Barbara Watterston (UWA)

Much has been written about gender equity and reform though it still remains a hotly contested area of education due to the lack of agreement about what constitutes equity in practice. For the past two decades gender equality has been a major educational theme and has become interwoven with other policy themes, including those of marketisation and managerialism (Salisbury & Riddell 2000). Gender and education is also interdependent with variables including social class and ethnicity, which all impact significantly on teaching practices and pedagogy and the selection of appropriate whole school approaches and classroom strategies. The efficacy of single sex and coeducational schooling, and more recently the focus on single sex classes within a coeducational context, provides fertile ground for research, policy and practice.

Policy is to be found everywhere in education. Teachers are policy makers, and as implementers have an explicit policy role, not merely a technical one (Vidovich 2001). In terms of the issue of gender, and the utilisation of single sex classes in Western Australian government coeducational schools, the Department of Education (DOE) is the central power that disseminates policy at the state macro level. These policies in turn have been informed within a broader context at the Commonwealth level with policies, reports and frameworks including; The National Policy for the Education of Girls in Australian Schools (1987), The O’Doherty Report (1994), and Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools (1997). Pertinent to this research at the state level, the Social Justice in Education (EDWA 1991, revised 2001) encourages schools at the micro level to interpret and implement policy relevant to individual local contexts. The Social Justice in Education Policy claims to seek improved holistic outcomes for both boys and girls, identifying gender difference as one of the main factors influencing student participation, achievement and post school options and pathways. The DoE is at present awaiting the outcomes of the recent Parliamentary Inquiry into Boys’ Education in order to determine how in fact they will change their Social Justice policy to reflect the findings of the Committee. Interestingly these findings will not only be based on academic research, but also the information received from practitioners at the micro level. In this instance we have micro policies effecting change at the national macro level, which will impact on the macro policies generated at the state level. Policy making is focused on both the macro, being the formation of policy discourses, and the micro, being the active interpretation which occurs to link policy to practice (Vidovich 2001). Most importantly, within the WA context, schools have the flexibility and responsibility to develop programs that meet the needs of individual students and within local contexts.

The debate about the benefits and significance of single sex and coeducational schooling continues to flourish (Mael 1998). Whilst focusing on gender sensitivity and utilising single sex strategies within the coeducational context, educators are attempting to clarify which individuals or target populations would gain most from which type of schooling. In so doing schools are looking to explicate issues of gender construction, explore the common and different needs of both boys and girls, examine potentially limiting expectations and negative behaviours, and celebrate differences whilst being sensitive to the developmental needs of each gender.

The importance of this issue is strengthened by evidence that for both boys and girls the average age of onset of puberty is now around three years earlier than the turn of the century (Alsaker 1995). Specifically, in terms of gender and learning, Alloway (1995) makes the point that the social issue of gender must be dealt with as early as possible in children’s formal education. The results of girls’ education strategies (Yates 1993; Alloway and Gilbert 1997; Teese 1997; Eileen et al 1999) and more recently, the focus on motivating and engaging boys in education (Connell 1994; Brown and Fletcher 1995; Biddulph 1997; Gilbert & Gilbert 1998), have provided the impetus for establishing single sex classes. A growing number of coeducational secondary and primary schools both nationally and internationally, are trailing the efficacy of single sex classes as one approach in their whole school repertoire to address differences in academic performance and to enhance the social and emotional outcomes of their students. The approaches to removing limitations based on stereotypical notions of gender, and broadening participation to improve the learning environment and outcomes for both boys and girls, are diverse in terms of objectives, delivery and organisational structure.

The use of single sex strategies within a coeducational context, predominantly in secondary schools, is not a new phenomenon. The intention of single sex classroom strategies more recently in coeducational primary schools is to provide younger students with more options and resiliency to support their passage into adolescence, extending their perceptions of what it means to be male, female or quite simply a contributing member of society. Masculinity and femininity is not single or uniform. Educators recognise that it is not always easy for girls and boys to discuss gender issues (Dunn 1995). Gilbert & Gilbert (1998) concur in their discussion regarding successful strategies to address the problems boys will have in confronting the demands of masculine discourses. Characteristic of successful programs is an inclusion of, "small group reflective exercises where boys and girls, in both mixed and single-sex groups, will share their experiences and interpretations relevant to the formation of their gender identities and relations, and explore the possibilities for improving these relations" (Gilbert & Gilbert 1998: 234). These issues might be explored more fully within the security and confidentiality provided by the single sex classroom where each sex is less inclined to limit their participation based on fear of ridicule or rejection from the opposite sex. Simply establishing single sex classes however, seems unlikely to produce the desired results. This can only be achieved with genuine support from within the school community through whole school policies and classroom practice.

