Mathematics Education Research Journal 1997, Vol. 9, No.3, 274-291

Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School: ,Highlighting Parents' Perspectives

Gilah C. Leder and Helen]. ForgaszLa Trobe University

A program of single-sex mathematics classes at one coeducational high school wasevaluated in 1993 and again three years later in 1996. On both occasions, data weregathered from students, teachers and parents. While also drawing on findings fromstudents and teachers, the focus of this article is on parents' perceptions. In bothyears more parents supported the program than were opposed to, it. However,support appeared to have waned over the three-year period. The influence of factorsboth inside and outside the classroom and the school which may partially help toaccount for the findings are discussed.

Introduction

Many students-both males and females-do well in mathematics andcontinue with these studies when they are no longer compulsory. Yet subtleinequities in mathematics learning outcomes persist in Australia (Barnes & Horne,1996; Leder & Forgasz, 1992) and many other Western countries. Although morefemales than males complete high school and proceed to university, the former areconsistently found to be under-represented in the most demanding mathematicsoptions at the school level and in related tertiary courses and occupational fields.Many explanatory models and intervention programs have, respectively, been putforward and tried (Leder, Forgas:l & Solar, 1996). Delivering mathematicseducation in a single-sex rather than coeducational setting represents oneintervention approach adopted by a number of schools; frequently without fullparental consultation. The research reported in this paper traces the impact of suchan exercise at one school and focuses in particular on parental attitudes to thesingle-sex groupings for mathematics lessons. Thus, to provide a context for theresearch reported in this paper, two sets of research studies are of particularinterest: those which have examined-particularly in Australia-the effects ofsingle-sex rather than coedtlcational groupings on students' performance in,mathematics and related areas, and those concerned with the effect on performanceof parental attitudes and expectations.

Previous Research

Single-Sex Groupings and Mathematics EducationThe merging of two single-sex government high schools in Sydne~New South

Wales, into one coeducational school provided a rare opportunity to trace theeffects of the gradual introduction of coeducation on students' performance andinternal beliefs. Differences in mathematics achievement favouring males appearedunaffected, but multidimensional self concept measures increased for both malesand females in the coeducational setting (Marsh, Smith, Marsh & Owens, 1988).

Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School 275

d.e

:s5.

It:s.e11h.e.elr)fne

e:l:lsI.

.Ten years after the schools became coeducational, Smith (1996) reported that "theimproved level of student self-concept that was observed after coeducationoccurred had been maintained" (p. 8), that "achievement had remained constant"(p. 9), and that "teacher attitudes about coeducation remained ambivalent" (p. 9).Smith (1996) concluded that "coeducation had made no impact one way or theother" (p. 9).

Among a range of findings for Year 10 students from 16 independent schools inMelbourne (Victoria), Foon (1988) reported that males rated their achievementshigher in mathematics than did females, and females in single-sex schools ratedtheir achievements in mathematics higher than their coeducational counterparts.Females' self-esteem was found to be lower than that of males but there were nodifferences in self-esteem between females in coeducational and single-sex schools.The attitudes and beliefs of Grade 7 students from single-sex and mixedmathematics classroom settings were investigated by Forgasz (1995). Althoughfemales in the two learning settings held very similar beliefs, greater variation inbeliefs was found between the males in the single-sex and coeducational learningsettings. The sample also comprised students from one coeducational school inwhich there were single-sex classes for Grade 7 mathematics. Coincidentally thetwo participating classes, one class of boys and one class of girls, were taught by

. the same teacher. Although not statistically significant, the direction of the genderdifferences on a number of critical variables indicated more functional beliefs forthe boys than for the girls in the single-sex classes.

As already indicated, in recent years a number of coeducational schools haveexperimented with single-sex mathematics classes at selected grade levels. Forstudents randomly allocated to single-sex or coeducational mathematics classes inGrades 7 and 8, Rowe (1988) reported significantly higher gains in confidence forstudents in the single-sex classes but no gender differences were found inachievement across the two learning settings. Gender differences' in Grade 9students' attitudes to single-sex mathematics classes were reported by Regan (n.d.).Females believed that both sexes benefited from single-sex settings and that theprogram should continue. The males expressed opposing views. Although manygirls, teachers and parents were supportive of single-sex environments, Milligan,Thomson, and Ashenden & Associates (1992) found that some girls disliked them.Some teachers were also opposed, claiming that boys might be disadvantaged.

Parker and Rennie (1995) discussed the perceptions of teachers from 10government coeducational schools in Western Australia which had implementedsingle-sex classes in mathematics and science. Prior to the commencement of theproject, relevant professional development activities had been organised forparticipating teachers. The single-sex classes were conducted for two years andwere found to have advantages and disadvantages for particular groups ofstudents:

Evidence from a number of teachers indicated that single-sex classes appeared tohold the most benefit for specific groups of girls who were experiencing a great dealof harassment from boys in mixed-sex classes, and the least benefit for high­achieving girls and boys and for boys in some classes which were particularlydifficult to discipline. (Parker & Rennie, 1995, p. 8)

276 Leder & Forgasz

The teachers noted that boys' lack of development of task-oriented written andoral communication skills, which had been masked by the fact that girls usuallyperformed these tasks in mixed-sex classes, "became appallingly evident" (p. 9).Although the teachers had considered the project worthwhile, they "appeared toappreciate that single-sex classes were not a panacea" (p. 10). They realised thatsuccess did "not mean that a single strategy like splitting boys and girls intoseparate classes is sufficient in itself to benefit all students" (p. 18) and recognisedthe need to develop strategies for treating all students fairly and equitably.

In .summary, research findings on the general benefits of coeducational orsingle-sex schooling are inconsistent (Gill, 1988). Which one of the two learningsettings for mathematics optimises all students' learning outcomes is similarlyunresolved. Although it can be assumed that parents who select single-sexschooling for their children favour this learning setting, how parents whose childrenattend a coeducational school view single-sex groupings in targeted areas is rarelyexamined.

