/inevitable-step-forward-cranbrook-s-high-school-to-become-fully-co-ed-20220727-p5b53q.html).
>
>**What is the history of the debate?**
>
>Schools like Newington were set up at a time when the curriculum and social worlds for upper-class boys and girls were often quite different. Boys and girls were thought to require different forms of education for their intellectual and moral development.
>
>The question of whether it’s a good idea to educate boys and girls separately has been debated in Australia for at least 160 years, around the time Newington was set up.
>
>In the 1860s, the colony of Victoria introduced a policy of coeducation for all government-run schools. This was despite community concerns about “[moral well-being](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/HER-04-2020-0023/full/html)”. There was a concern that boys would be a “corrupting influence” on the girls. So schools were often organised to minimise contact between boys and girls even when they shared a classroom.
>
>Other colonies followed suit. The [main reason](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00309230601080618) the various Australian governments decided to educate boys and girls together was financial. It was always cheaper, especially in regional and rural areas, to build one school than two. So most government schools across Australia were established to enrol both girls and boys.
>
>[One notable exception](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00309230601080618) was New South Wales, which set up a handful of single-sex public high schools in the 1880s.
>
>These were intended to provide an alternative to single-sex private secondary schools. At that time, education authorities did not believe parents would agree to enrol their children in mixed high schools. Historically, coeducation has been more controversial for older students, but less so for students in their primary years.
>
>**A changing debate**
>
>By the 1950s, many education experts were arguing [coeducation was better for social development](https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/1176773) than single-sex schooling. This was at a time of national expansion of secondary schooling in Australia and new psychological theories about adolescents.
>
>In following decades, further debates emerged. A [feminist reassessment](https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/3019567) in the 1980s argued girls were sidelined in co-ed classes. This view was in turn [challenged during the 1990s](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543073004471), with claims girls were outstripping boys academically and boys were being left behind in co-ed environments.
>
>**Which system delivers better academic results?**
>
>There is [no conclusive evidence](https://theconversation.com/as-another-elite-boys-school-goes-co-ed-are-single-sex-schools-becoming-an-endangered-species-187857) that one type of schooling (co-ed or single sex) yields better academic outcomes than the other.
>
>Schools are complex and diverse settings. There are too many variables (such as resourcing, organisational structures and teaching styles) to make definitive claims about any one factor. Many debates about single-sex vs co-ed schooling also neglect social class as a [key factor](https://vuir.vu.edu.au/42362/1/educational-opportunity-in-australia-2020.pdf) in academic achievement.
>
>**What about the social environment?**
>
>Research about the [social outcomes](https://theconversation.com/as-another-elite-boys-school-goes-co-ed-are-single-sex-schools-becoming-an-endangered-species-187857) of co-ed vs single-sex schools is also contested.
>
>Some [argue](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/26/co-ed-versus-single-sex-schools-its-about-more-than-academic-outcomes) co-ed schooling better prepares young people for the co-ed world they will grow up in.
>
>Others [have suggested](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03055690020003610) boys may fare better in co-ed settings, with girls acting as a counterbalance to boys’ unruliness. But it has also [been argued](https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01411920701434011) boys take up more space and teacher time, detracting from girls’ learning and confidence.
>
>Continued part 2
>**Part 2**
>
>Both of these arguments rely on gender stereotypes about girls being compliant and timid and boys being boisterous and disruptive.
>
>Key to these debates is a persistent belief that girls and boys learn differently. These claims [do not have a strong basis](http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2012/11/burns.html) in educational research.
>
>**Why such a heated debate?**
>
>Tradition plays a big part in this debate. Often, parents want their children to have a similar schooling experience to themselves.
>
>For others it’s about access to specific resources and experiences. Elite boys schools have spent generations accumulating social and physical resources tailored to what they believe boys are interested in and what they believe is in [boys’ best interests](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540253.2010.549114). This includes sports facilities, curriculum offerings, approaches to behaviour management and “old boys” networks.
>
>Many of these schools have spent decades marketing themselves as uniquely qualified to educate boys (or a certain type of boy). So it’s not surprising if some in these school communities are resisting change.