Historically, and on an international basis, the majority of 20^th century schools were coeducational (CE) particularly at the primary/elementary level. Single sex (SS) schooling was for the more affluent and being more common at the secondary level. Many schools’ conversions to coeducation were driven by financial crisis rather than by educational philosophy (Mael 1998; Bednall 1993). The 1960s and 1970s saw a further move away from SS education at the secondary and college levels. It would be prudent however, to be careful about accepting conclusions of one generation and applying them to another (Yates 1198).

The research into the advantages and disadvantages of SS and CE schooling is voluminous and varies greatly in quality. Contradictory conclusions have been used to support policy recommendations. Mael’s (1998) succinct review of the literature highlights that the research:

• Makes it difficult to compare like with like as students from single sex schools are typically from higher socio-economic areas. Validity of comparisons comes into question as single sex schools are also more selective and draw brighter students (Kenway & Willis 1987; Marsh 1989).

• Doesn’t consider differences between and within the sexes.
• Has focused on secondary schools or colleges.
• Compares effects from a whole school perspective. Some of the presumed benefits of SS schools could easily be obtained by means of separate classrooms within CE schools.

Since the 1950’s, primary classrooms have been dominated by women who now find themselves the defendants in the debate about why male students are not doing well at school and how a female-dominated classroom denies male role models to growing boys. Coupled with the concern that many single parents families are predominantly female, compounds the argument that boys’ failure in formal settings is due to the ‘feminised curriculum’ (Hawkes 2001). Kyle (1999) makes the pertinent point that the criticism of the gendered primary school is too simplistic. At the secondary, technical and tertiary levels where male teachers still dominate, boys are failing in the secondary school under a male teacher as much as under female teachers. The results from research carried out by Slade and Trent (2000) with 1800 secondary boys suggest that boys felt good teachers might be male or female. More highly valued by boys was respect, fairness and the ability to listen. It is undisputed that the majority of teachers are female. Perhaps this imbalance has more to do with, and is a reflection of, the social construction of masculinity.

To survive in today’s economic and social system, and to be prepared to meet the challenges of the new world of work, our children need new skills including specialised literacy, communication skills and cooperative learning and working skills which are valued and promoted (Bonner 1997) in our so called ‘feminised’ school cultures. Does this mean in order to support learning for boys we need to masculinise the school culture? Will this help boys to fit the new mould developed by social change and the literacy, communicative and cooperative demands and skills required for the 21^st century? Bonner (1997:3) warns, "We would be doing boys a greater disservice if we ignored the mould and instead recreate schools to cater for the boys’ unreconstructed masculinity".

Rowe (2000:3) adds further clarity, "Since the early 1990s there has been a notable increase in the demand for higher levels of operational literacy and especially, verbal reasoning and written communication skills in school education – areas in which girls, on average, have distinct maturational and socialization advantages (Hill and Rowe 1998; MacDonald et al 1999)". He concludes that the provision of quality teaching and learning in literacy must be given the highest priority as it is crucial to maximize the literacy skills of both boys and girls as early as possible.

Goleman (1995) sees emotional intelligence as the master aptitude. He comments on the emotional differences between boys and girls as boys and girls are taught very different lessons about handling and expressing their emotions. Whereas girls’ early language development facilitates the ability to articulate their feelings, "Boys, for whom the verbalization of affects is de-emphasised, may become largely unconscious of their emotional states, both in themselves and in others" (Goleman 1995:131). Emotional and social literacy is also discussed in Gardner’s (1993) theory of multiple intelligence, which has become highly recognised and utilised in schools throughout the 1990s. Included in his list of multiple intelligences are interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences, which would seem to concur with Goleman’s explanation of emotional intelligence. It was Plato who stated that all learning had an emotional base. Hunt (2000) expands this premise in stating that psychological and educational research has revealed that IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is not the key determiner for a successful and satisfying life. Her dynamic curriculum explores the core concepts of EQ (Emotional Quality), IQ (Intelligence Learning Quality) and SQ (Social Quality) as the critical competencies for maximizing performance potential.