Parental Influences on Performance and Subject ChoiceParental influence on their children's educational and long term achievements

has attracted considerable attention, in popular publications as well in the researchliterature. The effects of differential aspirations and expectations for sons anddaughters continue to be keenly debated.

The extent to which parental behavior influences gender differences remains asource of contention ... There is evidence that parents do influence genderdevelopment. Any number of studies have demonstrated that a parent's perceptionof a child begins at, and occasionally before, birth. (Walsh, 1997, p. 34)

Some representative studies which focus on the interaction between parentalfactors and their children's attitudes and performance in mathematics aredescribed in the next sections. To highlight the persistent direction of this influence,the studies are clustered chronologically. It is convenient to begin this review withresearch conducted in the 1960s-a time when relatively few students continuedon to tertiary studies and the modern phase of the "women's movement" was in itsinfancy.

The 1960s. Poffenberger and Norton (1963) found that parental expectations oftheir children's achievement in mathematics, their encouragement to pursuestudies in this area, and their own attitudes towards mathematics seemed to affectthe children's attitude and performance in mathematics. According to Karas (1964),the home environment appeared to have a greater effect on students' performancein more verbal subjects than in subjects loaded with less familiar symbolic materialsuch as mathematics. In a study of well over 1000 secondary school students,Butcher and Pont (1969) found that the family's socio-economic status was animportant predictor of ultimate specialization in arts or science. Althoughsignificantly more girls from high status families elected to study arts, boys fromhigh status families tended to select science subjects. The first International Study ofAchievement in Mathematics (Husen, 1967) similarly reported that for countries

which participated in the study, students' performance and participation inmathematics seemed to be influenced by the background and aspirations of theirparents.

The 1970s. The higher the mother's education, Werts and Watley (1970) found,the more likely a junior high school girl was to do well in mathematics. In aresearch project with a similar focus, Aiken (1972) reported a stronger link for boysbetween their attitudes to mathematics and those of their father and for girlsbetween their attitudes to mathematics and those of their mother. For girls inparticular, Haven (1972) identified parental (mother's or father's) encouragementto continue with advanced mathematics courses as a more decisive influence thanencouragement from a member of the mathematics department, guidancecouncillor, or n1ember of the peer group. Almost two decades later, a Victorianstudy described in a later section largely replicated these findings (Department ofLabour & Mattingly Advertising, 1989). McKee (1976) also found a statisticallysignificant relationship between parents' expectations and their children'sperformance in mathematics. Many of the participants in the early mathematicstalent searches mounted in the United States cited encouragement from theirparents as a particularly important factor which influenced their decision to beinvolved in this activity (George & Solano, 1976).

The 1980s. Data from a lengthy (ll-year) project (Stevenson & Newman, 1986)indicated not only that parents affect their children's long-term achievement andattitudes in mathematics, but also that the patterns identified differed formathematics and reading. Eccles and Jacobs (1986) also identified parents as a morepowerful influence than teachers on children's attitudes to mathematics, andargued, furthermore, "that parents' gender-stereotyped beliefs are a key cause ofsex differences in students' attitudes towards mathematics" (p. 375). Importantlinks between parents' education and socio-economic status and their children'sperformance in mathematics have also been reported in the International Studies ofAchievement in Mathematics (Hanna, 1989; Hanna, Kiindiger, & Larouche, 1988).Using data from the Second International Mathematics Study, Hanna et aI. (1988)reported high levels of home support for mathematics for both sexes in countrieswith low levels of gender differences in mathematics performance, but low levelsof parental support for this area in countries with substantial gender differences inmathematics achievement. Strong home support, they argued, counterbalancedsociety's ambivalence about females' participation in "masculine" areas such asmathematics.

A unique experiment by Jacobs and Eccles (1985) illustrated the power of themedia in perpetuating stereotypes. They examined parents' beliefs about genderdifferences in mathematics learning before and after extensive media coverage ofcontroversial research on this topic. The media coverage was found to have aparticularly strong effect on the mothers of daughters. These women typicallyrated their daughters' mathematics competence significantly lower than they hadbefore reading the media articles, and significantly lower than did women notexposed to the media debate. A well-funded Victorian study provides anotherillustration of the power of the media, as well as the effect of parental attitudes tomathematics on students' subject choice.

Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School 277

278 Leder & Forgasz

An extensive publicity campaign, Maths Multiplies Your Choices, was mountedby the Department of Labour in 1989 to raise the awareness of job opportunities forwomen in technical and scientific occupations. "The primary· target of thecampaign was parents of young girls ... because they have an important influenceon the career decisions of their daughters" (Baker, 1989, p. 1). Female students aged13 to 15 were the secondary target group. An evaluation of the campaign'spenetration (Department of Labour & Mattingly Advertising, 1989) revealed itsoverall effectiveness:

we have rarely come across such significant attitudi,nal changes in such a short spaceof time ...Girls are now receiving a lot more encouragement (from their parents) thanprior to the campaign to continue with science-maths in Years 11 and 12 '" A strongproportion of girls who were previously undecided have made a commitment tomaths-science in Years 11 and 12 as a result of the campaign. (pp. xxii-xxiii)

The campaign, it seems, influenced girls directly and indirectly as parents realisedthe benefits to their daughters of continuing with mathematics and science andencouraged them to elect to study these subjects.

