How segregated schools became coeducational and how schools in the USSR were segregated again

Contents:

• How boys and girls studied in schools in Europe and the USA
• Schools in Russia before the revolution: simple - joint, advanced - separate
• How separate schools were forcibly united after the revolution
• Why during the Great Patriotic War Soviet schools were separated again
• How the separation of schools happened (spoiler - not smoothly!) and why it was later abolished
• How interest in separate education returned

Separate education of boys and girls was considered the norm throughout most of human history. This can be explained by several reasons. Firstly, men and women have traditionally been assigned different social roles, and educational systems were formed with these differences in mind. Secondly, strict moral norms did not allow close communication between adolescents of the opposite sex unless they were related. This approach to education contributed to the formation of a clear identity and preparation for the performance of certain social functions, which in turn influenced the role of each gender in society.

Some of the first known schools in history existed in Mesopotamia, covering the territories of Sumer, Akkada, Babylon, and Assyria, beginning in the 3rd millennium BC. These educational institutions, called "edubba" or "tablet houses," initially provided education only to boys. In the first millennium BCE, female edubba began to appear in some regions, although their curricula were significantly simpler. In ancient Athens, girls were not considered necessary for school education, and their education was limited to the home. In contrast, in ancient Rome, primary schools for the general public practiced coeducation, but more advanced education remained separate. Thus, educational practices in ancient civilizations ranged from strict gender segregation to more open forms of coeducation.

In modern conditions, separate education in Europe, the USA and Russia has become a rarity, as mixed education for boys and girls prevails. Nevertheless, the concept of a separate approach to education periodically arouses interest and discussions in society. Both the advantages and disadvantages of this approach are discussed, which makes the topic relevant and significant for the educational system.

Let's consider the historical aspects of this issue.

How boys and girls studied in schools in Europe and the USA

In medieval Europe, education for girls was considered optional. In the upper classes, some families educated their daughters at home, and sometimes this was done at a high level. Exceptions were cases when girls became teachers at universities. However, such situations were rare and did not reflect the generally accepted practice of the time.

City schools began to emerge between the 12th and 15th centuries. Although they could arise independently of the church, their activities, like many other aspects of public life at the time, were strictly controlled by religious organizations. As a result, educational institutions were organized segregated by gender, reflecting existing social norms and cultural attitudes.

During the Renaissance, the 16th-century Italian humanist Vittorino da Feltre became one of the first to introduce co-education for girls and boys. He founded a palace school in Mantua, where 80 children from noble families studied. This initiative marked the beginning of a new educational practice that promoted educational equality and expanded opportunities for children of both sexes.

With the onset of the Reformation, schooling became more accessible and widespread, as it turned into an important tool of religious struggle. The leaders of the Protestant movement, Martin Luther and John Calvin, believed it was essential for city dwellers of all classes and both sexes to be able to read. This allowed them to study the catechism in their native language. Protestants criticized the Roman Catholic Church for its use of Latin in liturgies and the Bible, making them inaccessible to the general population. Thus, the Reformation became a catalyst for change in the educational system, promoting literacy and increasing the number of people able to perceive religious texts in understandable language.

Protestants began to establish primary urban schools accessible to all. In response, the Catholic Church intensified the expansion of its network of educational institutions. As a result, the number of schools increased, but both Protestant and Catholic educational institutions remained separate, which corresponded to the moral standards of Christianity at the time. There was also a widespread idea that girls were taught by nuns and boys by monks. However, in practice, children were often educated together, especially in villages and towns where opening two separate schools was economically impractical.