For those who see inherent male-female differences in the pace and style of physical and cognitive maturation, learning and social and moral development (Gilbert 1993; Tidball 1993), schooling is best tailored to each sex’s unique needs. To those who see male-female differences as arbitrary, anything that would nullify distinctions, such as CE, is desirable. Some studies have found that the effects of SS schooling appear more pronounced and less ambiguous for females than for males (Moore, Piper & Schaefer 1999). Students in SS schools demonstrated higher academic achievement and education aspirations even more so for girls (Lee & Bryk 1987; Young & Frazer 1990). Students in SS schools had more positive attitudes and behavioural outcomes, rating their schools and quality of teaching more positively. SS schools had greater teacher stability and a higher percentage of teachers with advanced degrees (Mael 1998).

Contrary to popular wisdom, Foster (1998:1) suggests, "research conducted by US researcher Dianne Hulse (1998) shows that boys in single sex schools are less susceptible to social pressures and have a more egalitarian attitude towards women’s and men’s roles in society". Males in SS primary/elementary and secondary schools were more likely to engage in singing, poetry, drama and language (Riesman 1991). SS schools were more tolerant of, and students were more likely to, select non-traditional courses (Foon 1988). Conversely others felt CE had more sex-stereotypic polarization of attitudes regarding course subjects with boys being affected by these attitudes even more than girls (Mael 1998). Formal research focussing on the conditions for increasing male participation in female-stereotypic disciplines is still very limited.

The advent of girls’ education strategies encouraged a growing number of CE schools to utilise SS classes and structures, predominantly in secondary schools. Anecdotal evidence (Watterston et al 2000) suggests that SS classes within the CE context have begun to emerge in primary schools particularly to address the issue of motivating and engaging boys in education. There is very little research from which to draw any conclusions regarding single sex schooling in the primary school (Department of Education, Community and Cultural Development 1996). The research has also tended to be contained within specific subject areas. Whilst declining achievement in a specific learning area may be one reason for establishing SS classes, other issues including behavioural, social and emotional factors have generated interest in this strategy.

A number of studies have shown that teachers thought that the establishment of SS classes in CE schools was positive (Kruse 1992; DEET 1993b). Research into SS schooling (Milligan and Thomson 1992; Regan 1993) indicates the major advantage offered is the quality of the learning experience for girls, rather than the enhancement of academic learning (Marsh et al 1989; DEET 1992a; DEET 1992b). Boys in SS classes were less distracted and more willing to contribute during lessons and to take risks answering questions (Sukhnandan et al 2000).

In the Western Australian (WA) educational context learning outcomes comprise the mandatory element of the Curriculum Framework for all WA schools. This policy requires teachers and schools to design and develop learning and teaching programs to suit the needs of their students. They must ensure that these programs include learning opportunities and enriching experiences for their students aimed at achieving the outcomes articulated in the Framework. With this context, and in conjunction with the Social Justice In Education Policy (2001), how a school structures learning opportunities in terms of time and the range of courses and programs provided, remains the school’s responsibility. Some of the issues which sets the background for this research are described below:

• Both boys and girls in lower secondary SS physical education classes felt less concerned with body image and performing in front of the opposite sex.
• Students in SS health classes discussed issues of sexuality more openly. Teachers felt that the dynamics in the boys’ class changed particularly as they didn’t feel the need to ‘show off’. Both sexes tended to take more risks in their conversations allowing for greater depth in discussions.
• Boys wanted to stay in their SS literacy classes where lessons suited their learning styles and engaged them in their areas of interest. Assessment tasks focussed more on the oral than the written. Girls’ achievement also continued to improve, as their learning environment was less disruptive.
• Teachers indicated that they were keen to participate in SS classes and had endeavoured to research strategies and practices prior to commencing. Whilst intensely rewarding, teachers of all boy classes generally felt these classes were more difficult to teach that all girl classes.
• Teachers felt that SS classes helped to improve self-esteem as they worked towards breaking down undesirable stereotypical behaviour. They also noted an increase in verbal skills as all boys’ and all girls’ voices are heard.
• Parents noted the impact of SS classes was reflected in the happy and more relaxed demeanour of their children who had developed a greater sense of self worth.
• Students tended to enjoy the opportunity to work in SS groupings and felt they were achieving better results, were less distracted and more confident.
• A small proportion of students did not enjoy being part of a SS class. Alternatively many spoke positively about the opportunity to work in SS groupings whilst also welcoming the regular return to their CE class.