The 1990s. More recent research indicates that gender stereotyping persists.When single-sex mathematics classes became mixed-sex, following the merger oftwo (American) Catholic secondary schools-one originally all-female; the otherall-male-girls reported that "boys are considered smarter by the teacher" whileboys indicated that"girls aren't as smart so they need more help from the teacher"(Steinback & Gwizdala, 1995, p. 39). Milligan et al. (1992) reported that "parents'attitudes still prohibit participation of some girls in some curriculum activities"(p. 27). An American survey conducted only five years ago revealed that, whenasked to picture an intelligent child, 57% of women and 71% of men thought of amale child (Raty & Snellman, 1992). Sadker and Sadker (1994) continue to maintainthat:

In math and science especially, parents attribute more brain power to boys. Thesedifferent academic expectations begin as early as first grade and continuethroughout school. If girls bring home low grades in math and science, parents saytheir daughters are not as smart in these subjects. If boys bring home similar grades,parents say their sons are lazy and push them to work harder. (p. 256)

The importance of socio-economic background on students' aspirations and·performance continues to be stressed. The carefully researched report prepared byTeese, Davies, Charlton, and Polesel (1995) illustrates clearly that socio-economicbackground affects students' subject choice. The disadvantages faced by girls inscience and mathematics, and by boys in English, are strongest for students from apoorer social background, and far less pronounced for students from socio­economically advantaged homes. Similar findings are reported in other countries."The limits that socioeconomic status set on achievement are most obvious fromobserving test scores in reading and mathematics" (American Association ofUniversity Women, 1995, pp. 56-57). The contents of this report serve as a timelyreminder that performance in many areas, including mathematics, is affected notonly by gender but also by other factors including race.

Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School 279

Research over the past three decades has consistently revealed that students'performance in, and selection of, mathematics studies is affected by thebackground and aspirations of their parents. Investigating parents' perceptions of,and reactions to, a special intervention to combat girls' disadvantage in themathematics-science area thus seems critical.

The Study

Background to the Present StudyIn 1993, a Victorian coeducational high school invited an evaluation of its

single-sex mathematics program at the Grade 10 level (Forgasz & Leder, 1995;Leder et al., 1994). The school had been anxious to know if the introduction ofsingle-sex mathematics classes would encourage girls to continue withmathematics once this subject became optional and in particular whether it mightresult in equal numbers of males and females enrolling in the most demandingmathematics courses at the Grade 11 level. The mathematics department staff alsorequested recommendations with respect to the continuation of the program in thefuture. The evaluation did not:

provide unequivocal evidence that single-sex mathematics classes per se addresswell-documented gender differences in mathematics learning outcomes. Theprogram evaluated did not appear to have been damaging to the majority of Grade10 students in the school investigated, and may well have benefited many. Althoughthe school's aims for the program, and the students' and the parents' beliefs werethat females would benefit most from single-sex classes, there were signs that malesderived equal, if not more, benefit from the program than the females. (Forgasz &Leder, 1995, p. 44)

It was recommended that:

• the single-sex program at Grade 10 continue for at least three consecutiveyears;

• the curriculum and its mode of delivery, and the assessment procedures andmeans by which student outcomes were reported, be reviewed in relation togender equity issues;

• teachers involved in the single-sex program meet regularly to exchangeviews and share experiences, and that professional development on gender issuesin mathematics learning be supported;

• parents be better informed about the program at the commencement of theschool year;

• consideration be given to the introduction of single-sex classes at other gradelevels.

Three years later, in 1996, the school requested a follow-up evalua,tion. For the1996 school year the school had introduced single-sex classes in Grade 9; that is,there were single-sex mathematics classes at both Grade 9 and Grade 10. The focusof this article is on the comparative findings from the two evaluations of the .program, with particular emphasis on the parents' reactions.

Methods, Sample, Instr!,,-ments and Data AnalysesA combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was used. For

the re-evaluation, the methods used were similar to those employed in the firstevaluation which spanned an entire school year. The time for the re-evaluation wasrestricted to Semester 2 1996, necessitating minor modifications to the originalresearch design and to the survey instruments and interview protocols used.

Data sources.• school documents about the single-sex program were gathered;• students in four Grade 10 single-sex mathematics classes were surveyed, and

two students from each class were interviewed;• students from other grade levels were interviewed about their knowledge, or

previous experience, of single-sex mathematics classes; ,• parents were surveyed, and selected parents were interviewed;• the mathematics co-ordinator and mathematics teachers involved in the

program were interviewed.

Instruments used with students. The student questionnaire comprised items fromscales tapping students' attitudes towards mathematics and towards themselves aslearners of the subject: the Mathematics Attitude Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976),the Mathematics Attribution Scales (Fennema, Wolleat & Pedro, 1979), and iteinsdetermining perceptions of mathematical achievement levels. Open-ended itemswere used to obtain students' reactions to the single-sex classes. Full details of thequestionnaire are found in Forgasz and Leder (1995).

Semi-structured interview protocols were also developed. Questions tostudents probed their understanding of the reasons behind the introduction ofsingle-sex settings, their perceptions of their classroom experiences, and whetherthey would choose single-sex settings again if they were available.

Instruments used with parents. The same parent questionnaire was used in 1993and 1996. It was designed to determine the extent of parents' awareness of andsupport for the single-sex program and their children's participation in it, andwhether they thought the program should be extended into other grade levels.Items included: "Are you aware that your child is currently in a single-sex class formathematics?"; "Why do you think single-sex classes were introduced?"; "To whatextent do you support this scheme?"; and "Would you support extension of this'scheme to other year levels?" Single response options were provided for thesequestions and parents were also requested to explain their replies. Space wasprovided at the end of the questionnaire for additional comments. Two copies ofthe parent questionnaire were sent home with the students, thus enabling eachparent to fill one out. In 1996 only, the parents of three student interviewees wereinterviewed: a father of a year 9 girl, a mother of a year 10 boy, and both parents ofa year 10 girl.

