Investigation Into Coeducation

2016

Investigation into Coeducation

AUGUST 2016. JENNYFER LEAH

Contents Introduction ...... 2 Gender and Schooling ...... 3 Gender and Biological sex ...... 3 The reinforcement of gender stereotypes ...... 3 Sex difference as the basis for segregation and or distinct pedagogy: ...... 4 Academic advantage of Single Sex or Coeducation ...... 5 Specific subject areas and academic performance and participation ...... 6 Mathematics ...... 6 Science ...... 8 Physical education ...... 8 Excellence in teaching and learning is the key to academic success in both SS and CE environments.... 8 The impact of single sex classrooms in coeducational schools on academic achievement ...... 9 Other factors critical to success in SS and CE environments ...... 10 Wellbeing and social and emotional skill development ...... 10 Long term wellbeing and achievement: ...... 11 The Guildford context ...... 12 Recent academic results in Western Australian Schools ...... 12 The Perth market ...... 13 Other Australian Markets ...... 15 Adelaide ...... 15 Melbourne ...... 16 SWOT analysis of Guildford Grammar School shifting to coeducation ...... 17 Strengths (internal) ...... 17 Weaknesses (internal) ...... 18 Opportunities (external) ...... 18 Threats (external) ...... 19 References ...... 20

Introduction

In defining the parameters for searching the academic literature it became apparent that at least some of the confusion surrounding the Single Sex (SS) vs Co-education (CE) debate was a result of a shift in behavior over time. Bennett (2015, p. 33) points out the significant global change experienced in the later half of the twentieth century which has impacted on women’s lives and the relationships between the genders. During this time the educational and occupational aspirations of girls in particular have demonstrated a significant upwards shift. Marks (2008 p.92) comments on the shift in the gender performance gap noting the strong correlation between increased academic performance and higher academic and occupational aspiration. As Mael observes, “single sex secondary schools originally served as agents of socialization into the more sex segregated workplace” (1998, p. 102). In addition to these changes, the last 10 years have seen an explosion in digital communication and social networking which has additional ramifications when considering the single sex vs coeducation debate. In their technical report titled ‘Social media and the wellbeing of Children and Young People: A literature review’, Swist, Collin, McCormack and Third (2015) highlight the rapid integration of social media into the lives of children and young people. They go on to state; ”the experience of childhood and youth is social, complex and quickly evolving, especially in an age of social media…..digitally mediated mobile, personalized and social communicative practices are now a common feature of everyday life” (Swist et. al. 2015, p. 11). The explosion of digital communication and the instantaneous nature of social media mean that boys and girls in SS settings have constant and immediate social access to the opposite sex even when at school. Support for SS schooling centered around isolating the sexes in schools for social reasons is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

As Bennett (2015, p.70) succinctly states:

“Historical context is important but society changes and it is inappropriate to simply assume that findings from earlier research apply to contemporary settings, nevertheless these findings still resonate with today’s parents”.

When contending with the issue of SS vs CE schooling we are currently faced with a broad range of issues that continue to muddy the waters: old research that has led to persistent beliefs regarding SS/CE schooling, unsubstantiated beliefs regarding either SS or CE present in families, schools and the broader community, that is often supported by inaccurate media reporting around the subject.

Gender and Schooling

The issue of gender and schooling, and particularly the arrangement of schools as either CE or SS has been the focus of a significant amount of research over the last 50 years. Ideas about gender have been explored on the basis of gender as a social rather than a biological construct, and research recognizes that gender is a variable that changes according to context and time (Crosswell and Hunter, 2012, p.19). We can recognize this social construction of gender in our own context when we attribute certain characteristics as those desirable of ‘Guildford men.’ Gender and Biological sex In recent years discussion by some researchers has focused on the construction of gender vs understanding of biological sex. Questions regarding the differences between boys and girls have been raised, including how much difference is due to social construction of gender, and how much can be explained on the basis of biology.

• Gender is negotiated enacted and actively constructed (Jackson, 2010, p.229). • Gender is a social construct and as a result gender roles and representations can vary significantly between cultures (Crosswell and Hunter, 2012). • 1.7% of the population are born intersex – there is no clear way to classify these individuals as males or females (Jackson, 2010 p.229). • By constructing schools as single gender environments concepts of ‘normal heterosexuality’ are reinforced and intersex, transgender, gay and lesbian students are marginalized and perceived as ‘not normal’ (Jackson 2010). The reinforcement of gender stereotypes The reinforcement of negative or outdated gender stereotypes, according to the gender composition of the school has been examined by a number of researchers. There is once again significant differences in the findings of researchers:

SS settings

• Malacova (2007) states that gender stereotypic views are more strongly reflected in CE settings and SS students have a more positive attitude towards subjects traditionally favored by the opposite sex. This is supported by Clark (2004). • Coeducation reinforced both social and economic constructs (Clark, 2004). • Pahlke, Hyde and Allison, (2014, p. 1061) found that gender stereotypes are slightly more likely to prevail in girls in CE settings, they do however suggest these results should be considered with caution.

CE settings

• Billiger (2007), contends that gender stereotypes are more likely to be reinforced in SS settings.