It is important to note that these are comments from schools where the planning, processes and preconditions to establishing SS classes included, but are not limited to: extensive research and informed decision making; students, teachers and parents having a choice as to whether they would like to participate; and involved intensive professional development and leadership support.

Rowe (2000), whilst acknowledging the evidence (Rowe 2000b; Rowe 2000c; Watterston et al) which suggests that SS groupings may accommodate the specific developmental needs and interests of students, warns we should not over-interpret the effect of gender groupings. He goes on to explain that these findings pale into insignificance, as it is teachers and their professional development, which makes a difference. Irrespective of the arguments surrounding biological and social determinism, those students who are taught by well trained, strategically focussed, energetic and enthusiastic teachers, are fortunate indeed (Slavin 1996 in Rowe 2000). In considering the interests and learning needs of all students, successful teaching also includes attention to gender issues in a conscious effort to overcome gender limitations in order to successfully develop the potential of every student.

The Current Research In Progress

Danaher (1995) takes issue with the relative absence of the voices of primary school students from the education literature. In contrast to recorded student opinion of education more generally, "very little research of any kind on this topic was located" (Price and Hallinan 1991:53). A major challenge as an answer to homogenising student opinions is the extent to which policy makers are able to recognise and build upon the heterogeneity of students’ backgrounds, aspirations and needs, in order to provide varied and meaningful learning experiences for them (Danaher 1995).

A number of proactive initiatives have been taken to provide the best possible learning environment for our students. One being the creation of the gender specific classes designed to address some specific issues in the year 6/7 area. During 1998 screening in literacy showed a very high number of year 6 students to be ‘at risk’, or ‘critically at risk’, which was defined as being one year or more behind chronological age in attainment. Within the year 6 classes the school had also encountered a lot of resistance from boys in engaging fully in language activities and discussions. Boys also featured more consistently in our Management of Student Behaviour (MSB) class system, which was presumed to be having an impact on teacher time available to other less disruptive students.

In the wider context, School A was aware of the rising issues of boys in education such as comparatively lower attainment levels, the rising figures in male youth suicide and male violence, and the impact of this on girls and their education. As a result of a number of factors, the school decided in 1999 to trial in two single sex classes in the language and maths areas. These two classes were created from two year 7 classes that had worked together in year 6 as a co-operative team, and whose teachers were taking them through to year 7 on the two year rotation. Parents were regularly consulted during the preparation phase, and all were given the choice of withdrawing their child from the trial and having them placed in the third straight year 7 class. As the concept was explained during detailed parent briefings, a waiting list of additional students developed as other parents endeavored to join the program.

By the end of the year the results were dramatic. Suspensions dropped from an exceedingly high 39 down to 1 in the first year of the trial. Since then these figures have remained low. Discipline referrals improved exponentially. Academically the girls’ class excelled. It was difficult to determine whether boys’ academic outcomes improved significantly above what would have normally been expected. Real gains were apparent in social outcomes and significant increases in time on task. As a result of the success of this program it was decided to offer it again in 2000. This time with a focus on two year 6 classes, allowing the flexibility to roll it over in 2001 with the same two teachers on the two year rotation basis. This structure is essentially consistent with the 2001 single sex classes, however, the changed variable is that female teachers take both the boys’ and girls’ classes, as opposed to a male teacher taking the boys’ class as in previous years.

• Students involved in both single sex and coeducational classes concurrently. Within each class six students will be randomly selected and invited to participate in a focus group. The pilot study assisted in ascertaining whether focus groups should be single sex, mixed or both. It was decided that mixed sex focus groups would initiate the process, with an opportunity for individual interviews if children seemed reticent to speak within the group context. A sex balance of students was/will be maintained.
• Parents whose children participate in a focus group. That is six parents (no more than one per child) to participate in a focus group. Where possible a sex balance of parents will also be maintained. School A consisted parent group consisted of mothers only.
• All teachers in each school who have taught both single sex and coeducational classes in their present school, in addition to the principal, will be invited to participate in a focus group.

STUDENTS – All students were effusive about their involvement in single sex classes and were keen from the start to participate within this structure. The students weren’t concerned as to why the school offered single sex classes, and just felt it was another way of organizing the school.