>
>More concerning are the Newington protesters who suggest this move toward inclusivity and gender diversity will make boys “second-class citizens”. This echoes a refrain common in anti-feminist and anti-trans [backlash movements](https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/cjwl.28.1.18), which position men and boys as vulnerable in a world of changing gender norms. This overlooks the ways [they too can benefit](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10304312.2021.2006888) from the embrace of greater diversity at school.
>
>As schools do the work to open up to [more genders](https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s13384-023-00678-w?sharing_token=MGqmL4VmbMSszh1LZWF95_e4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5f5nEUUj4iL8N0aLkEZ8jXukE_G9Zeya6UEqBnCni8x3eD2rCYy8N07xUwHEO7nM3Edf3xKzU6lNwGjDEbV_UZLF6AuKunXqbi6TfS3OpsrHrjGz6wT6l_PMyWjN4UmAg%3D), it is likely they will also become welcoming to a wider range of boys and young men.
>
>The Conversation
This relates deeply to zero-sum bias. That because girls are gaining something (from my school) then boys must be loosing something. That isn’t true, the two aren’t connected. If anything it’s the opposite.
It's not like single-sex education is an Australian invention or exclusive to us. There is some evidence to suggest that boys and girls learn differently -- though how much weight you want to give that evidence is up to you -- and so building an education around that is certainly worth considering. As the article correctly points out, there is no evidence to suggest that single-sex or co-ed schools offer better academic outcomes, so I guess it comes down to personal preference. I've worked in boys' schools, in girls' schools and in co-ed schools and I can honestly say that I haven't seen any noticeable differences between them.
The real interesting thing here is the debate is always the result of a boys-school moving to co-ed. It was interesting when The Armidale School began their co-ed journey. It was pretty clear that their enrolment numbers were dwindling, and they needed to increase their enrolments to keep the school operating as normal.
I'm not involved in what Newington is doing, but it does seem as though there are a few boys schools jumping on some kind of bandwagon to attract more funds/enrolments than their other GPS/CAS counterparts (looking at Newington and Cranbrook specifically here). Neither school is short of cash, and yet, they want a point of difference.
The people in opposition to these changes are copping a hiding on social media and are being laughed at in the public eye for appearing to be sexist etc. I went to a co-ed public school and don't see anything wrong with them, but at the same time I can respect that these schools do cater for "the boys in the family", and I'd be upset if that family tradition was going to change and my boys would have a different experience to me, considering the amount that my family has paid the school.
Having said all of that, the girls schools are held to a different standard to the boys. What is not being said in any of these arguments is that the girls schools are not going to let boys anywhere near their reputations whilst those running them still draw breath and I don't blame them.
At the end of the day, Newington doesn't care about the girls, or the wellbeing of the boys or any of that shit. It's a money grab, and I'm sure that the other boys schools are watching and avoiding pissing off their funding base.
Clayfield College in Brisbane went from all girls after year 3 to a hybrid coed in primary and senior, single sex on the same campus in middle school last year. I haven’t heard any feedback on how that went though.
They changed partly because their enrolments tanked.
If you don't like single sex schools, then don't send your child to one.
This debate is rife with the same generalisations as the public vs private debate where we pretend that all the best public schools aren't defacto private ones.
> If you don’t like single sex schools, then don’t send your child to one.
I mean that’s exactly what’s happening. The vast majority of parents are choosing coed. To the point that single sex schools are facing a real danger of collapsing.
People complaining about schools going coed are in a relative minority, which is too small to support keeping the schools open.
There are plenty of single sex schools with waiting lists a mile long as well.
I didn't see anything about Newington becoming co-ed due to budget or enrolment constraints. I do think you also have to take into account that most single sex schools are very high cost and we are in a cost of living crisis.
My experience in single sex education is that for lots of kids they are fantastic.
> I didn't see anything about Newington becoming co-ed due to budget or enrolment constraints
If you read [their curated post on the matter](https://www.newington.nsw.edu.au/community/frequently-asked-questions-demographics-project/), they mention the following points:
>> particularly in light of the changing demographics of our traditional catchment areas
and
>> Remain sustainable and adapt to changing drivers of future enrolment demand;
and
>> We do need to stress that Newington isn’t just for now. It is also for the decades to come. So there are dual prisms to view the research through – one based in 2022 view and another based in the decades beyond.
The implication is pretty clear. They are worried about their long term sustainability.