From the late 17th century, secular schools, including specialized educational institutions for girls, began to actively develop in Europe. One of the first such institutions is considered to be the school founded in 1686 by the Marquise Françoise de Maintenon, who was the tutor of Louis XIV's children and later became his morganatic wife. Known as the Royal House of Saint Louis, the school was created for the daughters of poor nobles and was located in the Paris suburb of Saint-Cyr. This school became a model for many similar institutions, including the Smolny Institute for Noble Maidens in Russia, which later played a significant role in women's education in the country. Until the 20th century, schooling in Europe was largely separate for boys and girls. Meanwhile, in the United States, coeducation had become the norm by the 19th century: all elementary schools were coeducational, and the first coeducational high school was founded in 1833. The primary rationale for this approach was economic expediency: maintaining separate schools in the challenging conditions of the overseas colonies proved more difficult and costly than organizing coeducation. The US experience had a significant influence on educational processes in Europe, but the concept of coeducation did not find support in the church or conservative circles. Nevertheless, economic changes associated with the increase in the number of working women created a need for education. The feminist (then called suffragette) and educational movements gained strength, which contributed to the emergence of ideas for a "new" school with a more democratic approach to education. Separate education was increasingly perceived as outdated and a sign of gender inequality. As a result, throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, coeducational schools, both primary and secondary, began to open in Europe. These institutions had both supporters and opponents: some feared the destruction of traditional gender roles, while others argued that coeducation contributed to improved relations between the sexes. The widespread adoption of co-education occurred after World War I, marking an important step towards equality and changing educational standards in Europe.

Schools in Russia before the Revolution: Simple – Co-educational, Advanced – Separate

In pre-revolutionary Russia, the education system developed in parallel with European traditions. Primary schools were co-educational, while more advanced educational institutions for older children were single-sex. Schools for girls began to open later than institutions for boys, reflecting the social and cultural norms of the time. The content of education varied depending on the level of school, highlighting the differences in educational approaches for different genders and age groups.

Before the Mongol conquest in Russia, the practice of educating both boys and girls existed, although girls were educated less frequently. After the conquest, the situation changed, and the education of girls virtually ceased. In 1724, Peter the Great issued a decree instructing nuns to educate orphans of both sexes and teach them literacy, while also teaching girls needlework. However, despite these efforts, schools for orphans were never established, demonstrating the insufficient attention paid to girls' education during this period.

The first centralized network of secular urban schools in Russia began to take shape under Catherine the Great. In 1786, a decree was issued establishing public schools, which were elementary schools for members of the lower classes and provided coeducation for boys and girls. Parish, church, and zemstvo schools also began to function based on these principles. Until 1914, coeducation in the Russian Empire was only available in elementary school, up to age 11, with the exception of some educational institutions that allowed coeducation. Thus, the educational system of that time began to lay the foundations for the further development of mixed learning in Russia.

Catherine II laid the foundations for female education in Russia by initiating the opening of the Smolny Institute for Noble Maidens in 1764. This closed, class-based institution was created to educate worthy "wives and mothers of families." It is important to note that the attention to education and science at the Smolny Institute was limited; emphasis was placed on dancing and manners. Subsequently, other similar institutions, both higher and lower level, were opened, which were under the control of the Department of Institutions of Empress Maria. This department functioned as a kind of "parallel" Ministry of Education, promoting the expansion of female education in Russia.

The structure of girls' schools began to take shape in the second half of the 19th century. Although it outwardly resembled the male system, including gymnasiums and progymnasiums, the first women's gymnasium in Russia appeared almost a century after the first boys' one. The Russian Empire had many types of educational institutions, including Mariinsky and diocesan schools, but the education system was not uniform. In fact, the number of educational institutions for girls was significantly lower than for boys, and the quality of education there left much to be desired. For example, mathematics courses for girls were simplified, while emphasis was placed on the humanities and home economics. Even when educational institutions existed, girls attended them less frequently than boys, as education was not compulsory. In 1915, according to I.V. Zubkov, 64.4% of boys and only 35.6% of girls were enrolled in primary state schools. Furthermore, girls dropped out more often than boys. Thus, female education during this period was significantly limited, reflecting the broader social and cultural prejudices of the time.

