Singled
Out: revealing the
psychophysical effects of single-sex education
______________
All-female
schools are often considered advantageous to learning, but
at what expense?
by
Monica Tincopa
To date, a majority of the research on all-female schools has
focused solely on the academic advantages of the institution.
With the finding that academic success was a function of the
characteristics of the students that attended the school and
not necessarily the school itself, however, the focus of research
has appropriately shifted to determining the emotional and psychological
effects of the single-sex environment. Although the effect of
single-sex environments on academic success is of key interest,
the sociocultural influence that this environment is capable
of having on its students is profound. Intuitively, given the
school's supposed purpose and overall philosophy, one may expect
that an all-female environment would have positive effects on
overall self-esteem and self-perceptions, for students are sheltered
from much of the harsh social competition encountered in coed
settings. One may also assume that the school would have a heightened
awareness and sensitivity to self-esteem, sexuality, body image,
and other such issues that often concern and deeply affect adolescent
girls.
Upon
review of the literature, however, evidence appears much to
the contrary. Research has correlated psychological and emotional
detriment on varying levels with attendance at single-sex
schools. On the whole, psychologists found increased negative
body images, increased eating disorders, and increased overall
emotional and environmental stress in all-girl schools. Females
in single-sex schools "exhibit greater body dissatisfaction
and eating disorder symptomatology" (Mensinger 417) and
"reported significantly lower ideal and attractive body
perceptions, as well as lower body mass indexes" (Mensinger
423). In fact, "a high proportion of women who develop
anorexia are educated at single-sex schools" (Dyer 128).
The elevated occurrence of these psychophysical illnesses
also indicates the presence of underlying emotional issues
such as depression and lowered self-esteem. Moreover, the
finding that "coed schools [are] perceived as more pleasant
atmospheres, more conducive to the development of self-confidence,
and reflecting less prejudiced and irrational thinking"
(Abramovtiz 2) illustrates the heightened levels of perceived
environmental stress and sociocultural pressures in single-sex
schools and the unique single-sex subculture.
School policies convey dissonance and instability
The gendered politics of single-sex institutions, that is,
how the overall school philosophy and policies influence the
attitudes and behaviors of the students, plays a large role
in constructing and maintaining this subculture. Through its
administrative and educational policies, the school obliquely
conveys a sense of cognitive dissonance and emotional instability
and consequently constructs a subconscious underlying ideology.
As predominantly private institutions, single-sex schools
are often conservative in nature, either by virtue of their
religious affiliation or as a result of the financial pressure
"to reflect the values of the affluent and often conservative
clients whom they serve" (Mensinger 420). Concern for the
image of the school and the need to maintain a "respectable"
reputation hampers the school's ability to address real, important
issues of ensuring healthy self-esteem and appropriate self-concepts.
As a result, these "'progressive' academ[ies] whose purpose
[is] to teach young women to become 'independent thinkers,'"
in reality prove to be "conservative, traditional, expensive,
and elitist schools that [have] a reputation for turning out
intelligent, complacent virgins" (Young 1). By skirting and
failing to acknowledge unpalatable issues like sexuality and
eating disorders, these problems grow in severity and frequency
as students are left to rely on inaccurate and distorted information
from magazines or their peers since the school does "little,
if anything, to remedy the rampant misery, eating disorders,
suicide attempts, low self-esteem, and depression that plague
the student body" (Young 3). Students incorrectly internalize
these conflicts, maintaining the mindset that "it was definitely
our fault if we were unhappy, and we were encouraged to remedy
out 'teen angst' by hitting the books" (Young 3). Single-sex
schools' superficial or non-existent responses to important
issues of personal values and self-esteem perpetuate these
psychological and emotional problems.
'Conflicted superwoman ideals'
The political
subculture of single-sex schools further enhances psychological
and emotional problems through the conflicting gender roles
placed on its students. The single-sex school environment demands
students to display the ideal feminine and masculine qualities
concurrently; students are expected to at all times embody the
demeanor of a proper lady while simultaneously hiding aspects
of feminine sexuality in order to exhibit the stereotypic masculine
characteristics of ambition, outspokenness and desire for academic
success. This demand often creates "emotional dilemmas," for
in seeking to develop their personal identity, students feel
"split between their femininity and the aspects of themselves
defined by academic profession and political achievement, which
are often labeled, even today, as 'masculine'" (Mensinger 422).
With the importance of looks, demeanor, and academic excellence
equally stressed, the subtle conflicting expectation creates
a psychologically draining double standard. This cognitive conflict
creates an overwhelming "prevalence of superwoman ideals," demonstrated
in students' self reported "strong desires for marrying and
raising children while still fully intending to achieve high
status professions" (Mensinger 420). These unattainable, simultaneous
demands foster increased levels of stress and anxiety. This
highly idealized dual role is nevertheless perceived as the
norm, and inability to adhere to this standard is consequently
viewed as a personal failing.