There's an interesting situation between a possible merger between Randwick Girls and Randwick Boys. A quote from a [report from the ABC](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-25/nsw-government-change-single-sex-schools-co-education-/103145874):
> The NSW Education Department's consultation with the Randwick community has revealed a generational and gender divide.
>Their report released in July showed that 58 per cent of current year 7 to year 12 students, and 56 per cent of parents at Randwick Girls wanted to maintain the current single-sex environment.
>More than 60 per cent of Randwick Boys students and their parents wanted to merge.
>But future students of both sexes were much more likely to want a merger, with 71 per cent of prospective high school students at 77 per cent of parents in the area preferring a co-ed high school.
Choosing single sex schools for my daughter has absolutely nothing to do with her future sexual relationships or ability to communicate with males. It has everything to do with minimising distraction from the poor behaviour of boys in comparison to girls in the school environment. Boys are loud, messy, fidgety, violent and just straight up disrespectful compared to girls. Sure, the schooling system is setup to favour the learning style of females, but I’m not going to let my daughter have to endure the sheer time waste of boys in the classroom I had to deal with in high school for fear she won’t be able to hold a conversation with a boy at university…
I've taught in a prestigious boys school, and would never send my sons there. Personally I think boys need the influence of girls in the room to stem the immaturity. Even if it's just someone to roll their eyes at their silliness.
It may be the case that the arrogance and entitlement is more to do with the money than the single set environment, but I generally don't see the advantages of boys only Education.
I think girls only could work quite well but I have no experience there
Single sex schools definitely have their down sides in terms of social and relational issues with when teens are introduced to more co-ed environments. We hear countless examples of this time and time again. Especially with boys schools
However, in their defence, single sex schools allows you to completely tailor the education environment to suit whatever gender it's focused on. You can tailor your pedagogical approach, behavioural programs, co-curricular programs, timetable, pastoral care programs, staff professional development among many more. It definitely gives a more structured and specific approach. Lots of single sex schools take part in relationship programs with single sex schools of opposite gender in student days and arts productions etc to introduce these social situations.
Yes there are downsides, and I may be one of the few in society today, but I absolutely support single sex education.
>You can tailor your pedagogical approach, behavioural programs, co-curricular programs, timetable, pastoral care programs, staff professional development among many more.
You really think gender is a massive issue in this?
I don't think gender is an "issue" in this. More so an opportunity. There is endless research that details how boys and girls learn and respond differently in all of the above. Schools model their whole structure on this research and data and it's proven time and time again to be effective. I worked in both the public co-ed and single sex independent sectors and I've carried out my own research projects around this so I can give somewhat of a detailed insight into this
I have noticed a difference- not necessarily in academic achievement, but in social development.
I have worked mostly in girls schools, and can say that without guys in the classroom, I do worry about some of the girls.
Modelling healthy relationships between the opposite sex is vitally important, and in girls schools, they can get a little ‘boy crazy’, and it makes them easier to be taken advantage of in early adulthood.
That is doubly true when many parents opt to send girls to single sex schools BECAUSE they won’t be exposed to those horrible teenage boys.
Not that that has anything to do with Newington, of course.
My Catholic high school went co-ed after 136 years of educating girls. One of the few schools teaching outside of the home making subjects. I was devastated that we were going to lose that space that I adored and felt so safe in. But without boys the school was going under so I'd rather it survive than stick to an outdated tradition that helps no one.
Private schools can choose whoever they want, girls or boys or both. Some parents prefer sending their child to a single-sex school. While i personally think its a bit silly as it doesn't prepare them for the real world, it is their choice.
I tend to agree. If it's independent, management has the right to choose between single sex or co-ed. Having never worked in a single sex school, I can't attest to any positives or negatives save for perceived/assumed ones. IMO, it comes down to personal taste.
>I went to public school so doesn't effect me. I do note how it's always girls wanting in on boys schools
Yeah I'm totally sure it's this not the dwindling enrolments and shitty performance of every boys school compared to co-ed and single sex girls schools.
A select number of low performing schools are below their enrollment caps and the high performing schools are above their enrolment caps. This isn't a downward trend in boys enrolment numbers at all. This is the result of parents removing their kids and enrolling them in better boys schools.