In the past, there was a belief that girls should be educated only to broaden their horizons and prepare them for motherhood. This explains why the curricula for girls' gymnasiums were less challenging than those for boys. Boys were prepared for university entrance, while girls in Russia were denied access to higher education for a long time, even when new opportunities for women had already begun to open up in Europe.

Study additional Materials:

Female education in the Russian Empire underwent significant changes throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. At the beginning of this period, access to education for women was limited, and many of them did not have the opportunity to receive a full education. However, over time, the situation began to change.

Since the 1860s, the creation of girls' gymnasiums began, which was an important step in the development of female education. These educational institutions provided the opportunity to receive a secondary education, but mainly prepared girls for the roles of wives and mothers. Nevertheless, the number of women seeking education increased every year.

In 1872, the first higher education institutions admitting women opened. This provided opportunities for higher education and opened new horizons for women in science and culture. As a result, by the beginning of the 20th century, women began to actively participate in professional life, occupying various positions in medicine, teaching, and other fields.

Thus, female education in the Russian Empire became an important factor in changing the social status of women and contributed to their active participation in society. This process continued until the 1917 Revolution, when the educational system underwent radical changes. There are exceptions to the general rule of separate education for children and adolescents over 10 years of age, which occur within private educational projects. These projects can offer unique approaches to teaching, tailored to the individual needs of students, allowing for a more flexible educational environment. Private educational institutions can utilize innovative methods and technologies that promote better learning and the development of students' personal qualities. Thus, they become an effective alternative to traditional models of education, ensuring the harmonious development of children and adolescents.

• in Sunday schools, where enthusiasts taught literacy to anyone of any age;
• in schools for ordinary people of Nikolai Bunakov, Sergei Rachinsky and Maria Tenisheva;
• in the school of Elena Levitskaya with the program of a boys' gymnasium (and she had to fight for the right to open such a non-standard school, we talked about it here);
• at the Chernyaev courses, where it was possible to master the gymnasium program in a short time in order to enter a university;
• in people's universities - educational and enlightening organizations, where they mastered the school program and attended courses similar to university;
• in commercial schools that trained specialists for trade, banks and insurance companies;
• at various courses.

How Separate Schools Were Forcibly Merged After the Revolution

The 1914 law made it possible to introduce coeducation in private secondary and higher educational institutions with the consent of the authorities. This innovation caused a wide public outcry and controversy, which was soon suspended with the outbreak of the revolution. In 1918, the Bolsheviks not only proclaimed the equal rights of men and women to education, but also began the process of merging male and female educational institutions. The regulation of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee "On the Unified Labor School of the RSFSR," adopted that same year, established coeducation for all school-age children and abolished the existing division of schools into different types, such as gymnasiums, real schools, and district schools. All educational institutions were to become equal and co-educational for girls and boys, marking a significant step toward ensuring equal access to education.

The regulation, approved on September 30 and published in early October, was adopted just a month after the start of the school year. Two models for school unification were considered during the discussion: the Petrograd and Moscow models. The first model provided for free admission of boys to girls' schools and vice versa in the upper grades. The second model, more restrictive, entailed dividing students from single-sex schools into two groups and mixing them. Ultimately, the Moscow model was implemented, which, combined with a lack of proper preparation and the haste to implement the reform, led to significant problems and chaos in the educational system.

As a result of the unification, classes were filled with children with varying levels of knowledge and development, representing different types of educational institutions. After the establishment of Soviet power in Kuban, the seventh grade of School No. 1 in Krasnodar combined sixth-grade students from both male and female gymnasiums, fifth-grade students from real schools, and the sixth-grade student from the diocesan school. This merger created a unique educational environment in which children with diverse educational backgrounds and life experiences coexisted. Such changes in the educational system had a significant impact on the formation of the personalities of young people in Soviet Russia in the 1920s.