The presence of these conflicting gender role prescriptions sheds light on the epidemic of eating disorders and poor body image that plague single-sex schools. Research shows that "women reporting a greater number of roles as central to their identity displayed more disordered eating than those defining themselves by fewer roles" (Mensinger 417). Moreover, psychologists found that "the importance of socially desirable masculine traits paired with the importance of appearance…were significant predictors of disordered eating" (Mensinger 417). In trying to deal with this conflicting input, females at single-sex schools seek a resolution that encompasses both roles stressed in the subculture. In line with "the recurrent theme of thinness as ultra-feminine and at the same time thinness as rejection of femininity" (Mensinger 421), many female students view thinner bodies as an answer to the demand for a more masculine and more feminine role. Such thinking elucidates why eating disorders, poor body image, and overall increased occurrence of emotional problems may be a natural and explainable product of such psychologically demanding single-sex schools.
'Both feminist and sexist ideals'
The cognitive dissonance faced by students is further complicated by the incorporation of both feminist and sexist school practices. This disparity emerges upon comparing the surface philosophy of the school with the ideals communicated by its underlying practices. One might assume the school would adopt policies that embrace and celebrate femininity, seeking to empower and motivate women. Some policies, however, in fact readily seek to reduce aspects of femininity and opt for more masculine qualities. The dress code serves as a good example, for although "the school pays tremendous lip service to their girls to maintain a 'lady-like' appearance, their sack-shaped tunics for a uniform…distinctly disguises any hint of feminine curves or sexuality" (Mensinger 420). These policies suggest to the students that "'feminine' sexuality is a shameful thing, that intellectual pursuit is a masculine attribute, and that academic success is achieved only by imitation of the 'superior' male" (Mensinger 420). The gap between the surface and deeper motivations of the school's practices convey hypocritical and subliminal messages that harm students who are struggling to define their personal value systems and overall identity.
These
hypocritical policies can act as oppressive and submissive
vehicles that reward conformity and adherence to tradition.
The sociocultural values of the single sex subculture stigmatize
those who try to question authority, and in many single sex
schools, there is "a total lack of discussion on how to make
it through adolescence with any sense of self-esteem or empowerment"
(Young 4). In addition, students "were not encouraged to challenge
the status quo-in fact, there were major consequences when
[they] did" (Young 4). Such policies thus promote and applaud
conformity and submission, qualities antithetical to the supposed
ideals of feminine empowerment and strength. By embodying
both feminist and sexist ideals, the single-sex environment
further confuses the student's perceived gender role and overall
value system. The
mixed message of desirability and inferiority of feminine
qualities creates a high-risk situation for students in single-sex
schools. Research elucidates the powerful effects of students'
desire to achieve personal success within their school environment,
indicating "a relationship between achievement striving and/or
feelings of failure, and eating disorders and body dissatisfaction,
as women strive to change their positions in society" (Dyer
128). The connection emerges between the increased occurrence
of eating disorders and the concurrent emphasis on masculine
traits and superficial feminine qualities. Psychologists find
"that environments which emphasizes more traditional roles
for women might result in a higher prevalence of eating disorders
in the pursuit of attractiveness" (Dyer 128). Researchers
simultaneously find that "alternately, highly competitive
environments," those which emphasize masculine traits associated
with academic success, "might foster not only academic competition
but also competition regarding the achievement of a thin body"
(Dyer 128). The existence of both emphases compounds the effects
and speaks powerfully to reason for the increased occurrences
of physical and emotional disorders in the single sex student
body.
'Unique peer interactions'
Although
these conflicting messages do much to affect the students' self-perceptions,
the unique peer interactions within the all-female environment
have an even more profound affect on the students' conceptions.
Students in single-sex environments may view the all-female
context as a refuge from relationship and sexuality issues.
Removing males from the natural peer group may, however, actually
create greater social stress. This emotional disturbance is
seen in students transitioning from single-sex to coed environments,
for they "expressed feeling pressure and anxiety about having
to look good for members of the opposite sex" (Mensinger 425).
Although the all female setting may reduce some of the social
anxiety, the segregation may in fact create a heightened concern
over relationship issues and can result in inaccurate assessments
regarding male preferences and ideals. Research shows that females
in single-sex environments consistently underestimate the ideal
body weight that men find attractive. In fact, men serve as
an important "reality check" (Mensinger 426) for these distorted
views. Studies show that "the presence of males may actually
mitigate a female's distorted body image when she reaches a
state of emaciation so commonly seen in anorectics" (Mensinger
426). Without this preventative measure to keep misconceptions
in check, these skewed perceptions at single sex schools are
allowed to thrive.