• Stereotyped beliefs about the opposite gender are thought to develop in gender segregated peer groups and fuel further gender segregation (Keener, Mehta and Strough, 2013). • SS schooling is associated with less egalitarian attitudes towards marriage, employment, social and educational aspirations for boys (Keener, Mehta and Strough, 2013). • Segregation of the genders leads to increased gender stereotyping and sexism, it is thought this occurs because there is no opportunity to debunk stereotypic beliefs (Fabes et.al. 2015). • Dantnow in Fabes et.al. (2015) points out that segregation of boys and girls leads to a heightened awareness of gender as a social category. • When children are segregated based on some characteristic (i.e. gender or skin color) children infer that groups differ in important ways and develop stronger intergroup biases (Halpern et.al. 2011). • Jackson (2010, p.235) arguing against SS schooling states the “assumption that one gender prefers certain activities excludes and precludes students from exploring all of their interests and risks presenting them with a more stereotypical view of gender.”

Regardless of the arrangement of students into SS or CE classes and schools Keener, Metha and Strough (2013, p. 829) contend that “Adolescence is a period of the life span providing unique opportunities and challenges to promote cooperation and equal status interactions between boys and girls.” Sex difference as the basis for segregation and or distinct pedagogy: In parallel with discussion in the research about social construction of gender the last decade has seen a sharp focus on research emerging on physiological and biological differences between the sexes, and how this may or may not impact on learning. The debate in this area is particularly vehement with Sax leading the charge in support of significant differences that do effect learning, and this point of view strongly refuted by other groups of well-regarded academics.

• Sax (2006) states since 2001 researchers have begun to systematically look for sex differences in non-cognitive parameters that are relevant to how children learn. He highlights researchers who have identified differences in binocularity of vision, sense of smell, and the function of the autonomic nervous system. He also reports anecdotal preferences for male students, and males in general for working in colder conditions. • Physiological and biological differences highlighted as a basis for the support SS teaching (Delfos, 2005) • King, Gurian, and Stevens (2010), focus on School improvement through gender equity in the US. They acknowledge that gender related issues can affect school improvement. Gender differences are generalized, however, their article refers to the neurological differences regarding brain development in males and females.

• Support for SS pedagogy on this basis is strongly refuted by a number of researchers including Rowe and Rowe (2002).

• Halpern and colleagues also argue strongly against these theories advocated by Sax and others in their paper ‘the pseudoscience of single sex schooling”, noting that neuroscientists have found few differences in children’s brains beyond the larger volume of boys brains and the earlier completion of brain growth in girls – neither of which is known to relate to learning (Halpern et. al. 2011, p. 1706). • Younger and Warrington (2007) point out that SS classes assume a homogeneity amongst boys difficult to recognize except at the most superficial level. • Jackson (2010, p. 235) points out that the question of innate difference is impossible as society treats the genders differently.

On balance the research in this area remains unresolved, and researchers advocating for separation of the sexes for learning based on biological differences are strongly refuted by other academics. At this stage there is no evidence from a biological difference point of view to support a parallel or diamond model of coeducation in favor of a fully coeducational model.

Academic advantage of Single Sex or Coeducation

In an attempt to isolate the impact of either single sex or coeducation on academic performance approximately 30 studies (including meta-analysis) were examined. The criteria for inclusion: research publication, publication since 2000 (one study dated 1998 was the exception to this stipulation), both qualitative and quantitative methodology was included, an attempt was made not to include individual studies that formed part of larger research reports or meta-analysis.

The vast majority of the studies examined demonstrated no particular advantage for either single sex (SS) or coeducation (CE). Much of the research in this field is not considered to be of particularly high quality, with weak experimental design lamented by a number of researchers (Thompson and Ungerleider (2004), Pahlke, Hyde and Allison (2014).

• Bennett (2015) highlights the importance of reviewing recent res earch, indicating that in research prior to 1989, 77% of studies supported the claim that girls in SS schools achieved better academic results, whilst between 1995 and 2004 this had dropped to around 17%. Alongside this trend, Bennett makes a point of highlighting the problematic nature of all studies in the CE v SS debate, particularly in regards to controlling for variables such as SES, family background and individual school culture and quotes Bracey (2006), “it is extraordinarily difficult to conduct scientifically acceptable research on SS schools. The mere fact that all such schools are schools of choice means that from the outset no random assignment is possible” (Bracey in Bennett, 2015, p33). • Common belief that girls in particular benefit from SS schooling - when variables are controlled girls do just as well in either environment (Woodward, Fergusson and Harwood, 1999). • It is difficult to substantiate that single sex or co-ed is better. Academic results between the two school types are negligible once differences such as initial attainment and SES have been