Nadezhda Platonova, the wife of the renowned pre-revolutionary historian and professor at St. Petersburg University Sergei Platonov, was well informed about the events taking place in St. Petersburg's educational institutions thanks to her many acquaintances. In her diaries from 1918, she shared observations and reflections on the turbulent times, revealing a wide range of social and cultural changes that affected universities and academic circles. These records represent an important historical source reflecting the atmosphere of that time and its influence on education and science in Russia.

Modern views on co-education may vary, but the forced implementation of this system, such as the transfer of 50 girls from the Catherine Institute to the Cadet Corps and 50 cadets to the institute, regardless of age, violates the basic principle requiring the co-education of children of both sexes from the elementary grades. Only with this approach is it possible to form healthy and friendly relationships between them, free from flirtation. Co-education contributes not only to the development of social skills, but also to the formation of respect and mutual understanding, which is an important aspect of education in modern society.

In her diary, covering the period from 1889 to 1921, N. N. Platonova provides valuable observations and reflections. This historical document is an important source for the study of modern Russian history. It reflects the key events and social changes that took place in the country at the beginning of the 20th century. Platonova's diary offers a unique insight into the lives and daily life of people of that time, as well as their experiences and hopes. Research into this material can significantly enrich our understanding of historical processes and cultural transformations in Russia.

The problem with combined education lay not only in the students' varying levels of preparation, but also in the differences in their upbringing, as well as the discomfort they experienced due to the unfamiliarity of coeducation. Vera Platonova, analyzing the experience of two St. Petersburg gymnasiums, noted that after orders were issued to transfer some students from the 2nd Gymnasium to the Aleksandrovskaya Gymnasium for girls, the 2nd Gymnasium sent its most problematic students to the Aleksandrovskaya Gymnasium. This led to a deterioration in educational conditions for the female students at the Aleksandrovskaya Gymnasium. Some girls, such as the daughter of the Platonovs' friends, stopped attending classes and were unable to even tell their parents about the boys' behavior. This situation highlights the importance of preparing for and adapting to co-education, as well as the need to consider the emotional state of students.

An important factor was the fact that adolescents of different genders found themselves grouped together in the same classes amid the near-anarchy that reigned in many educational institutions. This was partly due to the introduction of student self-government, while teachers were at a loss. Furthermore, the general feeling of permissiveness and liberation from previous norms created the grounds for adolescent rebellion against established discipline and basic norms of behavior. Thus, in an atmosphere of freedom and lack of control, students began to show protest sentiments, which, in turn, led to changes in the educational environment.

Learn additional Materials:

A former schoolgirl's memoirs of 1917: "The Tsar abdicated, there will be no classes"

1917 was a turning point in Russian history, and memories of that time still arouse keen interest. A former schoolgirl shares her impressions of how the events of the revolution affected her life and education. The words "The Tsar abdicated, there will be no classes" became a symbol of the uncertainty and chaos that engulfed the country. An atmosphere of anxiety and anticipation reigned in the school where she studied. Teachers lost confidence in the future, and students lost interest in classes. This time was not only a political but also a personal crisis for many. The schoolgirl's memoirs help us understand how the revolution changed not only society but also the destinies of individuals. These experiences highlight the importance of historical memory and the need for a meaningful approach to studying the past.

Nadezhda Platonova noted that after the teenage cadets arrived at the Catherine Institute, a boarding school for girls, the atmosphere in the classrooms deteriorated sharply. The rooms were filled with cigarette butts, and shouting and whistling became constant companions of the learning process. Under such conditions, it was impossible to talk about a meaningful education. Many parents, concerned about the situation, decided to withdraw their daughters from the institution. The daughter of some of the Platonovs' acquaintances also studied at the Catherine Institute and even asked her brother to bring acid to protect herself from boys who were threatening the girls. This situation highlights the importance of creating a safe and comfortable educational environment for students.