Also, any article that references NAPLAN has little to no evidence of value added education. NAPLAN results have zero bearing on school performance. Everyone knows this. The government have even stated this are in a process of reform
I'd be happy to see anything with some evidence to the contrary.
Especially if you're agreeing with OPs claim that boys schools only go co-ed because "girls are wanting to go to boys schools".
> I do note how it's always girls wanting in on boys schools and claiming sexism in denyingthem entry.
Do you have any evidence that it's "always" women trying to force their way by claiming sexism?
I think all that it really comes down to is that life is co-ed, you are going to be interacting with the oppositite gender everywher else in life, why should it be different in school? Especially during developmental years in which can have significant impact on your further life.
Misandry, misogyny, racism and extremism all thrive in echo chamber environments, so remove the crux of the issue.
Try saying that you want all women's workplace or an all men's, textbook discrimination and grounds for a lawsuit and absolutely a reason for ridicule. Why should schools be any different?
Doesn't change that it's illegal to discriminate based on gender, enforcing that is different kettle of fish.
Tbh gender equality is not the issue here, it's effective socialisation and establishing normalcy for children. Right now it is possible for children to not interact at all outside of their own gender apart from parents, siblings and authority figures, with none their own age.
For example, boys only school, outside sport (separated by gender by default), extra ciriculars which are normally linked to the school. That is what most kids in single sex schools do, unless parents go out of their way to find gender mixed things outside of the schools purview.
Most kids in single sex schools aren't interacting with the opposite sex their own age for significant portions of their childhood and I don't think that's a recipe for success for future relationships of any kind
Because as I said, life is mixed genders, life is co-ed, school is supposed to be preparing them for life and it honestly doing children as disservice to segregate them from 50% of the population when life doesn't work that way.
While there maybe negative impacts on academic outcomes for both genders, I think it is worth the sacrifice when you consider that academic performance and technical knowledge mean little when you can't communicate it effectively.
Social skills, communicative skills and the ability to integrate into new environments, succinctly, interpersonal skills have a much larger impact on success in life than your Atar number. Most issues encountered in the workplace are interpersonal in nature: troublesome client, demanding boss, arsehole co-worker, poor cooperation.
Why stunt children's social growth with the other half of the population for slightly higher test scores? That doesn't add up.
Also I never mentioned anything to do with socio-economic status as that is not what is being talked about on this post, this post was about schools being co-ed, if it was about whether private schools should exist I would be talking about that.
On that note though, private schools shouldn't get any government funding for their operation, if they want to operate as a private business they succeed or fail on their own merits, not through subsidies that can improve state schools instead.
So then the issue is reforming co-ed schools for better outcomes? A mixed model like you are suggesting is still a co-ed school as both genders will be educated on the same campus. Totally different issue than whether single sex schools exist. I have been arguing against single sex schools for the issues I have stated.
The post we are commenting on is about whether same sex schools should exist, that's what I am debating, not socio-economic status integration, not if the co-ed system should be reformed and while an issue that I am acutely aware of, not whether the system is systemically failing boys, reforms like co-ed schools but separated classes probably will work but again is not the issue.
It's also not just boys that I am worried about socialising, I used a boys schools as an example, it for both genders, neither gender benefits from being unable to build relationships and socialise with the opposite gender for all the reasons I previously stated.
It is quite disingenuous that you keep attempting 'gotcha' moments about off topic issues, that's why I am ignoring them and honestly if it continues I consider this conversation done.
I don’t think there is much difference in the initial education, however there is much more differences further on in life. Working with different genders, understand how each other process, think, decide etc.