Teacher interviews. Two Grade 10 teachers' reactions to the single-sex programand the differences they perceived between coeducational and single-sexmathematics teaching situations were explored. General questions aboutperceptions of gender equity in society and in the school we're also asked of theteachers, the students, and the parents.

280 Leder & Forgasz

Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School 281

Results

IM=males scored higher, F=females scored higher, ns=not significant20n this scale a high score indicates less stereotyping of mathematics as a male domain

Table 1SummaryofSignificant Gender Differences Foundfor the 1993 and 1996 Cohorts

ns

ns

M / F / ns1

ns

ns

ns

ns

1996

F

F

M

1993

Variable M / F / ns1

Stereotyping mathematics as a male domain2 [Male Domain] F

Confidence as a learner of mathematics [Confidence] M

Success attributed to ability [Success/Ability] M

Failure attributed to lack of ability [Failure/Ability] . F

Failure attributed to lack of effort [Failure/Effort] F

Failure attributed to task difficulty [Failure/Task] F

Self·rating of mathematics achievement level [HGM] M

Perceived teacher rating of mathematics achievement [TGM] M

Perceived parent rating of mathematics achievement [PGM] M

Data AnalysesThe quantitative self-report data from students and parents were analysed

using SPSSW1N' The interview data were transcribed and analysed manually. In1993, the parent questionnaires were returned in envelopes. This allowedcomparisons to be made between the responses of both parents if twoquestionnaires were returned. Unfortunately the system broke down in 1996 andthese comparisons could not be conducted.

.To set the parents' responses in context, a summary of the comparisons ofstudents' perspectives on the single-sex program in 1993 and 1996 is presentedfirst.

Table 1 shows that for some variables persistent gender differences were foundfor the two cohorts. That is, in both 1993 and 1996:

• males were more stereotyped about mathematics as a male domain;• females were more likely to attribute failure in mathematics to task difficulty;• males considered themselves higher achievers in mathematics [HGM].

The results also indicated that there were fewer gender differences for the 1996cohort than for the 1993 group. The mean scores for the data in Table 1 revealedthat the 1996 male cohort was generally less confident about themselves as learners

Comparisons Between the 1993 and 1996 Data-Students' PerspectivesThe sample sizes of the two Grade 10 student cohorts were: 1993 N=151 (76M,

75F); 1996 N=79 (38M, 41F). For each cohort, independent groups t-tests wereconducted on each variable included in the self-report data to test for significantgender differences. A summary of the variables for which significant gender

. differences were found is shown in Table 1.

282 Leder & Forgasz

of mathematics than their 1993 counterparts. Lower scores were found for:Confidence, Success/Ability, HGM, TGM and PGM. An alternative interpretationsuggests that the lowered mean scores for the 1996 male cohort may be consistentwith the current ethos in the school that it is, not socially acceptable ("not hip") for amale to achieve academically. That is, the peer group considers bright males to be"nerds" and singles them out. The interview data were generally supportive of thetrends evident in the statistical analyses.

Liking/disliking single-sex classes. Students' responses about liking their single­sex classes and which learning setting they would prefer for Grade 11 revealed amarked difference in the views of the two cohorts:

• in 1996 relatively fewer males and females had enjoyed their single-sexclasses: (1993 M: 22%, F: 78%; 1996 M: 8%; F: 34%) .

• in 1996 relatively fewer females wanted single-sex classes to continue into thefollowing year (1993: 40%; 1996: 20%) and more females were indifferent about thenext year's learning setting (1993: 35%; 1996: 53%) .

• although relatively more males in the 1996 cohort would choose single-sexsettings for Grade 11 (1993: 6%; 1996: 11%), the two male cohorts were moreconsistent in their views about their preferred learning settings for the followingyear than were their female counterparts.

The females in the 1996 sample who said that they liked their single-sex classesclearly indicated that they felt less inhibited to ask questions in class (e.g., "Yes, Ilike having a single-sex maths class as I feel more confident of asking questions andasking for help without being teased. It is a really good idea"), and that theatmosphere was more conducive to working with no disruptions from boys (e.g.,"Yes, because I can be myself around more of my friends and boys are too noisyand distract you"). These responses were similar to those given in 1993. In 1993 and1996, very few boys said they liked single-sex classes. The reasons given by thosewho did often related to being able to work better in an all boys' class and werevery similar for both cohorts (e.g., 1993: "Yes, because I got my work done~').

The majority of the girls who did not like the single-sex classes in 1996 wrote ofincreased noise levels which affected their learning (e.g., "No! It hasn't worked.The girls are too noisy by themselves"). No such criticism emerged in 1993. One1996 student who did not like being in a single-sex class noted that the approach to

.teaching was different from that experienced in coeducational classes. In 1993, thegirls who disliked the single-sex classes focused on missing the boys who hadassisted them the previous year (e.g., "Not really, mainly because we got their[boys'] help last year and they could help us like they did in Grade 9"). Boys in1996 and in 1993 who did not enjoy the single-sex classes frequently mentioned themore disruptive atmosphere in all boys' classes, and the mollifying influence girlshave on boys (e.g., 1993: "All guys talk too much. We need girls in the class"; 1996:"Single-sex classes means there is twice as many guys and twice as noisy"). Therewere also several sexist comments (e.g., "No, no one to perve on. Boys just stuffaround without girls"). The comments from the females in 1996 who did not enjoy

Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School 283

single-sex classes because of the increased noise levels are noteworthy and quitedifferent from the remarks made by the students who had experienced single-sexclasses in 1993.

Ambivalence about single-sex classes. Consider the following response from a 1996female student asked whether or not she liked the single-sex setting: lilt doesn'treally worry me. Girls tend to be themselves, though, in single-sex classes."Another female student wrote: "Don't care although one problem is we talk heapsmore and get less work done. I mean it hasn't changed the teacher's methods, hasit?" These two examples highlight the types of positive and negative aspects ofsingle-sex classes which typified the responses of ambivalent students.