considered. (Robinson and Smithers, 1999, Mansfeild, 2013, Pahlke, Hyde and Allison, 2014, Cherney and Campbel, 2011). • In addition to this finding, three of the studies that indicated an advantage for SS schooling characterise this advantage as ‘slight’, ’small’ and ‘small to negligible’. (Woodward, Fergusson and Harwood, 1999, Rowe and Rowe, 2002 and Mael et. al., 2005) It is also important to note that much of this data was gathered prior to 2000, and questions are raised regarding the control of background variables in these studies. • Ku and Kwak (2013), highlight the extreme difficulty for researchers in eliminating all variations between SS and CE environments that can effect achievement. • It is suggested that SS schools top the league tables for reasons associated with the school itself, not due to the segregation of the sexes itself. SS schools often differ from coed due to selective processes, high SES, academic traditions, which are strongly related to league table performance. (Woodward, Fergusson and Harwood, 1999). • No advantage is demonstrated for very high achievers (in particular) - some students flourish in any setting. • Santos, Galligan, Pahlke and Fabes found exposure to SS environment has a statistically significant negative effect on standardized test scores in reading and mathematics. (Santos, Galligan, Pahlke and Fabes in Fabes et.al, 2015, p. 435). • Despite some reports of positive effects, Fabes et.al. (2015, p. 423) point out that any positive outcomes for single sex schooling disappear, after accounting for differences in the qualities of the children who attend SS schools, the resources and novelty of SS programmes and methodological and analytical problems encountered in the research. • Bennett (2015) observes that by the late 1990’s researchers were arguing that any advantage for SS schooling was not evident for all boys or all girls, but was linked to economic disadvantage and minority groups. • Smithers and Robinson (2006) in Bennett (2015), observe that the paradox of the single sex vs coeducation debate is that the beliefs are so strong and the evidence so weak. Specific subject areas and academic performance and participation There seems to be a widely held view that segregation of the sexes in particular subject areas can lead to greater academic success and participation in these areas both at school and post-school. However Leder and Forgasz (1997, p. 277) highlight the strong effect of the media and parental attitudes in student subject selection. Mathematics • A recent Irish study (Prendergast and O’Donoghue, 2014) found an academic advantage for both boys and girls in SS mathematics classes, however this was not statistically significant and experimental design did not account for SES and other school and student level factors that contribute to student performance. In addition the research referenced in this study was considered very outdated – citing sources published in 1992 and 1967. • The same study supported a statistically significant difference in enjoyment of mathematics favoring SS settings for both genders. (The relationship was however stronger for girls in SS settings).

• Older evidence – pre 1990. Mael (1998) cites older research indicating that girls’ achievement may improve in SS settings for maths and science. He also indicates there is some evidence that SS Mathematics classes in CE schools can improve the academic performance of girls. • A 2015 Australian study by Lee and Anderson supports the notion that students enjoy mathematics more in a SS environment. NAPLAN scores are used to compare the mathematics achievement of students across three NSW schools, with findings indicating that academic benefits exist for SS mathematics classes for both sexes) based on these results. The statistical significance is unclear, as is the basis for comparison of these schools, with the Authors commenting that they are in a “similar metropolitan region” (Lee and Anderson, 2015, p.361). Considering this in our own context is interesting as we share a fence line with Governor Stirling SHS. As an exercise in comparison on this basis included below in figure 1 and 2 are Year 9 Naplan results for Governor Stirling SHS and Guildford Grammar School:

Figure 1: Year 9 Naplan results, Governor Stirling SHS 2015. (MySchool, ND).

Figure 2: Year 9 Naplan results, Guildford Grammar School, 2015. (MySchool, ND).

It can be noted that the scores for Guildford Grammar School are significantly higher across all areas tested, however the suggestion that these scores are higher due to the SS status of our student population would be extremely shortsighted and not account for a range of other significant variables present within the two school communities.

• There seems to be a pervasive belief amongst girls that their ability in mathematics is lower than that of their male peers. (Atweh and Cooper, 1995, Watt, 2004). Watt observes “ it appears likely that that boys and girls commence school with these different beliefs already in place,

…such early gender differences are attributable to socialization experiences in the home and wider society (i.e. media portrayals)”( Watt, 2004, p. 1571). • The OECD (2015) ‘PISA in focus’ indicates that girls are more likely to express strong feelings of anxiety towards mathematics, even high achieving girls. This trend is observed globally.

Overall there have been questions raised about the benefits of SS mathematics classes, based largely on older research. More modern research demonstrates a persistent trend on a global level for boys to enjoy Mathematics more than girls, and for girls to have higher anxiety and lower ability perception. However both girls and boys in the U.S. and Australia from families who are more economically and socially advantaged, consistently demonstrated higher mathematics achievement (Lamb, 2011). The SES factors doubtlessly contribute to the notion that girls (and boys) in SS schools achieve better mathematics results, however this is far more likely to be a function linked to the student’s family background than the gender arrangement of the school that they attend. Science • Cherney and Campbell (2011) girls in SS environments are no more likely to pursue a career in STEM. • Mael (1998) indicates some support for girls performing better in science in SS environments– however data predates 1987. • Sikora (2014) explores the gender differences in the choice to study science in upper secondary school in Australia. She identifies SS schools in Australia as mostly select, non-government schools catering for students of above average socioeconomic status and achievement in science. She goes on to state “these schools make little difference to gendered patterns of student science specialization….while girls only schools appear to foster more participation in physical science courses or to encourage more interest in physical science careers among their students, these differences are attributable to factors other than gender composition of schools” (Sikora, 2014, p. 411). • Australian girls in SS settings are less likely to study life sciences than girls in CE settings (Sikora, 2014). Physical education • Pearson and Webb (2010) indicate that SS settings for physical education is advantageous both in terms of participation and performance. • Woodson-Smith, Dorwart and Linder (2015) found that preference for SS or CE physical education classes amongst girls was dependent on a variety of factors (such as activity and perceived ability level) and they recommend, when feasible, giving female students a choice in regard to the type of class they prefer. Excellence in teaching and learning is the key to academic success in both SS and CE environments In a large sample of the research, regardless of support for SS or CE, teaching and classroom factors were identified as the single greatest contributor to student academic success.