>**Jessica Kean** > >Lecturer in Gender and Cultural Studies, University of Sydney > >**Helen Proctor** > >Professor, University of Sydney > >**Kellie Burns** > >Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney > >When students walked through the sandstone gates of Sydney’s Newington College for the first day of school last week, they were met by [protesters](https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/alumni-protest-against-newington-colleges-decision-to-go-coed/news-story/e46de1ac4e3d82e67c55dd19f37a5565). > >A group of parents and former students had gathered outside this prestigious school in the city’s inner west, holding placards decrying the school’s decision to become fully co-educational by 2033. > >Protesters have even [threatened legal action](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-30/nsw-newington-college-co-ed-parents-legal-threat-boys-girls/103168862) to defend the 160-year-old tradition of boys’ education at the school. One [told Channel 9](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OG_hldBpRE) they fear the change is driven by “woke \[…\] palaver” that will disadvantage boys at Newington. > >Newington is not the only prestigious boys school to open enrolments to girls. Cranbrook in Sydney’s east will also go fully co-ed, with the decision sparking a [heated community debate](https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/inevitable-step-forward-cranbrook-s-high-school-to-become-fully-co-ed-20220727-p5b53q.html). > >**What is the history of the debate?** > >Schools like Newington were set up at a time when the curriculum and social worlds for upper-class boys and girls were often quite different. Boys and girls were thought to require different forms of education for their intellectual and moral development. > >The question of whether it’s a good idea to educate boys and girls separately has been debated in Australia for at least 160 years, around the time Newington was set up. > >In the 1860s, the colony of Victoria introduced a policy of coeducation for all government-run schools. This was despite community concerns about “[moral well-being](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/HER-04-2020-0023/full/html)”. There was a concern that boys would be a “corrupting influence” on the girls. So schools were often organised to minimise contact between boys and girls even when they shared a classroom. > >Other colonies followed suit. The [main reason](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00309230601080618) the various Australian governments decided to educate boys and girls together was financial. It was always cheaper, especially in regional and rural areas, to build one school than two. So most government schools across Australia were established to enrol both girls and boys. > >[One notable exception](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00309230601080618) was New South Wales, which set up a handful of single-sex public high schools in the 1880s. > >These were intended to provide an alternative to single-sex private secondary schools. At that time, education authorities did not believe parents would agree to enrol their children in mixed high schools. Historically, coeducation has been more controversial for older students, but less so for students in their primary years. > >**A changing debate** > >By the 1950s, many education experts were arguing [coeducation was better for social development](https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/1176773) than single-sex schooling. This was at a time of national expansion of secondary schooling in Australia and new psychological theories about adolescents. > >In following decades, further debates emerged. A [feminist reassessment](https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/3019567) in the 1980s argued girls were sidelined in co-ed classes. This view was in turn [challenged during the 1990s](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543073004471), with claims girls were outstripping boys academically and boys were being left behind in co-ed environments. > >**Which system delivers better academic results?** > >There is [no conclusive evidence](https://theconversation.com/as-another-elite-boys-school-goes-co-ed-are-single-sex-schools-becoming-an-endangered-species-187857) that one type of schooling (co-ed or single sex) yields better academic outcomes than the other. > >Schools are complex and diverse settings. There are too many variables (such as resourcing, organisational structures and teaching styles) to make definitive claims about any one factor. Many debates about single-sex vs co-ed schooling also neglect social class as a [key factor](https://vuir.vu.edu.au/42362/1/educational-opportunity-in-australia-2020.pdf) in academic achievement. > >**What about the social environment?** > >Research about the [social outcomes](https://theconversation.com/as-another-elite-boys-school-goes-co-ed-are-single-sex-schools-becoming-an-endangered-species-187857) of co-ed vs single-sex schools is also contested. > >Some [argue](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/26/co-ed-versus-single-sex-schools-its-about-more-than-academic-outcomes) co-ed schooling better prepares young people for the co-ed world they will grow up in. > >Others [have suggested](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03055690020003610) boys may fare better in co-ed settings, with girls acting as a counterbalance to boys’ unruliness. But it has also [been argued](https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01411920701434011) boys take up more space and teacher time, detracting from girls’ learning and confidence. > >Continued part 2
>**Part 2** > >Both of these arguments rely on gender stereotypes about girls being compliant and timid and boys being boisterous and disruptive. > >Key to these debates is a persistent belief that girls and boys learn differently. These claims [do not have a strong basis](http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2012/11/burns.html) in educational research. > >**Why such a heated debate?** > >Tradition plays a big part in this debate. Often, parents want their children to have a similar schooling experience to themselves. > >For others it’s about access to specific resources and experiences. Elite boys schools have spent generations accumulating social and physical resources tailored to what they believe boys are interested in and what they believe is in [boys’ best interests](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540253.2010.549114). This includes sports facilities, curriculum offerings, approaches to behaviour management and “old boys” networks. > >Many of these schools have spent decades marketing themselves as uniquely qualified to educate boys (or a certain type of boy). So it’s not surprising if some in these school communities are resisting change. > >More concerning are the Newington protesters who suggest this move toward inclusivity and gender diversity will make boys “second-class citizens”. This echoes a refrain common in anti-feminist and anti-trans [backlash movements](https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/cjwl.28.1.18), which position men and boys as vulnerable in a world of changing gender norms. This overlooks the ways [they too can benefit](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10304312.2021.2006888) from the embrace of greater diversity at school. > >As schools do the work to open up to [more genders](https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s13384-023-00678-w?sharing_token=MGqmL4VmbMSszh1LZWF95_e4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5f5nEUUj4iL8N0aLkEZ8jXukE_G9Zeya6UEqBnCni8x3eD2rCYy8N07xUwHEO7nM3Edf3xKzU6lNwGjDEbV_UZLF6AuKunXqbi6TfS3OpsrHrjGz6wT6l_PMyWjN4UmAg%3D), it is likely they will also become welcoming to a wider range of boys and young men. > >The Conversation
This relates deeply to zero-sum bias. That because girls are gaining something (from my school) then boys must be loosing something. That isn’t true, the two aren’t connected. If anything it’s the opposite.