Teachers' ViewsThe teachers were asked if they planned lessons differently or used different

teaching approaches when teaching single-sex classes of girls and of boys.Comments from two female teachers support the female student's observation ofdifferent teaching styles (see above). One said: "Not my manner of planning. Idon't think that has been affected. I think I probably spend a lot more timeexplaining stuff to the girls ... Perhaps my interaction in the classroom is different."

. The other teacher felt that boys' and girls' approaches were different: "Boys seemto generally follow the really logical approach. Girls ... won't necessarily approacha problem step by step ... [They have] a wider range of ways of looking at theproblem ... Boys seem to be happy with the one method that you do on the board."

Comparisons Between the 1993 and 1996 Data-Parents' PerspectivesThe sample sizes of the parents returning completed questionnaires were as

follows: .1993 Grade 10: 94 (55 mothers, 39 fathers)1996 Grade 10: 30 (16 mothers, 14 fathers)

Grade 9: 101 (54 mothers, 47.fathers)In both 1993 and 1996 more mothers than fathers completed the questionnaire.Responses also indicated that more mothers were aware of the single-sex program,had discussed the program with their offspring, and were fully supportive of thescheme~ Parents who had discussed the program with their children claimed thatthere was general agreement between their own views and the views of their child.Compared with 1993, there was a clear decrease in support for the program in 1996.Interestingly, mothers of Grade 9 sons were more supportive of the single-sexprogram than their Grade 10 counterparts. Summaries of the similarities anddifferences between the data gathered in 1993 and 1996 are shown on Tables 2 and3 respectively.

Beliefs about why single-sex classes for mathematics were introduced. parents held awide range of views about the school's reasons for introducing the single-sexprogram. From those who fully supported the scheme to those in total opposition,"the common themes that emerged in 1993 and 1996 were: to increase.concentrationand/or achievement by decreasing distractions, and improving girls' opportunitiesto excel in mathematics. These opinions were held by parents ofboth sons anddaughters. More parents in 1996 than in 1993 felt that the program would addressthe perceived educational disadvantage of boys in the school. Interestingl)', it wasonly parents (both mothers and fathers) of sons who expressed these views. Both in1993 and in 1996 some parents' suggestions reflected beliefs that both male andfemale students might benefit from the segregation. Examples are shown inTable 4; also shown in parentheses are the parents' levels of support for theprogram and, for the 1996 data, their child's grade level.

1993 1996

Grade 10 Grade 10 Grade 9

Mothers: 91% Mothers: 76% Mothers:64%Fathers: 54% Fathers: 50% Fathers: 35%

Mothers: 73% Mothers: 60% Mothers: 53%Fathers: 41% Fathers: 41% Fathers: 35%

In favour: 58% In favour: 40% In favour: 44%Against: 6% Against: 15% " Against: 8%

Mothers: 80% Mothers: 70o/~ Mothers: 62%Fathers: 49% Fathers: 44% Fathers: 36%

43% 35% 36%

284

Grade 9

Fathers: 36%Mothers: 64%

Leder & Forgasz

Yes: 46%Maybe: 38%

67%

Fathers: 24%Mothers: 36%

Grade 10

Yes: 42%Maybe: 36%

66%

Yes: 57%Maybe: 29%

72%

1996 findings

A higher proportionof mothers of sonsthan fathers of sonssupported the single­sex classes.

Grade 10

Fathers: 59%Mothers: 52%

1993 findings

A slightly higherproportion of fathersof sons than mothersof sons supported thesingle-sex classes

Findings

Mothers were more aware than fathersthat single-sex classes had beenintroduced

Mothers of daughters were more likely tosupport the scheme fully than werefathers of daughters

More parents fully supported the schemethan were fully opposed to it

Mothers were more likely than fathers tohave discussed single-sex classes withtheir child

Less than half the parents had noticed achange in their child's attitude tomathematics

Many parents favoured the introductionof single-sex classes at other grade levels

Mothers of daughters were most likely tofavour an extension of the scheme to other'grade levels

Table 2Similarities in Findings for Parents in 1993 and 1996

Table 3Differences in Findings for Parents in 1993 and 1996

lp=full support; P=partial support; U=unsure; N=not supportive2Victorian Certificate of Education, the state-wide Grades II and 12 courses of study

A rationale for the single-sex program' is found in the school's (draft) policystatement of August 1995. The school believed that single-sex classes:

• provide an opportunity for girls to study mathematics in an environment inwhich they feel more comfortable about actively participating in the classroomprogram;

• promote and maintain higher numbers of girls continuing their studies in themore rigorous areas of mathematics at years 11 and 12 and beyond;

• provide an opportunity for both boys and girls to develop greater confidencein their mathematical ability and in their willingness to seek support of theclassroom teacher.

The rationale does not suggest that girls are less able mathematically than boys; the .emphasis appears to be on the learning environment context militating againstgirls' decisions to pursue mathematics at higher levels. There is also no suggestion.that the program is aimed at improving students' academic achievements inmathematics. There is, however, the implication that boys and girls may actinappropriately towards each other in mixed classrooms resulting in loss ofconfidence and unwillingness to seek assistance when having difficulty.

Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School 285

1996 (Grade 9 and 10 parents)

• to encourage girls to continue with mathsinto VCE.2 (F,9)• break down the fallacy of boys better atmaths. (F, 10)

• to rectify the imbalance caused by thefeminist movement!!! (F, 9)• to enable the girls to have a less distractE:!daccess to their teacher; for the girls to fulfill theirmathematical potential. (P, 9)

• to enable students to concentrate on theirsubject without interruption/distraction of theother sex. (P, 9)• the decision makers had too much time andutilised it to make random decisions! (N, 10)

• to correct the gender bias [at the school]: 9out of 10 academic awards went to females lastyear. (F, 10)• probably to give girls greater opportunity tolearn in an area dominated by males. (N, 10)

1993 (Grade 10 parents)

Mothers of daughters (MD)

• to allow girls to work to their optimum inmaths, without the verbal "put down"/hasslefrom the boys. (F)• to keep students' concentration on the givensubject and not on the opposite sex. (F)

Mothers of sons (MS)

• to overcome the disadvantages experiencedby girls in mixed classes particularly in themaths/science area. (P)• to see if single-sex classes improved grades.(N)

Fathers of daughters (FD)

• to increase girls' self-confidence in maths (F)• stupidity on the part of some people in theeducation system. (N)

Fathers of sons (FS)

• as a trial. period to see if the students'performance in the past has been influenced bythe opposite sex. (P)• better concentration for boys, lessdistractions. (F)

Table 4Beliefs About the Introduction of the Program: Typical Responses From Parents l

Many parents' views were consistent with two of the three reasons put forwardin the school's policy statement. Few parents appeared aware of the school'sconcern to encourage more girls to continue with studies in mathematics at Grades11 and 12 and beyond. None of the pare~ts interviewed was satisfied with theinformation about the program received from the school. At interview, the parentsof the Grade 10 girl said they had received a notice about the program but did notthink the information was adequate "because we don't know the background, whythe school separates them only in mathematics and not for all the other subjects ...We would like to know about it." The father of the Grade 9 girl who wasinterviewed was opposed to the program, arguing that the school was succumbingto a belief that girls needed additional help. He indicated that "bits of informationhad come through" about the program but felt that the "push" for single-sex

j classes had come from outside the school and that parents who objected wouldhave no influence anyway. There was further evidence in the responses to thesurvey questionnaire that the notification to parents was insufficient. Among theparents who were unsure of their level of support for the program one Grade 9student's father, for example, wrote: "Without specific reasons being explained tome, I see no reason why [single-sex classes] would make any difference." Whenasked whether they believed the program should be extended to other grade levels,several parents again commented that they wanted more information and neededto understand the rationale behind the program before answering.

Why the single-sex program was or was not supported. The reasons parents gave toexplain their levels of support for the program were varied and matched fairlyclosely the reasons they believed to be behind the program's introduction.Although some parents spoke in general terms about males and females as groups,other parents were more specific about their reasons in reference to their own child.

Some parents who fully or partially supported the program believed that girlswould benefit; others that boys would benefit. There were parents who consideredthat there were more general benefits to be derived because disruptive behavioursand other distractions would be minimised in the sex-segregated setting. Motherswere more likely to be fully supportive of the program than were fathers, althoughoverall there was less support for the program in 1996 than there had been in 1993

I (see Table 1). Parents who were unsure or did not support the program felt that theboys would not benefit from it, that there was no sense in having a single-sex-program for mathematics within a coeducational setting, and, more generally, thatmixed settings were best. The reasons parents proffered for their levels of supportalso reflected that they held beliefs:

• about deficiencies in the mathematical ability and/or confidence levels ofgirls or of similar deficiencies in boys;

• that contextual factors in the mathematics learning environment maydifferentially affect girls and boys;

• that segregation of the sexes was not the only way in which perceiveddifficulties with mixed sex classes might be resolved.

Representative comments from parents within the various emergent categories arepresented in Table 5. Level of support (Full/Partial/Unsure/Not), parent sex

286 Leder & Forgasz

1 Key to coding: support (F=full, P=partial, U=unsure, N=not supportive): parent (M=mother, F=father)offspring (S=son, D=daughter) Year level (9/10) - year data collected (93/96).

Table 5Comments From Parents Within Identified Categories1

(Mother/Father) and offspring (Son/Daughter) as well as grade level and the yearthe data were gathered are also indicated.

287

Good for girlsGirls are deficient:It is important that females be given the opportunityto work and achieve within their own gender and toencourage them to try harder in a subject which theymay consider to be male dominated (therefore notattempting their best). (F: MS9-96)

Context important:Boys generally dominate teacher time with their be­haviour. Girls tend to "sit back" in this situation. Sin­gle-sex classes give girls the chance to have more tea­cher attention and to be more assertive. (F: MD9-96)

Good for girls-not for boysBoys are deficient:My older male student [son] was relying on the moreconscientious female students; at present it enablesmy female student [daughter] to ask questions with,.out having to consider appearances. (F: MD9-96)

Context important:The single-sex maths class was most successful formy daughter, however my son would like to be witha mixed group because he says that the boys workbetter having more mature girls as a steadyinginfluence. (P: MSIO-93)

Various

Mixed-sex settings better:I think it depends largely on the teacher rapport andcontrol of the students, rather than between the twosexes~ (U: MSIO-93) .

Single-sex makes no sense:I am sick to death of new theories changingeducational values. What is the point in havingsingle-sex in schools which have both sexes? (N:FSIO-96)

Whymaths:I can see no reason why mathematics should besingled out for single-sex classes. (N: FDIO-93)

Good for boysBoys are deficient:The boys need more encouragement in theschool; the girls have a higher achievementlevel. (F: ?S9-96)

Context importantMaths seems to be working better withoutthe girls. (F: MS9-96)

Not good for boys

Boys are deficient:My son says he prefers girls in the classbecause they are smarter and can help himin maths. (P: MSIO-96)

Context important:Reaction of my son-very concerned by theall male disruptive class behaviour. In a coedschool the boys are used to the girls whoprovide a stabilising influence in class. (N:MSIO-93)

Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School

Good for allContext important:Anything that might attempt improvementin scholastic results should be given a go. I

. support anything that the faculty decides forthe benefit of the children. (F: FD9-96)

Differences between girls and boys:Girls' and boys' levels of concentration aredifferent. It will give them better chance. (F:FSIO-96)