• Single sex classes only impact positively when located within a gender relational context, supported and promoted by senior managers, supported and understood by families and

students and located a holistic approach to achievement which values individuals (Younger and Warrington, 2007). • Price (2011) emphasizes the important role of the teacher in promoting a classroom experience deemed attractive to boys – teacher effect could be considered far more significant than SS grouping of students. • Rowe and Rowe (2002) highlight the significance of class/teacher effects on learning and goes on to highlight that difference between schools over and above the class and teacher effects are very small, ultimately that teachers and teaching makes the difference not school gender composition. • Sax (2006), who strongly supports a biological basis for difference in academic performance and behavior in schools (and sex segregation) advocates the view that separation of the sexes is not adequate, that teachers must understand and access data on hard wired differences to ensure sex streaming is effective. • SS teaching only effective when teaching styles are differentiated for boys and girls (Delfos, 2005). The impact of single sex classrooms in coeducational schools on academic achievement Forays into single sex classes in coeducational schools have been undertaken in Australia, the United Kingdom and the US in recent years as a means to address a range of educational issues, most recently the perceived underachievement of boys. (Younger and Warrington, 2006). The results from these experiments have been largely inconclusive as outlined in table 1.

Table 1 Single sex classes in Coeducational settings

Researchers Year Country Description Conclusion

Price 2011 NZ Single gender classroom trial in Some academic improvement. Attitudes primary setting. toward learning improved and more pro social behaviours observed.

DETWA 2009 AUS Single Gender classroom trial in 5 Mixed results, no conclusive patterns. Western Australian public secondary However factors for the success or schools. Different implementation in otherwise at a school and teacher level each context. were identified.

Younger and 2006 U.K. Raising boys achievement project Can be of benefit but only when within a Warrington gender relational context.

Wills Kilpatrick 2006 AUS Case study in primary school setting No gains in formal measures of educational and Hutton achievement, however positive social outcomes observed for both sexes.

Khoo 2000 AUS Discussion of SS classes implemented Minimal effect without highly effective in NSW. teacher.

In spite of numerous trials, particularly the ones in Australian schools, there is no push to implement SS classes in CE settings in Australia as the inconsistent and inconclusive results do not support this model. Other factors critical to success in SS and CE environments A clear understanding of context is critical to success in both CE and SS environments (Mansfeild, 2013). Ku and Kwak (2013) also highlight the importance of focusing on context as SS and CE are highly country and context specific, making generalization difficult. Lamb (2011) highlights this when comparing mathematics achievement between US and Australian students. In Australia for example, student background factors explain far more of the between school variance than in the US.

Wellbeing and social and emotional skill development

Schools, in conjunction with families and the broader community play a significant role in addressing the wellbeing of students. Social and emotional skills are prerequisites for learning, with students who have better social and emotional skills demonstrating higher academic achievement, stronger positive health outcomes and the ability to contribute more effectively in their lives beyond school. (Allen, Hurley and Leah, 2015, p. 6).

This line of enquiry sought to gather information on the differences between SS and CE in providing support for student wellbeing and the development of SE skills.

• Wills, Kilpatrick and Hutton (2006) identified increased social capability that impacted other areas of schooling including development of self-assurance and willingness to tackle demanding curriculum (girls) gains in self-discipline engagement with schoolwork and participation in the school community when students participated in SS classes. • Stress and gender arrangement of schools – girls were found to experience lower levels of stress in SS environments. (Brutsaert and Van Houtte, 2004). • Monaco and Gaier (1992) hypothesize a range of positive outcomes for girls in SS settings including an increase in self-regard and self-confidence. (This research should be considered, keeping in mind the lack of discussion of other confounding variables such as SES, the age of the research and the US context in which it is based).

• Leder and Forgasz (1997, p.276) found increased self-concept measures for males and females in CE settings. • No difference in self-esteem between females in SS and CE settings (Leder and Forgasz,1997, p.276) • In a Canadian investigation conducted in the late 1980’s Schneider, Coutts and Starr (1988, p.492) found that students in coeducational schools possessed more favorable attitudes about their academic competencies, teachers and the institution where they were being educated.

(Cautious about the age of this particular study, although the Canadian context is comparable to Australia). • Palke, Hyde and Allison (2014) in a large scale analysis of SS and CE research found no increased self-concept for girls in SS settings. • Fabes et.al. (2015, p. 438) posit that exposure to SS settings has negative effects on communication, increases stereotyping of the other gender, decreases between gender relationship efficacy and increases negative attitudes about the opposite gender. They propose a transactional model of this gender segregation cycle, as outlined below in figure 3. They further contend that separating the genders into SS classes magnifies differences between boys and girls and perpetuates this cycle. • Younger and Warrington (2007, p.614) SS classes can at best, contribute to raising achievement levels and enhancing self-esteem and social attributes of boys and girls and at worst exacerbate stereotypes, devalue girls and expose non-conforming boys to ridicule. They posit that a culture of inclusion and achievement is the strongest predictor of success.