The situation was not so negative everywhere. For example, a friend of Platonova's from Vyatka reported that in their region, such pronounced conflicts between boys and girls in schools after the unification had not been observed. Historian Alexander Rozhkov notes that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between legitimate criticism of the reform and the simple discontent of parents of students in elite schools who lost their privileged status and perceived this as a threat to moral values. Children and adolescents perceived the unification of schools differently. In 1918, defectologist Dmitry Azbukin conducted a survey of Oryol schoolchildren, the results of which showed that 75% preferred single-sex education, while only 25% favored coeducation. Interestingly, more girls than boys favored coeducation. This may be explained by boys' patriarchal views or fears that merging classes would lead to a decline in the quality of education, as before the Revolution, girls' education was significantly inferior to boys'. However, over time, negative emotions about the unification of schools subsided, and students adapted to coeducation.

Why Soviet Schools Were Separated Again During the Great Patriotic War

The first years of Soviet power were characterized by bold experiments in school education. However, by the end of the 1930s, the country's leadership began to return to the traditional model of the pre-revolutionary school, while removing religious elements and other attributes that did not correspond to the new conditions. The Great Patriotic War significantly accelerated this process, which affected the educational system and its structure.

In May 1941, the Soviet leadership decided to introduce separate education. This decision was justified by the fact that gender equality in the USSR had already been achieved, and now it was necessary to take into account the physical and psychological developmental characteristics of boys and girls. Separate education was seen as a way to improve discipline and enhance the quality of knowledge acquisition. It was also believed that this approach would facilitate the spread of education in national republics and regions where traditional views and prejudices still hindered coeducation. Thus, separate education became an important step towards a more effective educational process and the elimination of outdated stereotypes in society.

In practice, separate education was likely initiated by the country's leadership to improve the quality of boys' preparation for military service in the context of the impending war. Furthermore, another important goal may have been a return to traditional gender roles in order to improve the demographic situation, which had significantly worsened in the post-revolutionary period.

Separate education in the Soviet Union began to be implemented in 1943, but did not immediately cover the entire country. The first step was a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, signed by Joseph Stalin, which came into effect in January of that year. In February, it was decided to separate students in Moscow schools, beginning in the seventh grade, into boys and girls. Beginning in September of that year, the plan called for complete separation into different schools.

By the summer of 1943, the decision on separate education was extended to other regions, including regional and republican centers, as well as large industrial cities with at least 4-5 secondary and junior high schools. It is important to note that the reform did not affect rural areas and small towns, as the country's leadership recognized that creating separate schools for boys and girls in such conditions would be an extremely difficult task.

Thus, separate education became an important stage in the USSR's educational policy, aimed at improving the educational process and establishing new educational standards.

Separation of schools by gender began in 81 cities. Ten years later, the number of cities with single-sex schools increased to 150, accounting for 55.4% of the total number of secondary schools in the USSR.

How the Separation of Schools Went (Spoiler: Not Smoothly!) and Why It Was Later Abolished

According to the original plans, educational programs were to be adapted to take into account gender differences. Boys were offered more laboratory and practical classes in physics, chemistry, and biology, as well as military training. Girls were recommended to study pedagogical principles, shorthand, handicrafts, physical hygiene, and childcare rules. In addition to single-sex education, elements characteristic of tsarist gymnasiums returned to Soviet schools, including uniforms that were similar in color and style to those of the pre-revolutionary era, as well as strict codes of conduct, especially for girls. Evening dance events were also revived, and the children eagerly awaited them.

Implementing this plan proved challenging. The process of separating schools had already begun, but the creation of separate educational programs was delayed. The introduction of new subjects in most educational institutions proved virtually impossible, resulting in boys and girls being taught virtually identically. In some cases, the situation reached the point of absurdity: boys were asked to read only the military chapters of War and Peace, while girls were only taught the peace chapters. This highlights the complexities and contradictions in approaches to education, which require revision and adaptation to modern requirements.