In summar~ there was greater support for the program from parents thanopposition to it. However, the extent of full support had waned in 1996 from thelevels evident in 1993. Although the majority of parents perceived that girls werethe focus of the program and that they were likely to benefit from it, there wasgrowing evidence in 1996 of anti-feminist/backlash sentiments (the school hadgone too far in promoting girls as the disadvantaged group) and stronger feelings

Conclusions and Implications

The data in Tables 2 and 3 clearly indicated that there was less support for thesingle-sex program from parents in 1996 than in 1993. The parents of daughters, inparticular, were much less supportive. On the other· hand, the program receivedgreater support from mothers of sons who often expressed views that boys'

.education in the school was· suffering and that they were in need of specialattention. When the student data from 1993 and 1996 were compared, reducedsupport for the single-sex program was also evident. The parent questionnaire dataare consistent with the students' perspectives and suggest that the two groups aremore likely to reinforce than to challenge each other's views.

In various places on the questionnaire, several parents commented about thecritical role of the teacher. Some students also commented on the teacher's role (seeabove). At interview, some of the teachers had indicated that there may bedifferences in the way they approached single-sex classes; others commented thatboys and girls learnt differently. The parents of the Grade 10 girl interviewedindicated that they felt that students might get the impression that the single-sexclasses had been organised because girls were not achieving as well in mathematics

that boys were the disadvantaged group. Parents expressing sentiments about theperceived educational disadvantage of the boys at the school were often fullysupportive of the program. The increased support for the single-sex program frommothers of sons in 1996, particularly the mothers of Grade 9 boys, is consistentwith this finding (see Table 3). .

The perception that males are disadvantaged educationally has gainedprominence in the popular media in recent times. In terms of the outcomes ofmathematics education, this argument appears difficult to sustain in general andalso at this school. In 1993, no statistically significant differences were found in themathematical performance of the Grade 10 students in the single-sex program(Forgasz & Leder, 1995). However, the enrolments in the most demandingmathematics option at the Grade 12 level, Specialist mathematics, in 1995 were 16boys and 3 girls. The ratio of boys to girls (about 5:1) was much higher than thestate average of about 2:1.

Reasons jor extending or abandoning the program. Parents who were opposed tothe program were opposed to its introduction in other grade levels.. Parents whosupported the extension gave thoughtful responses. Support was greatest forGrades 9 and 10; several also supported the program extending to lower grades.Some thought that by the time the students reached Grades 11 and 12, they shouldbe mature enough to work well in a coeducational setting. For example:

Good idea for years 7-9 building confidence, less intimidating, less distractions. But,by year 11-12 should be able to now cope with a single-sex or joint sex maths class.Opportunity to prove themselves and prepare for life beyond school. (MD9-96)

Several parents did not answer this question. Some wrote that they would notcommit themselves to a response until the results of the present arrangements weremade known to them.

288 Leder & Forgasz

References

Aiken, L. R,Jr (1972). Research on attitudes towards mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 19,229-234.

American Association of University Women (1995). How schools shortchange girls. New York:Marlowe & Company.

Baker, M. (1989, December). The maths multiplies your choices information line. Report to theMinisterial Advisory Committee on Women's Employment. Melbourne: Dept. of Labour.

as boys and that they were then "separated to educate them at different levels."They claimed that their daughter felt that the girls were taught more slowly thanthe boys and that the requirements of the assignments they were given were lessstrict. The student interview data from 1993 (see Forgasz & Leder, 1995) clearlyrevealed that the students perceived the teacher to be a more important factor intheir learning of mathematics than the learning setting, coeducational or single-sex.An innovative program aimed at addressing any identified issues of concern in aschool should be implemented by motivated, well-informed, and competentpeople. In the case of a single-sex program of mathematics teaching, teachers needto be aware of the rationale behind the program, relevant research findings thatprovide a balanced perspective on the issues involved and, most importantly, musthave the appropriate teaching skills if the students are to benefit

On the questionnaire, many parents indicated a lack of knowledge about theprogram and its aims. It is tempting to speculate whether parents might have beenmore supportive of the program had they been better informed. Research reviewedearlier in the paper suggests that a more favourable response from parents is likelyin turn to be translated into a more positive outlook· on the program by theirchildren. Direct appeals to parents about the importance of mathematics, itemerged, was critical to the success of the Maths Multiplies Your Choices campaign

. (Baker, 1989). School initiatives consistent with the values and beliefs of the widersociety are likely to be more acceptable than those which challenge prevailingattitudes. A few parents had indicated that newspaper and television reports hadshaped their views about single-sex settings.

The role played by parents in establishing an accepting climate for changingprevailing school customs should not be underestimated. Our data illustrate thatharnessing parents' support is not unproblematic. Although the formalinformation about the program sent by the school to the parents had mentionedlikely benefits for both boys and girls, many parents perceived the aims to berelevant to only one sex; more often females than males. Judgments of the value ofthe program in many cases were influenced by the sex of the parent and of theirchild. Prior convictions may well have been a filter through which materialdisseminated was interpreted. The case study reported here highlights the need foron going communication within the broader school community and theimportance of providing opportunities for parents to voice their concerns. Thesemeasures might have countered the scepticism and criticism that emerged from aminority of the parents. More generally, the experiences reported here suggestvarious strategies which may be crucial for eliciting broad support for well­intentioned school driven initiatives, including the introduction of selected single­sex classes in a coeducational setting.

289Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School

Barnes, M., & Horne, M. (1996). Gender and mathematics. In B. Atweh, K. Owens & P.Sullivan (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia, 1992-1995 (pp. 51-87).Macarthur, NSW: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

Butcher, H. J., & Pont, H. B. (1969). Predicting arts and science specialization in a group ofScottish secondary school children: Some preliminary results. Scottish Education Studies,1,3-10.