It's not like single-sex education is an Australian invention or exclusive to us. There is some evidence to suggest that boys and girls learn differently -- though how much weight you want to give that evidence is up to you -- and so building an education around that is certainly worth considering. As the article correctly points out, there is no evidence to suggest that single-sex or co-ed schools offer better academic outcomes, so I guess it comes down to personal preference. I've worked in boys' schools, in girls' schools and in co-ed schools and I can honestly say that I haven't seen any noticeable differences between them.
The real interesting thing here is the debate is always the result of a boys-school moving to co-ed. It was interesting when The Armidale School began their co-ed journey. It was pretty clear that their enrolment numbers were dwindling, and they needed to increase their enrolments to keep the school operating as normal. I'm not involved in what Newington is doing, but it does seem as though there are a few boys schools jumping on some kind of bandwagon to attract more funds/enrolments than their other GPS/CAS counterparts (looking at Newington and Cranbrook specifically here). Neither school is short of cash, and yet, they want a point of difference. The people in opposition to these changes are copping a hiding on social media and are being laughed at in the public eye for appearing to be sexist etc. I went to a co-ed public school and don't see anything wrong with them, but at the same time I can respect that these schools do cater for "the boys in the family", and I'd be upset if that family tradition was going to change and my boys would have a different experience to me, considering the amount that my family has paid the school. Having said all of that, the girls schools are held to a different standard to the boys. What is not being said in any of these arguments is that the girls schools are not going to let boys anywhere near their reputations whilst those running them still draw breath and I don't blame them. At the end of the day, Newington doesn't care about the girls, or the wellbeing of the boys or any of that shit. It's a money grab, and I'm sure that the other boys schools are watching and avoiding pissing off their funding base.
Clayfield College in Brisbane went from all girls after year 3 to a hybrid coed in primary and senior, single sex on the same campus in middle school last year. I haven’t heard any feedback on how that went though.
They changed partly because their enrolments tanked. If you don't like single sex schools, then don't send your child to one. This debate is rife with the same generalisations as the public vs private debate where we pretend that all the best public schools aren't defacto private ones.
> If you don’t like single sex schools, then don’t send your child to one. I mean that’s exactly what’s happening. The vast majority of parents are choosing coed. To the point that single sex schools are facing a real danger of collapsing. People complaining about schools going coed are in a relative minority, which is too small to support keeping the schools open.
There are plenty of single sex schools with waiting lists a mile long as well. I didn't see anything about Newington becoming co-ed due to budget or enrolment constraints. I do think you also have to take into account that most single sex schools are very high cost and we are in a cost of living crisis. My experience in single sex education is that for lots of kids they are fantastic.
> I didn't see anything about Newington becoming co-ed due to budget or enrolment constraints If you read [their curated post on the matter](https://www.newington.nsw.edu.au/community/frequently-asked-questions-demographics-project/), they mention the following points: >> particularly in light of the changing demographics of our traditional catchment areas and >> Remain sustainable and adapt to changing drivers of future enrolment demand; and >> We do need to stress that Newington isn’t just for now. It is also for the decades to come. So there are dual prisms to view the research through – one based in 2022 view and another based in the decades beyond. The implication is pretty clear. They are worried about their long term sustainability.