Greater communication difficulties

Gender Increased Stereotyping and bias Segregation Decreased relationship efficacy Increased negative attitudes

Figure 3. Transactional model of the gender segregation cycle (Fabes et.al. 2015, p.438)

Much of the support for SS schools and classes as a means to enhance wellbeing and develop SE skills seems to be drawn from research prior to 2000. The impact of changes in digital communication and construction of gender in recent decades, as discussed in the introduction to this report may need to be considered, and the current validity of this older research in modern schools questioned. Long term wellbeing and achievement: The long term wellbeing as well as educational and career achievement can be considered an indicator of the advantage of either SS or CE for both boys and girls. There seems to be little research to indicate that long term either school setting confers an advantage

• Sullivan, Joshi and Leonard (2011) found no relationship between SS v CE and unemployment at age 33.

• The uptake of STEM subjects as career choice post school (particularly for girls) was not impacted by attendance at SS or CE school. (Cherney and Campbell, 2011) • Billiger (2007) indicates that SS alumni are less likely to meet educational expectations post school. • Graduates of private CE schools had the least gender segregation in their major area of further study (Billiger, 2007, p. 14). • Pahlke, Allison and Hyde (2014) found no correlation between SS schooling and higher educational outcomes. • On a global level PISA results demonstrate that in all countries and economies that surveyed parents of students that took the PISA test, parents were far more likely to expect their sons, rather than their daughters to work in a STEM field. (OECD, 2015). • Leder and Forgasz (1997, p. 277) highlight the strong effect of the media and parental attitudes in student subject selection, which is likely to account for a students’ selection of STEM subjects, further study or career.

The Guildford context

In order to contextualize if the option to become CE it is worth considering the current context of the School, as recommended in the literature. The Western Australian independent education sector, particularly the high fee paying SS end of the sector, to which Guildford belongs can be defined by strong traditions, clear membership and a long, unbroken period of stasis. If Guildford undertakes this switch it will become, along with All Saints College, the most costly coeducational school in Western Australia, and the first SS secondary school to change status. (John XXIII College (Claremont) was formed by the amalgamation of two existing schools). Recent academic results in Western Australian Schools In recent years non-government schools have consistently topped the league tables in Western Australia, with the notable exception of academically selective Perth Modern School. This trend lends local support to the research perspective that school type, SES of school are very strong predictors of academic success. Although the presentation of these results are somewhat arbitrary and do not provide a holistic view of the individual school, they nonetheless give a snapshot of achievement and insight into the schools, perceived on some level, as the most successful. The ranking is based on the percentage of Year 12 students with a WACE score of over 75.

The overwhelming feature of these results is the nature of the majority of top ten schools, as high fee paying (so called) elite private schools. Whilst the girls’ schools continue to dominate, results at a global level would indicate that this is to be expected, with a consistent gender achievement gap of around 15% between boys and girls (OECD, 2015). What is also notable is the strong performance of CE schools, particularly All Saints College and Carmel School, who have consistently placed strongly in these tables despite not being in the high fee paying category (Carmel), nor having selective school entry requirements (Carmel and All Saints). Consistently strong performers in this table also include a number of CE public schools located within high SES areas.

Table 2

School Ranking according to percentage of students with WACE score in excess of 75

Ranking 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

1 Carmel School All Saints St Hilda’s AGS Perth Modern Hale School School 2 Perth Modern Perth Modern St Mary’s AGS Methodist LC St Hilda’s AGS School School 3 St Mary’s AGS St Hilda’s AGS Perth Modern St Mary’s AGS St Mary’s School AGS 4 St Hilda’s AGS St Mary’s AGS Presbyterian Hale School Perth Modern LC School 5 Methodist LC Christchurch Hale School Carmel School Presbyterian Grammar LC 6 Penrohs LC Presbyterian LC Christchurch Penrhos Christchurch Grammar College Grammar 7 Presbyterian Hale School Methodist LC Scotch College Methodist LC LC 8 Christchurch Santa Maria Scotch College St Hilda’s AGS Mercedes Grammar College College 9 All Saints Penrhos Penrhos Christchurch Wesley College College College GS 10 Hale School Perth College Shenton All Saints Willeton SHS College 11 John XXIII Scotch College Perth College Perth College Churchlands SHS 12 Santa Maria Methodist LC Sacred Heart Presbyterian Aquinas LC 13 St Andrews Iona Rossmoyne Rossmoyne All Saints Grammar Presentation SHS SHS College College 14 Ursula Frayne Wesley Churchlands Churchlands Rossmoyne SHS SHS SHS 15 Sacred Heart Willeton Santa Maria John XXIII Shenton College SHS College College 16 John Curtin CA Churchlands Murdoch Shenton John XXIII SHS College College 17 Willeton Rossmoyne Willeton Willeton Iona PC SHS SHS 18 Rossmoyne Shenton Wesley Sacred Heart Trinity College College 19 Thornlie John Wollaston Swan Valley Lake Joondalup Perth College ACS Anglican Baptist 20 Scotch Aquinas All Saints Bunbury Sacred Heart Cathedral Grammar

The Perth market Currently Guildford Grammar School primarily competes for enrollments with other like schools, which in Perth primarily constitute other SS independent schools, particularly those with PSA membership, and to a lesser extent lower fee paying CE and SS schools in the region.

The decision to become a CE school would most likely open up this competition to include more scrutiny of the other (significantly) lower fee independent schools in the region by families considering a Guildford education for their children

Schools that are likely to provide competition for enrollments in a CE scenario are outlined below in table 3.