Department of Labour and Mattingly Advertising (1989, November). Summary of two stagecampaign evaluation study. Girls' career and subject choice. Melbourne: Author.

Eccles, J. S., &Jacobs, J. E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs,11, 367-380.

Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitude scales. JSAS:Catalog ofSelected Documents in Psychology, 6(1), 31 (Ms. No. 1225).

Fennema, E., Wolleat, P., & Pedro, J. D. (1979). Mathematics attribution scale. JSAS: Catalog ofSelected Documents in Psychology, 9(5), 26 (Ms. No. 1837).

Forgasz, H. J. (1995). Girl's attitudes in mixed and single-sex mathematics classrooms. In B.Grevholm & G. Hanna (Eds.), Gender and mathematics education: An ICMI study (pp. 167­177). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.

Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (1995). Single-sex mathematics classes: Who benefits? NordiskMatematik Didaktik (Nordic Studies in Mathematics), 3(1), 27-46.

Foon, A. E. (1988). The relationship between school type and adolescent self-esteem,attribution styles, and affiliation needs: Implications for educational outcome. BritishJournal ofEducational Psychology, 58, 44-54.

George, W. c., & Solano, C. H. (1976). Identifying mathematical talent on a statewide basis.In D. P. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research and development (pp. 55-89). Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gill, J. G. (1988). Which way to school? A review of the evidence on the single sex versus coeducationdebate and an annotated bibliography of the research. Canberra: Curriculum DevelopmentCentre.

Hanna, G. (1989, March). Mathematics achievement ofgirls in Grade 12: Cross cultural differences.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco.

Hanna, G., Kiindiger, E., & Larouche, C. (1988, July). Mathematical achievement of Grade 12girls in fifteen countries. Paper delivered at the Sixth International Congress onMathematical Education, Budapest, Hungary.

Haven, E. W. (1972). Factors associated with the selection of advanced academic mathematicscourses by girls in high school, Research Bulletin, 72-12. Princeton, NJ: Educational TestingService.

Husen, T. (Ed.) (1967). International study ofachievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelvecountries. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.

Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1985). Gender differences in math ability: The impact of mediareports on parents. Educational Researcher, 14(3),20-24.

Karas, S. F. (1964). A study ofpersonality and socio-economicfactors and mathematics achievement.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York: Columbia University.

Leder, G., & Forgasz, H. (1992). Gender: A critical variable in mathematics education. In B.Atweh & J. Watson (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia: 1988-1991(pp. 67-95). Brisbane: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

Leder, G. c., Forgasz, H., Fullarton, S., Brew, c., & Dunleavy, A. (1994). Programme of Grade10 single-sex mathematics classes: An evaluation. Unpublished report.

Leder, G. c., Forgasz, H. J., & Solar, C. (1996). Research and intervention programs inmathematics education: A gendered issue. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel,

290 Leder & Forgasz

Authors

Email: G.Leder@latrobe.edu.auEmail: H.Forgasz@latrobe.edu.au

Gilah C. Leder and Helen J. Forgasz, Graduate School of Education, La Trobe University, .Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia.

291Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School

J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education, Part 2(pp. 945·,985). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Marsh, H. W., Smith, 1. D., Marsh, M., & Owens, L. (1988). The transition from single-sex tocoeducational high schools: Effects on multiple dimensions of self-concept and onacademic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 237-269.

McKee, M. R (1976). The relationship of parent expectations and child expectations of high schoolmathematics and mathematical aptitude and mathematical achievement. DissertationAbstracts International, 4996A.

Milligan, S., Thomson, K., & Ashenden & Associates (1992). Listening to girls. Canberra:Australian Education Council.

Parker, L. H., & Rennie, L. R (1995, November). To mix or not to mix? An update on the single­sex/coeducation debate. Pre-conference draft. Paper presented at the AustralianAssociation for Research in Education annual conference, Hobart.

Regan, L. (n.d.). The results ofa survey ofthe attitudes ofyear 9 students and their teachers towardssingle-sex and mixed-sex classes in science or mathematics at three north coast high schools~

Lismore, NSW: University of New England/Northern Rivers. (circa 1992)Rowe, K. J. (1988). Single-sex and mixed classes: The effects of class type on student. achievement, confidence and participation in mathematics. Australian Journal of

Education, 32(2), 180-202.Poffenberger, T., & Norton, D. (1963). Sex differences in achievement motive in mathematics

as related to cultural change. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 4, 161-164.Raty, H., & Snellman, L. (1992). Does gender make any difference? Common-sense

conceptions of intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality, 20(1),23-34.Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness. How our schools cheat ongirls. New York:

Simon & Schuster.Smith, I. D. (1996). Australian Research Council institutional grants scheme final report. Project:

Gender differentiation: Gender differences in academic achievement and self-concept ifl.

coeducational and single-sex schools. Available on-line: http://alex.edfac.usyd.edu.au/resources/studyl/coed.html (23 May, 1996). '

Steinback, M., & Gwizdala, J. (1995). Gender differences in mathematics attitudes ofsecondary students. School Science and Mathematics, 95(1), 36-41.

Stevenson, H. W., & Newman, R S. (1986). Long-term prediction of achievement andattitudes in mathematics and reading. Child Development, 57(3), 646-659.

Teese, R, Davies, M., Charlton, M., & Polesel, J. (1995). Who wins at school? Boys and girls inAustralian secondary education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ,

Walsh, M. R (1997). Biological causation: Are gender differences wired into our biology? InM. R Walsh (Ed.), Women, men, and gender. Ongoing debates (pp. 33-36). New Haven:Yale University Press.

Werts, C. E., & Watley, D. J. (1970). The relationship of parental education to achievementtest performance of girls v. boys. Sociology ofEducation, 43,186-194.