One might expect opinion writers, activist groups, and politicians, who never hesitate to exploit major news to promote their agendas, to at least verify the research before speaking with dogmatic certainty. Last week, the focus on what needed to change, if our society wanted to cleanse itself of gender-based violence, centered on a range of issues such as prevention, judicial reform, and sex education.

At some point in the mix, the Church was also blamed for having created the misogynistic climate that still fuels “toxic masculinity” in Ireland, even though Ireland has established itself as one of the most fiercely secular countries in the world. However, it is unlikely that such a broad approach will effectively drive change, so it is not surprising that this week the attention has turned to what supposedly lies at the root of our moral decay: single-gender education or sex-segregated education, to use an alternative term.

According to Elaine Loughlin of The Irish Examiner, sex-segregated education is as “crazy as gender-based shopping.” It’s not the happiest comparison in many respects, as it reminds us of the notably segregated world of retail, especially in beauty and fashion.

However, more significantly, it is a tired and offensive apples-to-oranges analogy that shows little understanding of the seriousness and complexity of educating young minds and shaping character. Education has always recognized the value of separation by age, ability, overall capacity, language levels, and sex, especially during adolescence. It may be more or less beneficial at one point or another, but there are at least arguments on both sides.

The fact that the Slovak suspect in the horrific murder of Ashling Murphy was presumably educated in the Slovak coeducational system, which long ago lost all traces of religious influence, has been lost in the rush to insert this story into the narrative of Ireland’s regressive and repressive education system that supposedly fuels “toxic masculinity” and hampers our progress toward, in Elaine Loughlin’s words, “a more equal and inclusive society.”

(…)

As Loughlin’s article points out, Ireland has the second highest number of single-sex schools in Europe, after Malta, which she characterizes as a backward place dominated by priests—even though Malta became the first European country to ban gay conversion therapy and seems at least as advanced on the path of secularism as Ireland. Malta’s homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000 people is slightly behind Ireland’s 0.7, but both are significantly better than more liberal countries such as France, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden—countries long committed to coeducation within a secular education system.

(…)

Of course, correlation is not causation, but at least it raises reasonable questions about how associated trends may reinforce each other. On the other hand, people like Aodhán, Elaine, and Mary Lou have no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. In fact, it’s worse than that. Their desperation for anything that looks like supporting evidence leads them to cut off the branch on which they sit. Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has previously claimed that “a significant number of young women born since 2000 are suffering violence” to defend abolishing single-sex education, which also, lest we forget, serves as a proxy for his campaign to end faith-based private education per se.

The problem for Aodhán is that single-sex schooling (currently about 30% of Irish post-primary schools) has been giving way to coeducation over that same period, continuing an already well-established trend. So, one might ask him, why then are things not improving, not even a little, but rather getting worse and notably so?

One thing is making unsupported claims, but it takes some nerve to make claims that challenge evidence. When Aodhán Ó Ríordáin appeared in the Dáil in 2020 to state that single-sex schools are “a contributing factor to domestic violence,” one might have expected him to reference some body of research to support his opinion. He offered none.

He should have known that in 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted research in several countries, concluding that education itself provided protection against domestic and other abuse of women. In identifying factors associated with domestic abuse, alcohol ranked highest. Other important factors included cohabitation, young age, extramarital sexual partners, childhood abuse, and attitudes supporting wife-beating.

Is there research showing that perpetrators of violence mainly come from the shrinking number of single-sex schools? Is there research indicating the opposite? Research is debatable unless it reinforces what ideologues already believe. Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has said, “nothing will convince me that that (single-sex education) is not part of the problem.” He has made up his mind. History, he would probably say, is on his side, so who needs proof? In the context of the present discussion, he has said that “parents have deeply held opinions on the matter” without recognizing the legitimacy of those opinions.

(…)

What we do know about single-sex schools is that their students tend to achieve better academic results. Parents can read the league tables and decide for themselves on that matter. If one accepts that gender can be a factor in learning patterns and subject choice, that adolescence is a time when the safe space of single-sex education can be beneficial, that time and resources can be directed more strategically in a single-sex school, then who can say that their opinions and choices lack legitimacy?

Indeed, both sides of this argument can make credible claims based on the social, developmental, and educational needs of young adolescents. That is why it is important to allow individual families to make decisions based on the needs of their individual children.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin is right to say we are ignoring the “elephant in the room” in this discussion. However, it is not what he believes or wants it to be: single-sex education. It is alcohol. It is clear that our historical relationship with alcohol remains a significant social problem.

In 2019, major research conducted by the WHO found that Ireland was among the countries with the highest per capita alcohol consumption in Europe. A 2019 study in The Lancet also found that “Ireland has one of the highest per capita alcohol consumption rates in Europe.” More worryingly, it also concluded that overall alcohol consumption here was trending upwards.

There is little national attention on our problematic relationship with alcohol and how it poisons family life and relationships. Children from socioeconomically disadvantaged homes and neighborhoods are more likely to be exposed to both excessive alcohol consumption and violence. These conditions lead them to repeat the pattern. Is there no political dividend for politicians in addressing such a social challenge? Public awareness campaigns are used for all kinds of health and wellbeing issues—why not in this case?

There is also another social toxin we should consider before blaming single-sex education for “toxic masculinity,” and that is the more recent cultural phenomenon of drug addiction. According to the WHO, “interpersonal violence and illicit drug use are major public health challenges and are closely linked.” Combined, these twin forms of substance abuse, along with growing concerns about pornography addiction, could largely explain the increase in violent attacks on women. They would also point the way toward concrete, constructive solutions based on real evidence rather than ideology.

The interview touches on issues such as the weight of ideology, school dropout rates, teacher training, educational rigor, the importance of memory, the use of technology in the classroom, reading comprehension, the usefulness of exams, the university approach, and single-sex education.

Sources: Why single sex schools are not the problem

The points of view expressed by the authors of videos, academic or non-academic articles, blogs, academic books or essays (“the material”) are those of their author(s); they in no way bind the members of the Global Wo.Men Hub, who, amongst themselves, do not necessarily think the same thing. By sponsoring the publication of this material, Global Wo.Men Hub believes that it contributes to useful debates in society. Le matériel pourrait donc être publié en réponse à d’autres.