All students resoundingly agreed that they didn’t have any negative comments to make in terms their single sex class. They did however enjoy the opportunity to work together as a mixed group, particularly in sport. The girls found that having the boys present diffused ‘bitchiness’, whilst the boys felt the girls helped to tone down the noise. Interestingly in terms of transferability of emotional and social growth from the single sex classes both boys and girls felt that they had a better understanding and were more confident and tolerant of each other. Shy girls in particular felt much more relaxed. All students enjoyed their single sex class but didn’t think they’d like to be in a single sex school – We’d miss each other (the boys/girls); we are lucky because we have both (SS and CE classes).

In terms of academic ability many boys were very articulate regarding girls’ abilities, as exemplified in one quote, explaining that:

The students felt they had an opportunity in SS classes to follow their own interests and learning styles, and could get on with their work. The boys weren’t distracted by the need to get the girls’ attention, whilst the girls weren’t interrupted by the boys constantly looking for this attention. All the boys in the group individually, and on consensus when asked again for clarification, felt they learnt by being more active, girls felt they could work they way they wanted to without distraction. It seems that students also had a collaborative say over topics and activities in their single sex groupings. Again these choices seemed to be about girls doing girl things and boys doing boy things.

All students were enthusiastic advocates for participating in single sex groups, however they were keen to point out, with 2 provisos. Again these comments were made individually, with all students being adamant that these conditions were essential, when the question was repeated for clarification:

• That the students and teacher stay together for 2 years - By terms 3 and 4 you’re really use to each other, then you have to start all over again in the next year (S4)
• The sex of the teacher was not important – as long as they listen, take time to explain, are nice, have fun, get to know you, have a good relationship (S1)

PARENTS – All parents had positive feelings with regards to their child participating in single sex classes for a variety of reasons:

The parents could not think of anything they disliked about the single sex structure except the issue of ‘bitchiness’ when the girls were together. They felt, however that this would happen anyway and was not a reflection of the SS structure. They also felt that positive elements had been transferable when the classes combined, as indicated in the quotes below:

P6 The boys are tending to react differently, more respect for them (the girls) as equals, don’t put them down.

In terms of academic achievement, most parents felt that their children had improved:

In terms of behaviour parents felt generally that their children had improved, with confidence and emotional development rating highly.

The parent group didn’t have strong opinions on the suitability of subjects or teaching approaches being more appropriate in either class structure. The following comments highlight the main issues in the discussion:

All parents were exceedingly positive about the progress their children had made and the validity of utilising single sex structures. They felt that they would certainly recommend the structures and made the following points for consideration:

• P4 Success has a lot to do with the teachers, ours are excellent….teachers need to be flexible…Sex of the teacher doesn’t matter…perhaps girls might need a female teacher as issues of puberty have been discussed so well this year for the girls…younger girls wouldn’t (need a female teacher)
• P5 Self esteem is everything…kids need to feel comfortable and respected…they need to have fun…children feel great when they have a say in how things will work… I wasn’t sure at first if the boys needed a boy teacher, but I’ve certainly been proven wrong. Has brought out the real sensitive side, they are not afraid to show they care…Boys want to make their teacher happy
• P3 I think it’s important for these classes to run for 2 years as fabulous relationships have developed…you don’t have that sorting out process at the beginning of the year…if we knew our kids would have the same teacher and class next year that would be fantastic

TEACHERS – As this was the third year that single sex classes had been offered in School A all teachers, whilst having some reservations, were essentially excited about the challenge of teaching single sex classes. The support and preparation they received it terms of professional development and research made them feel confident and energized. In addition, they found they had a proactive opportunity to really reflect on their personal teaching styles and strategies, and to genuinely question the issues of gender and the impact in may/may not have on the teaching and learning process. All single sex classes were devised through a team teaching approach further providing an excellent opportunity for collegiality and collaboration.

In terms of the issues surrounding the education of boys some teachers felt at first that there was, more a focus of what the boys would get out of it (T1). However what they have continued to find is,

T1 Now more quiet girls who get ‘missed’ have a go and don’t have to compete for teacher time. Other advantages relating to SS classes included:

All teachers enjoyed the opportunity of returning to CE activities. They felt that some things (bitchiness) became more of an issue in the girls’ class as the boys were not there to diffuse the situation or shift the focus.