Aside
from the lost benefits of male presence, a strictly female
school creates a distinct social environment with a dynamic
that is unique from that found in coeducational settings.
By removing males from the environment, the school reduces
the social stress and ridicule of "noisy boys," but simultaneously
takes away a buffering mechanism that prevents girls from
truly voicing their opinions and concerns for the sake of
social grace and favor. As Karen Stabiner observes, the students
"said what they meant, absolved of the social concerns that
often made girls tone themselves down. They felt no need to
defer or compromise their opinions in the name of getting
along" (Stabiner 2). While this may be an empowering experience,
it also greatly alters the character of the environment. This
brute, matter-of-fact mindset increases the overall emotional
vulnerability. Added to this social dynamic of sheer academic
stress and reduction of social outlets, single-sex schools
create an environment teeming with competitiveness and criticism.
Self-perception then becomes a function of the gender composition
of the school. This change in social dynamic becomes salient
in that it adds to the already emotional vulnerability of
the students. By heightening the perceived sense of competition
and criticism, this distinct process of peer interaction further
perpetuates the emotional and psychological problems that
give way to eating disorders and poor body image.
Influences similar at coeducational schools?
Despite the pronounced psychological research into the single sex environment, one may argue that these results are a product of the students themselves, and not a unique consequence of the gender segregation. Moreover, it might be said that the influences attributed to causing these increased emotional and physical problems are also at work in coed environments. To be fair, coeducational environments may place similarly conflicting role demands on females with perhaps even more significant consequences, given the male presence. While this may be the case, however, the point of concern focuses on how each of these factors intricately work together to create an overall subculture that places stringent sociocultural influence and pressure on the students. Although similar contradictions and influences may be at work in coed environment, research does not find similar results. As such, this points to a distinct single sex subculture with a unique mechanism that creates these increased psychophysical and emotional problems.
The point of such investigation is not to insinuate the inferiority of single-sex schools or reveal inherent flaws that plague single-sex environments. Much more importantly, the ultimate goal is to identify and understand the mechanisms which facilitate these problems so that they can eventually be targeted and remedied appropriately. The question of whether single-sex or coeducational schools is more advantageous is essentially an empty one. Both schools offer their respective advantages and downfalls. Although the subculture and distinct environment created in single-sex schools have been connected with emotional and psychological detriment, all-girl schools may still be able to fully impart empowering intellectual and personal education if keen attention is given to these possible risks. As a past graduate of an all girl school said, "there was such a fantastic opportunity for my experience with an all-girls education to be an empowering and enlightening one-an education that could have taught me to love myself and my fellow women, to ask critical questions, to be a young radical-in-training" (Young 4). By creating an environment that promotes academic excellence, but is also mindful of the emotional issues facing adolescent females, the experience can be truly rewarding and beneficial.
Monica Tincopa is a junior majoring in psychobiology and is a pre-medical student in the Baccalaureate M.D. program. She is one of eight children, seven of which are girls, and attended an all-girls high school. She will be spending this summer studying at NYU.
Abramovitz,
Melissa (2002). "Mirror mirror in your head: your mental
picture of your body can have a direct effect on your self-esteem
and your behavior." Current Health 2, a Weekly Reader
publication, 28, 26-30.
Brutsaert,
Herman(1999). "Coeducation and Gender Identity Formation:
a comparative analysis of secondary schools in Belgium."
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20 , 343-363.
Dunkely,
Tracy et al (2001). "Examination of a model of multiple
sociocultural influences on adolescent girls' body dissatisfaction
and dietary restraint." Adolescence, 36, 265-280.
Dyer,
Geraldine, and Marika Tiggermann (1996). "The Effect
of School Environment on Body Concerns in Adolescent Women."
Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 34, 127-147.
Granleese,
Jacqueline, and Stephen Joseph. "Self-Perception Profile
of Adolescent Girls at a Single-Sex and Mixed-Sex School."
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 525-139 .
Marsh,
Herbert (1989). "Effects of Attending Single-Sex and
Coeducational High Schools on Achievement, Attitudes, Behaviors
and Sex Differences." Journal of Educational Psychology,
81, 70-86 .
Mensinger,
Janell (2001). "Conflicting Gender Role Prescriptions
and Disordered Eating in Single-sex and Coeducational School
Environments." Gender and Education, 13, 417-430
.
Stabiner,
Karen (2002). All Girls: Single-Sex Education and Why It
Matters. Riverhead Books, New York, 2002 .
Young,
Angie (2003). "Insidious oppression: all-girls education
without feminist vision." Off Our Backs, 33, 26-29.