In the first year of implementing the new educational program, problems with the redistribution of students arose. As a result, some students were forced to sit four at two-person desks, while others were left without a school assignment and effectively had no study space. Initially, it was planned that the directors of boys' schools would be all men, and of girls' schools, all women. However, in practice, this requirement was not always met, as most of the men were at the front. Because of this, some boys' schools were forced to be headed by women.

Despite efforts to correct organizational deficiencies, classroom space and equipment remained in short supply. The situation was exacerbated by a shortage of qualified teachers: on average, schools had 27 classes with 44 students each. This forced classes to be held in two or three shifts, leaving little time for extracurricular activities. The high workload led to a constant loss of teachers from educational institutions, which created a problem with staff turnover. For example, the head teacher of School No. 8 in Magnitogorsk, Denisov, reported regular dismissals of 5-6 teachers per year, and sometimes as many as 8-10. The remaining teachers had to be retained by any means necessary. This had a negative impact on academic performance and discipline, especially in boys' schools, where students became more likely to engage in disruptive behavior, make noise, neglect homework, fight, skip classes, and steal stationery from their classmates. It should be noted that the maintenance of a separate education system turned out to be more expensive than the maintenance of a joint one.

Reading is an important part of our lives, and it is not only an exciting activity, but also a way to expand your knowledge and horizons. The importance of reading cannot be overstated, as it develops thinking, improves vocabulary, and promotes personal growth. Regularly reading books, articles, and other materials helps you stay informed about current events and trends in various fields. If you want to improve your reading skills and comprehension, choose a variety of genres and topics. This will not only help you enjoy the process but also enrich your inner world. Read regularly, and you will notice how it positively impacts your thinking and perception of the world around you.

In the young Soviet Union, the problem of teacher shortages was actively addressed. One of the main approaches was the creation of training programs that included accelerated courses for those wishing to become teachers. These courses quickly trained people in the basics of teaching and methods of working with children. The principle of attracting specialists from other fields was also widely used, which helped to fill the staffing gap.

Furthermore, the state actively developed a system of advanced training for existing teachers, which contributed to their professional development and improved the educational process. The establishment of pedagogical institutes, which trained qualified personnel for the country's educational system, also played a key role. Thus, the young state sought not only to meet the current need for teachers but also to create a sustainable teacher training system, which contributed to the development of education in the USSR and improved the quality of education. In recent years, communication problems have been observed between boys and girls, complicating their interactions both in school and after graduation. Although the exact extent of this phenomenon remains unclear, Svetlana Pokrovskaya, a former student of Moscow Girls' School No. 228, shares her experience. She notes that communication difficulties can have a negative impact on the formation of healthy relationships, which in turn affects the social adaptation of young people. Growing tension between the sexes requires attention and analysis to understand the roots of the problem and find solutions. Communicating with young people proved to be a difficult task for us girls. This dragged on for many years and created difficulties during our studies at the institute. We didn't know how to approach them, how to start a conversation, and we lacked confidence. It took a long time before we realized that these young people were just like us, having also attended a segregated school. However, things began to change at the institute: we began participating in hiking trips, which helped ease the tension and improve communication.

Many parents expressed dissatisfaction with the return to segregated education, raising the issue at parent-teacher meetings. In the early 1950s, discussions of segregated education became the subject of publications in the Literary Gazette of the Union of Writers of the USSR. Hundreds of readers participated in this debate, expressing both support and criticism of segregated schools. The issue of segregated education remains relevant today, sparking active debates about its impact on the educational process and student development.

In February 1953, Konstantin Simonov, who headed the Literary Gazette, submitted the materials of the discussion to the CPSU Central Committee. As a result, the Central Committee concluded that the conditions of the 1943 reform had not been met: classes were overcrowded, and disciplinary problems had only worsened, even though segregated education was supposed to solve them. In July 1954, the USSR Council of Ministers decided to introduce coeducation in all classes, beginning with the new school year. This decision was an important step in the country's educational policy, aimed at improving the learning and development conditions of schoolchildren. The return to coeducation was not an easy process. Marina Rusyaeva, who studied in girls' classes in 1952-1953, recalled that even six months after the schools were unified, boys and girls continued to perceive each other as representatives of different worlds. This period was characterized by the need to adapt and overcome stereotypes, which emphasizes the complexity of integration in the educational environment.