Table 3 Independent schools likely to provide competition for enrollments

School Location Fees (Senior School)

Helena College Glen Forrest $12,330

Carmel School Yokine Available on application

Ellenbrook Christian College Ellenbrook $6195-6547 **Substantial family discounts apply 15% 2nd child, 40% 3rd child 75% 4th child. John Septimus Roe ACS Mirrabooka $7170

Mundaring Christian College Mundaring $6532-6728

La Salle College Vievash $3608-4090

Swan Valley Anglican CS Aveley $6427-7005

Swan Christian College Middle Swan $7182-7446 ***Substantial family discounts apply 15% 2nd child, 40% 3rd child 75% 4th child. Trinity College Perth $14000

Perth College Mt Lawley $22572*** facilities and maintenance levy $828 per family and technology tablet $650-675. Mercedes College Perth $8622*** a large number of subjects attract additional course fees of between $60 and $240. Mazenod Lesmurdie $6050 *** building levy $450

St Bridget’s Lesmurdie $5098-5473 *** a large number of subjects attract additional course fees of between $60 and $351. Instrumental music additional $1054. St Georges College Perth $10300-11520 *** additional school development fund and resource fee $850

Other Australian Markets Whilst it is important to consider the market context for Guildford by examining local offerings and competition a brief examination of markets in other states can provide insight into the enrollments of high quality high fee coeducational and single sex schools.

Adelaide The independent school sector in Adelaide is comparable in cost and size to that of Perth. Notable differences include the number of high fee paying CE schools and the more flexible arrangement of sporting organisation.

Table 4

Independent school sector - Adelaide

School Founded Location SS/CE Fees (Year 12)

St Peters 1847 Adelaide Boys $25125

Pembroke 1974 Kensington Park CE (amalgamation of $24000 - $25000 Girton Girls’ School and King’s College) Scotch College 1922 Torrens Park CE (in 1972) $24320

Prince Alfred 1869 Kent Town Boys $24720

St Ignatius 1951 Athelstone CE (in 1996) $15500

Pultney Grammar 1848 Adelaide CE (in 1999) $23200

Walford AGS 1893 Hyde Park Girls $26315

St Peters Collegiate 1894 Stonyfell Girls $24200 Girls School Westminster 1957 Marian CE (in 1978) $24132

Melbourne The independent school sector in Melbourne is much larger and more complex than found locally. There are large number of high fee paying independent schools catering for Boys, Girls and a significantly larger market share seems to be held by coeducational schools than found in Perth, however further investigation is required to confirm this.

Table 4

Independent school sector - Melbourne

School Founded Location CE/SS Fees

Geelong Grammar 1855 Geelong CE (in 1972) $37328

Brighton Grammar 1882 Brighton Boys $28335

Melbourne Grammar 1849 Melbourne Boys $30360

Melbourne Girls 1893 South Yarra Girls $32736 Grammar Loreto girls 1924 Toorak Girls $25206

Genazzano 1891 Kew Girls $24129

Xavier 1878 Kew Boys $24736

Geelong College 1861 Geelong CE (in 1974) $24480

Haileybury 1892 Multi campus CE (in 2006) $28710

Camberwell 1886 Canterbury Boys $29500

Caulfield Grammar 1881 St Kilda CE (in 1981) $28037

Wesley College 1866 Melbourne CE (in 1978) $32582

Carey Baptist 1923 Melbourne CE (in 1979) $28480 Grammar

SWOT analysis of Guildford Grammar School shifting to coeducation

Strengths (internal) Opportunity to offer unique schooling experience in WA (high quality, high fee)

To better serve the purpose of the school

Opportunity to reinvent the school in a profound way

Opportunity to refresh the academic culture of the school

Outstanding pastoral care program expanded

Already a large number of highly educated forward thinking staff who could become strong advocates for change.

Many staff experienced in a coed context already

Good gender balance amongst teaching staff

Women represented in middle management roles in Senior School (Heads of House, Heads of Faculty etc.)

Women represented on school council, including former chair

Significant infrastructure already in place

Decision is not forced due to financial pressure or enrollment decline, so a chance to plan in a measured and thoughtful way

Preserve what is good and let go of the past, keep positive aspects of history and current culture while moving away from negative events of the past

Opportunity to keep outstanding Prep girls

Corresponding improvement in academic results

Prep school already operating a fully coeducational model K-6

Simplifies things for families of both genders

Potential to establish a school of optimal size

Medical centre and support staff such as school psychologists are currently highly qualified women

The ‘first girls’ will potentially take pride in being the ground breakers

More reflective of the modern world where students will work with both genders

Life of the Chapel enriched

Breakdown the boys club stereotype of SS education

Weaknesses (internal) Cost of developing new infrastructure:

- Classrooms - Boarding - Changes to Medical centre - Expansion of sporting facilities - Not enough toilets

Currently no space for girls boarding within current infrastructure

Some staff resistant to change

Negative reaction from current community

Difficulty providing equity for both genders

How to ensure equity academic/boarding facilities, access to equivalent sport and co-curricular program

Potential loss of boys’ enrollment – smaller numbers may affect sports performance, morale and culture

Commitment to PSA sport and associated traditions – how do we keep this and add an equivalent program for girls?

Extra scholarship funding for girls

Equity of prize recognition

Participation in house events – separate or together?

Uniforms – how do we accommodate without stereotyping?