The teachers found it hard to quantify whether students had achieved more academically in the SS classes, as compared with the results they might have achieved in a CE class. The changes in behaviour and social/emotional development were more obvious to assess:

T5 The boys now have a vocabulary to articulate their thoughts and feelings, they have a label for it (emotions)

In terms of teaching approaches and classes structures it was felt that:

All teachers thoroughly enjoyed their SS classes, as reflected in the following comments in terms of advocacy and advice:

• We are enjoying our teaching this year and find ourselves re-motivated (T1)
• It would be great for all teachers to have an opportunity (to teach SS classes)…as long as they don’t see it as an end in itself – it’s a strategy not a solution (T4)
• We feel that whether it is a mixed class or segregated boys/girls, the most important thing we can do for the students it to listen to them. We both feel we need to be a part of their worries and their successes in order to create a path on which they can learn. Create and atmosphere where each student feels they can talk to you. Don’t worry about how much time it seems to take up. Make it a priority (T5)
• It’s the relationship you have with the students, that you genuinely care about them, not the sex of the teacher that counts (T3)
• We think it would be fabulous to have keep these classes for 2 years, perhaps this also needs to be a consideration for other CE classes, particularly when positive relationships have developed (T1)

In beginning the process of triangulating student, teacher and parent data three data, similarities and differences to identify themes on which there is congruence and consensus, and those on which there are different perspectives, have begun to emerge

As evidenced in the research and initial interviews in the current study, the involvement of students, teachers and parents in establishing and supporting the implementation of single sex classroom strategies is paramount. A recent study conducted by the National Foundation for Education Research (2000) found that teachers were generally enthusiastic, positive and supportive of single sex strategies. Where teachers had not been involved in the decision making process, they expressed a noticeably less enthusiastic response. Sukhnandan et al (2000) further concluded that not only teachers, but also parents and students, should be involved in the decision making process. Whilst recognizing the value of the views of teachers and parents, it is only in more recent years that student perspectives have been sought. Student views of school life provide a different perspective on school effectiveness than can be obtained from achievement measures. The value of literature like Martino and Pallotta-Chiarolli’s (2001) recently released Boys’ Stuff – Boys Talking About What Matters should not be underestimated in providing an avenue to understand better how what is happening in the classroom shapes student outcomes.

The ways in which the ‘gender regime’ (Connell 1994) is enacted in the staffroom as well as the classroom has implications for how teachers can reflect on and improve their practices. We need to acknowledge our own gendered histories. What makes us think that we can do marvellous work with students if we cannot negotiate some basic and professional gender relations issues in the staffroom (Pallotta-Chiarolli 1997)?

How do teachers consider implications of gender construction and sensitivity both personally and professionally and take account of gender in their own teaching and disciplinary practices? Kruse (1992 in Gilbert & Gilbert 1998:249) recommends, "that in promoting a critical approach to gender, the first step should be to help students understand the contradictions in dominant gender relations. Segregated classes were useful to help students see their gender group in a new way".

As a result of the anecdotal success of single sex classes a number of schools have unsuccessfully jumped on the bandwagon without giving due consideration to many of the factors articulated by both researchers and practitioners. Simply establishing single sex classes may not necessarily produce the desired results. Essentially schools need to be able to articulate answers to the above questions with confidence. In school and workplaces all sexes prefer times for with-in sex associations – this does not imply a preference for exclusive same-sex interactions. Single sex classes also provide a different context for discussion, offering boys and girls new ways of thinking about men and women and having equal intellectual and social expectations of girls and boys.

It appears a flexible approach to establishing single sex classes is paramount. It is important to acknowledge that there is no one ‘best fit’ for the way in which these classes are timetabled within the primary or secondary school structures. As we are flexible and proactive when tending to the needs of each individual student, so too we need to consider issues of time, content, whole school and teacher resources when implementing single sex strategies, which are unique to each classroom and school. All stakeholders (teachers, parents and students) must have a choice as to whether or not they participate. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the establishment of a number single sex classes was not the result of an initial desire to trial this structure. Rather, it was the recognised needs of a particular cohort of students, which happened to contain a majority of the same sex that provided a springboard from which to consider this option.

Bottom-up policy making in this research has occurred essentially through practitioners identifying individual needs of students and addressing the issues of a particular cohort of students. The WA Department of Education endorses this view in stating that equality of opportunity and outcomes in education for girls and boys may require differential provision, at least for a period of time. In terms of single sex strategies caution is also required in determining the appropriateness of this strategy. This study seeks to inform this process by extending theory and developing guiding principles; to promote and institute effective strategies, determined and supported by an understanding of student, teacher and parent perspectives. Practitioners (and students and parents), whilst informed by macro policies at the state and commonwealth levels, are also integral to the policy making process in ensuring micro policies continue to play an explicit policy role.