Since then, co-education has become the standard in domestic education, with the exception of labor lessons. Separate schools are found mainly in cadet corps, which can be either mixed or specialized for boys or girls.

How Interest in Separate Education Returned

The Soviet Union, despite a setback between 1943 and 1954, was ahead of many European countries in introducing co-education. Before the Second World War, co-education in Western Europe developed slowly. The main obstacle was the Catholic Church: in 1929, Pope Pius XI condemned the idea of ​​​​co-education. Resistance was also shown by traditionalists who sought to preserve separate education. However, over time, the resistance weakened, and co-education became the standard, gradually displacing separate education. It is important to note that this process contributed to a more inclusive educational approach, which in turn had a positive impact on the socialization and interaction of students of different genders.

In a number of countries, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia, the tradition of single-sex education persists. This practice is most often seen in elite private educational institutions, such as the famous Eton College in the UK. However, the number of such schools is limited. Single-sex education is generally aimed at creating a specialized educational environment, which can contribute to more effective assimilation of material by students.

In countries that pioneered co-education, interest in single-sex education is growing. For example, in the United States, the number of schools offering single-sex education increased 25-fold in ten years: from 34 in 2004 to 850 in 2014. This growth highlights changing approaches to education and the need for alternative forms of education. Single-sex education attracts the attention of parents and educators seeking to create more favorable conditions for student development.

In modern Russia, the practice of separate education within co-educational schools, known as separate-parallel education, is observed. As of 2019, there were nearly a thousand such classes operating in the country. This experimental method differs from fully single-sex schools in that students of different genders are taught in separate classes but housed in the same building, allowing them to interact during breaks and school activities. For example, single-sex education is actively used at School No. 99 in Yaroslavl, where the official website describes the advantages of this approach and its positive impact on the educational process.

The idea of ​​single-sex education appeals to modern students for several reasons. Proponents of this concept believe that boys and girls have differences in the psychological and physiological aspects of learning. They argue that coeducation can limit children's ability to realize their potential and develop harmoniously. Separate education, they argue, creates a more comfortable learning environment, promoting better concentration and reducing distractions. This allows each child to develop according to their individual characteristics and needs.

Separate education has a number of advantages, including higher academic performance of students. Research shows that in a separate education environment, students are less distracted by members of the opposite sex and respond more confidently to the teacher in front of the class. For example, in the USSR, the percentage of successful passing of matriculation exams among girls in schools was 97.4%, among boys - 97.6%, while in co-educational schools this figure was lower - 93.8% (data from the work of Pyzhikov A.V. "Separate Education in the Soviet School" // Pedagogy. 2004. No. 5). It is also worth noting that the number of medalists in Soviet single-sex schools was more than twice that of men, which confirms the effectiveness of this educational model.

Today, there is no rigorous scientific evidence confirming the benefits of separate education. Studies have not revealed significant differences in educational outcomes between boys and girls. An analysis of 677 studies conducted by educators from Turkey and the UK also found that co-education does not have a negative impact on girls' self-esteem. This demonstrates that co-education can be just as effective as separate education and does not create barriers to student development.

The difference in academic performance can be explained by the fact that single-sex schools tend to have a higher level of education. Abroad, single-sex schools are often expensive private institutions, while co-educational schools are most often free public. In the USSR, private educational institutions were absent, but differences in the quality of education between public schools were also noticeable. This was especially evident when comparing schools in large cities, where single-sex education was introduced, with schools in smaller towns, where co-education remained. Such differences in educational systems affect student achievement and shape different approaches to teaching depending on the region.