Transition budget and resources for non-capital items – significant – consider: community consultation, staffing (research, community relations – significant time required, staff occupied with change process will need support for other duties.)

OG reaction and ongoing support

Resources to cater for a broader range of interests and sports

Managing cultural change

Opportunities (external) May help insulate the school from future enrollment threats

Potential for new markets

To partner with external organisations to research and investigate the journey

Potential to reexamine the staffing model during transition including teacher effectiveness, timetabling, action research, graduate and new teacher program.

Community response including positive media coverage

Reputation as progressive

Realization of purpose:

• graduating students • at tertiary level • throughout the lifespan

Threats (external) Community response

Negative media coverage

No capacity to offer IGSA sport

Negative backlash from PSA and any potential impact on membership – (tied to the positive history and identity of the school)

OG reaction and ongoing support

Outdated community beliefs about SS/CE

Erosion of unique cultural identity and traditions

Potential period of significant and sustained upheaval

Relationship with PC during and after the transition

Negative backlash from girls’ schools

Does the market exist?

Significant number of lower fee CE private schools in the area

References

Anfara, V., & Mertens, S. (2008). What Research Says: Do Single-Sex Classes and Schools Make a Difference? Middle School Journal, 40(2), 52-59. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23047369

Atweh, B., & Cooper, T. (1995). The Construction of Gender, Social Class and Mathematics in the Classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28(3), 293-310.

Bennett, S. (2003). Coeducation: a risky venture still? Paper presented at the joint AARE/NZARE conference, Auckland, 2003.

Bennett, S. (2015). Gender relations in elite coeducational schools (No. PhD). Deakin Univeristy. Best, S., Pearson, P. J., & Webb, P. I. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of the effects of single-sex and coeducational classroom settings on the participation and performance of students in practical physical education.

Better Education (ND). Retrieved from http://www.bettereducation.com.au/About4W.aspx

Billger, S. M. (2009). On reconstructing school segregation: The efficacy and equity of single-sex schooling. Economics of Education Review, 28(3), 393-402.

Brighton Grammar School (N.D.) Retrieved from https://www.brightongrammar.vic.edu.au

Brutsaert, H., & Van Houtte, M. (2004). Gender context of schooling and levels of stress among early adolescent pupils. Education and urban society, 37 (1), 58-73.

Camberwell Grammar (N.D.) Retrieved from www.cgs.vic.edu.au

Carey Baptist Grammar(N.D.) Retrieved from www.carey.com.au

Caulfield Grammar (N.D.) Retrieved from https://www.caulfieldgs.vic.edu.au Cherney, I. D., & Campbell, K. L. (2011). A league of their own: Do single-sex schools increase girls’ participation in the physical sciences? Sex roles, 65 (9-10), 712-724.

Clark, I. (2004). Co-Education and Gender: The End of the Experiment? education policy analysis archives, 12(41), n41.

Cresswell, J., Rowe, K. & Withers, G. (2002). Boys in school and society. Australian Council for Educational Research.

Crosswell, L., & Hunter, L. (2012). Navigating the muddy waters of the research into single sex classrooms in co-educational middle year’s settings. Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 12(2), 16-27.

Delfos, M. (2005) About Boys: the core of the matter. The Boys in Schools Bulletin. 8 (1), 40-45.

Department of Education and Training WA, (2009). Single Gender Classroom Trial 2006-2008, Evaluation Report. Department of Education and Training WA, Evaluation and Accountability Directorate, Perth, Western Australia.

Ellenbrook Christian College Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.ellenbrook.wa.edu.au

Ewing, E. (2006). The Repudiation of Single-Sex Education: Boys' Schools in the Soviet Union, 1943-1954. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 621-650.

Fabes, R., Martin, C., Hanish, L., Galligan, K., & Pahlke, E. (2015). Gender-Segregated Schooling A Problem Disguised as a Solution. Educational Policy, 29(3), 431-447.

Francis, B. (2000). The Gendered Subject: Students' Subject Preferences and Discussions of Gender and Subject Ability. Oxford Review of Education, 26(1), 35-48.

Geelong College (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.geelongcollege.vic.edu.au/

Geelong Grammar School (N.D.) Retrieved from https://www.ggs.vic.edu.au

Genazzano College (N.D.) Retrieved from www.genazzano.vic.edu.au

Gibb, S. J., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008). Effects of single-sex and coeducational schooling on the gender gap in educational achievement. Australian Journal of education, 52(3), 301- 317.

Haileybury School (N.D.) Retrieved from www.haileybury.com.au

Helena College Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.helenacollege.wa.edu.au

Herr, K., & Arms, E. (2004). Accountability and single-sex schooling: A collision of reform agendas. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 527-555.

Jackson, C., & Bisset, M. (2005). Gender and school choice: Factors influencing parents when choosing single-sex or co-educational independent schools for their children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 195-211.

Jackson, J. (2010) Dangerous presumptions: how single-sex schooling reifies false notions of sex, gender, and sexuality. Gender and education (0954-0253), 22 (2), 227. John Septimus Rowe ACS Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.jsracs.wa.edu.au/home.aspx

Keener, E., Mehta, C., & Strough, J. (2013). Should educators and parents encourage other- gender interactions? Gender segregation and sexism. Gender and Education, 25(7), 818-833.

King, K., Gurian, M., & Stevens, K. (2010). Gender-Friendly Schools. Educational Leadership, 68(3), 38-42.