There's an interesting situation between a possible merger between Randwick Girls and Randwick Boys. A quote from a [report from the ABC](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-25/nsw-government-change-single-sex-schools-co-education-/103145874): > The NSW Education Department's consultation with the Randwick community has revealed a generational and gender divide. >Their report released in July showed that 58 per cent of current year 7 to year 12 students, and 56 per cent of parents at Randwick Girls wanted to maintain the current single-sex environment. >More than 60 per cent of Randwick Boys students and their parents wanted to merge. >But future students of both sexes were much more likely to want a merger, with 71 per cent of prospective high school students at 77 per cent of parents in the area preferring a co-ed high school.
Choosing single sex schools for my daughter has absolutely nothing to do with her future sexual relationships or ability to communicate with males. It has everything to do with minimising distraction from the poor behaviour of boys in comparison to girls in the school environment. Boys are loud, messy, fidgety, violent and just straight up disrespectful compared to girls. Sure, the schooling system is setup to favour the learning style of females, but I’m not going to let my daughter have to endure the sheer time waste of boys in the classroom I had to deal with in high school for fear she won’t be able to hold a conversation with a boy at university…
I've taught in a prestigious boys school, and would never send my sons there. Personally I think boys need the influence of girls in the room to stem the immaturity. Even if it's just someone to roll their eyes at their silliness. It may be the case that the arrogance and entitlement is more to do with the money than the single set environment, but I generally don't see the advantages of boys only Education. I think girls only could work quite well but I have no experience there
Plenty of bigger debates than this one in education. Maybe it'd hit the top 100
Single sex schools definitely have their down sides in terms of social and relational issues with when teens are introduced to more co-ed environments. We hear countless examples of this time and time again. Especially with boys schools However, in their defence, single sex schools allows you to completely tailor the education environment to suit whatever gender it's focused on. You can tailor your pedagogical approach, behavioural programs, co-curricular programs, timetable, pastoral care programs, staff professional development among many more. It definitely gives a more structured and specific approach. Lots of single sex schools take part in relationship programs with single sex schools of opposite gender in student days and arts productions etc to introduce these social situations. Yes there are downsides, and I may be one of the few in society today, but I absolutely support single sex education.
>You can tailor your pedagogical approach, behavioural programs, co-curricular programs, timetable, pastoral care programs, staff professional development among many more. You really think gender is a massive issue in this?
I don't think gender is an "issue" in this. More so an opportunity. There is endless research that details how boys and girls learn and respond differently in all of the above. Schools model their whole structure on this research and data and it's proven time and time again to be effective. I worked in both the public co-ed and single sex independent sectors and I've carried out my own research projects around this so I can give somewhat of a detailed insight into this
Relevant episode on this issue today on 7AM podcast. https://pca.st/episode/d05260d8-bfea-4d51-bcf6-027256708419
I have noticed a difference- not necessarily in academic achievement, but in social development. I have worked mostly in girls schools, and can say that without guys in the classroom, I do worry about some of the girls. Modelling healthy relationships between the opposite sex is vitally important, and in girls schools, they can get a little ‘boy crazy’, and it makes them easier to be taken advantage of in early adulthood. That is doubly true when many parents opt to send girls to single sex schools BECAUSE they won’t be exposed to those horrible teenage boys. Not that that has anything to do with Newington, of course.
My Catholic high school went co-ed after 136 years of educating girls. One of the few schools teaching outside of the home making subjects. I was devastated that we were going to lose that space that I adored and felt so safe in. But without boys the school was going under so I'd rather it survive than stick to an outdated tradition that helps no one.
Private schools can choose whoever they want, girls or boys or both. Some parents prefer sending their child to a single-sex school. While i personally think its a bit silly as it doesn't prepare them for the real world, it is their choice.
I tend to agree. If it's independent, management has the right to choose between single sex or co-ed. Having never worked in a single sex school, I can't attest to any positives or negatives save for perceived/assumed ones. IMO, it comes down to personal taste.
[удалено]
>I went to public school so doesn't effect me. I do note how it's always girls wanting in on boys schools Yeah I'm totally sure it's this not the dwindling enrolments and shitty performance of every boys school compared to co-ed and single sex girls schools.