Khoo, V. (2000). A separate Issue. Inform (6) December.

Kwak, D. W., & Ku, H. (2013). Together or Separate: Disentangling the Effects of Single-Sex Schooling from the Effects of Single-Sex Schools (No. 487).

Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Australia and the United States using TIMSS. Australian Journal of education, 46(2), 154-171.

La Salle College Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from www.lasalle.wa.edu.au

Leder, G, & Forgasz, H. (1997). Single-Sex Classes in a Coeducational High School Highlighting Parents’ Perspectives. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(3), 274-291.

Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2012). School context and the gender gap in educational achievement. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 463-485.

Loreto Mandeville Hall (N.D.) Retrieved from https://www.loretotoorak.vic.edu.au

Mael, F. (1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development. Review of educational research,68 (2), 101-129.

Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review. Doc# 2005-01. US Department of Education.

Malacova, E. (2007). Effect of single‐sex education on progress in GCSE. Oxford Review of Education, 33(2), 233-259.

Mansfield, K. C. (2013). The growth of single-sex schools: Federal policy meets local needs and interests. education policy analysis archives, 21, 87.

Marks, G. (2008). Accounting for the Gender Gaps in Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics: Evidence from 31 Countries. Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 89-109.

Mazenod Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.mazenod.wa.edu.au

Melbourne Grammar School (N.D.) Retrieved from www.mgs.vic.edu.au

Melbourne Girls Grammar School (N.D.) Retrieved from www.mggs.vic.edu.au

Mercedes College Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.mercedes.catholic.edu.au

Mills*, M. (2004). The media, marketing, and single sex schooling. Journal of education policy, 19(3), 343-360.

Monaco, N. M., & Gaier, E. L. (1992). Single-sex versus coeducational environment and achievement in adolescent females. Adolescence, 27(107), 579.

Mundairing Christian College Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.mundairing.wa.edu.au

Pahlke, E., Hyde, J. S., & Allison, C. M. (2014). The effects of single-sex compared with coeducational schooling on students’ performance and attitudes: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 10 42.

Pembroke School (N.D.) Retrieved from https://www.pembroke.sa.edu.au/

Perth College Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.perthcollege.wa.edu.au

Price, C. D. (2011). Boys only: One co-educational primary school’s experience of a classroom for boys. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(9), 6.

Prince Alfred College (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.pac.edu.au

Pultney Grammar (N.D.) Retrieved from www.pulteney.sa.edu.au

Robinson, P., & Smithers, A. (1999). Should the sexes be separated for secondary education‐‐ comparisons of single‐sex and co‐educational schools? Research Papers in Education, 14(1), 23-49.

Rowe, K.J and Rowe, K.S. (2002). What matters most: Evidence-based findings of key factors affecting the educational experiences and outcomes for girls and boys throughout their primary and secondary schooling. Supplementary submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training: Inquiry into the education of boys. ACER.

Scotch College Adelaide (N.D.) retrieved from http://www.scotch.sa.edu.au Sax, L. (2006). Six degrees of separation: What teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. Educational Horizons, 84(3), 190-200.

Sullivan, A., Joshi, H., & Leonard, D. (2010). Single-sex schooling and academic attainment at school and through the lifecourse. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 6-36.

Swan Valley ACS Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from www.svacs.wa.edu.au

Swan Christian College Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.swan.wa.edu.au

St Bridgit’s College Fee Schedule (N.D.) www.stbrigids.wa.edu.au St Georges Anglican Grammar School Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from www.stgeorges.wa.edu.au

St Ignatius College (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.ignatius.sa.edu.au

St Peters College (N.D.) Retrieved from www.stpeters.sa.edu.au

St Peters Collegiate Girls School (N.D.) Retrieved from www.stpetersgirls.sa.edu.au

Tsolidis, G., & Dobson, I. R. (2006). Single‐sex schooling: is it simply a ‘class act’? Gender and Education, 18(2), 213-228.

Trinity College Fee Schedule (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au

Walford Anglican Girls School (N.D.) Retrieved from www.walford.net.au

Watt, H. (2004). The development of adolescent’s self-perceptions, values and task perceptions according to gender and domain in 7th through 11th grade Australian students. Child Development 75 (5), 1556-1574.

Watterson, B., (2001). Single sex classes within the coeducational context; do they work? The Boys in Schools Bulletin, 4 (3), 16-23.

Wesley College (N.D.) Retrieved from www.wesleycollege.net

Westminster School (N.D.) Retrieved from www.westminster.sa.edu.au

Wills, R., Kilpatrick, S., & Hutton, B. (2006). Single‐sex classes in co‐educational schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(3), 277-291.and motivation to engage with schoolwork as well as real commitment and engagement with school community (boys).

Woodward, L. J., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (1999). Effects of single-sex and coeducational secondary schooling on children's academic achievement. Australian Journal of Education, 43(2), 142-156.

Xavier College (N.D.) Retrieved from www.xavier.vic.edu.au

Yates, S. M. (2011). Single-sex school boys’ perceptions of coeducational classroom learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 1-10.

Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (2007). Closing the gender gap? Issues of gender equity in English secondary schools. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 28(2), 219-242.

Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (2006). Would Harry and Hermione have done better in single- sex classes? A review of single-sex teaching in coeducational secondary schools in the United Kingdom. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 579-620.