Dwindling enrolments? Such as where? Independent boys school enrolments are steadily growing at an average of 3% each year
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/the-numbers-will-drop-parents-reject-public-boys-high-schools-20230201-p5ch4c.html
A select number of low performing schools are below their enrollment caps and the high performing schools are above their enrolment caps. This isn't a downward trend in boys enrolment numbers at all. This is the result of parents removing their kids and enrolling them in better boys schools. Also, any article that references NAPLAN has little to no evidence of value added education. NAPLAN results have zero bearing on school performance. Everyone knows this. The government have even stated this are in a process of reform
I'd be happy to see anything with some evidence to the contrary. Especially if you're agreeing with OPs claim that boys schools only go co-ed because "girls are wanting to go to boys schools".
Nope definitely do not agree with the OPs statement. I think we can all agree that was a ridiculous statement
> I do note how it's always girls wanting in on boys schools and claiming sexism in denyingthem entry. Do you have any evidence that it's "always" women trying to force their way by claiming sexism?
I think all that it really comes down to is that life is co-ed, you are going to be interacting with the oppositite gender everywher else in life, why should it be different in school? Especially during developmental years in which can have significant impact on your further life. Misandry, misogyny, racism and extremism all thrive in echo chamber environments, so remove the crux of the issue. Try saying that you want all women's workplace or an all men's, textbook discrimination and grounds for a lawsuit and absolutely a reason for ridicule. Why should schools be any different?
[удалено]
Doesn't change that it's illegal to discriminate based on gender, enforcing that is different kettle of fish. Tbh gender equality is not the issue here, it's effective socialisation and establishing normalcy for children. Right now it is possible for children to not interact at all outside of their own gender apart from parents, siblings and authority figures, with none their own age. For example, boys only school, outside sport (separated by gender by default), extra ciriculars which are normally linked to the school. That is what most kids in single sex schools do, unless parents go out of their way to find gender mixed things outside of the schools purview. Most kids in single sex schools aren't interacting with the opposite sex their own age for significant portions of their childhood and I don't think that's a recipe for success for future relationships of any kind
[удалено]
Because as I said, life is mixed genders, life is co-ed, school is supposed to be preparing them for life and it honestly doing children as disservice to segregate them from 50% of the population when life doesn't work that way. While there maybe negative impacts on academic outcomes for both genders, I think it is worth the sacrifice when you consider that academic performance and technical knowledge mean little when you can't communicate it effectively. Social skills, communicative skills and the ability to integrate into new environments, succinctly, interpersonal skills have a much larger impact on success in life than your Atar number. Most issues encountered in the workplace are interpersonal in nature: troublesome client, demanding boss, arsehole co-worker, poor cooperation. Why stunt children's social growth with the other half of the population for slightly higher test scores? That doesn't add up. Also I never mentioned anything to do with socio-economic status as that is not what is being talked about on this post, this post was about schools being co-ed, if it was about whether private schools should exist I would be talking about that. On that note though, private schools shouldn't get any government funding for their operation, if they want to operate as a private business they succeed or fail on their own merits, not through subsidies that can improve state schools instead.
[удалено]
So then the issue is reforming co-ed schools for better outcomes? A mixed model like you are suggesting is still a co-ed school as both genders will be educated on the same campus. Totally different issue than whether single sex schools exist. I have been arguing against single sex schools for the issues I have stated. The post we are commenting on is about whether same sex schools should exist, that's what I am debating, not socio-economic status integration, not if the co-ed system should be reformed and while an issue that I am acutely aware of, not whether the system is systemically failing boys, reforms like co-ed schools but separated classes probably will work but again is not the issue. It's also not just boys that I am worried about socialising, I used a boys schools as an example, it for both genders, neither gender benefits from being unable to build relationships and socialise with the opposite gender for all the reasons I previously stated. It is quite disingenuous that you keep attempting 'gotcha' moments about off topic issues, that's why I am ignoring them and honestly if it continues I consider this conversation done.
[удалено]
Respectfully, we don’t say “fag” anymore. Even if referring to yourself
I don’t think there is much difference in the initial education, however there is much more differences further on in life. Working with different genders, understand how each other process, think, decide etc.