In 2005, the US Department of Education commissioned a review that analyzed 114 studies. The results showed that students in single-sex schools have slightly higher academic achievement, self-esteem, and future prospects. However, the authors of the study noted that these results are contradictory. A more recent meta-analysis, covering 184 studies with a total sample of 1.6 million participants, found no significant differences in achievement between students in single-sex and co-educational schools. These findings highlight the need for more in-depth study of the impact of learning formats on educational achievement.

The researchers analyzed the 2018 PISA test results of nearly five thousand students in Ireland to exclude the influence of schools of different levels. The country still has a significant number of single-sex state schools, which educate about one-third of adolescents. The results showed that there were no significant differences in test scores between students from single-sex and co-educational schools. This finding underscores that learning format does not have a significant impact on the academic achievement of students in Ireland.

Differences in achievement are due more to social status and available opportunities than to the advantages of single-sex education.

It would be interesting to conduct extensive research on the effectiveness of single-sex and parallel education. Perhaps this is indeed a method that will shape the future of educational practices. However, such analyses do not currently exist.

Information sources play a key role in the knowledge acquisition and decision-making process. They can range from scientific publications and books to online resources and personal communications. When using sources, it is important to consider their reliability and relevance. Reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed journals or official organizations, provide reliable data. It is also important to check the publication date to avoid using outdated information. High-quality sources help form informed conclusions and contribute to a deeper understanding of the topic. In a rapidly changing environment, it is crucial to be able to distinguish truthful information from myths and disinformation, which requires the researcher to be attentive and think critically.

• Vasilieva S. P. Female education in Russia in the mid-19th–20th centuries: the process of formation and development. Types of women's educational institutions // Bulletin of Tambov University. Series: Humanities.
• Vakhabova A. A. Female education in France and Russia in the 19th century: a comparative aspect // International Journal of Experimental Education.
• Vakhromeeva O. B. The main factors of the "Women's question" in Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. History.
• The Russian Orthodox Church proposed a new way to reduce divorce statistics // RIA Novosti.
• Goncharova G. D. The period of separate education in the USSR in 1943-1954 and its reflection in literature and cinema. Moscow, 2013.
• Dzhurinsky A. N. History of foreign pedagogy. Moscow, 2003.
• Dzhurinsky A. N. History of Russian pedagogy. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 2010.
• Elisafenko M.K., Shitov A.K. Experience of Implementing Separate Education in Comprehensive Schools of the Urals in Pre-Revolutionary and Soviet Russia // Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University.
• Zubkov I.V. Zemstvo Schools, Gymnasiums, and Real Schools (1890-1916) // Schedule of Changes: Essays on the History of Educational and Scientific Policy in the Russian Empire - USSR (Late 1880s - 1930s). Moscow, 2012.
• Zubkov I.V. The System of Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions in Russia (1890-1916) // Schedule of Changes: Essays on the History of Educational and Scientific Policy in the Russian Empire - USSR (Late 1880s - 1930s). M., 2012.
• Karimulaeva E. M., Damadanova H. D. Problems and Prospects of Gender Education in the Modern Education System // Scientific Notes of P. F. Lesgaft University.
• Kolos L. N. Women's Liberation Movement in Russia: Russian Women in the Struggle for Education (1861-1917) // Bulletin of Kostroma State University.
• Kuzminova E. F., Nekrylov S. A. Higher Female Education in Siberia at the Beginning of the 20th Century // Issues of Education.
• Pavlenko T. A. Educational Policy of the Holy Synod in 1884-1914 // Schedule of Changes: Essays on the History of Educational and Scientific Policy in the Russian Empire - USSR (late 1880s - 1930s). M., 2012.
• Petrova Natalia. Everyday life of the Russian school from monastic teaching to the Unified State Exam. Lomonosov Publishing House, Moscow, 2021.
• Platonova N. N. Diary (1889-1921) // Modern Russian history: research and documents. Ryazan, 2020.
• Presnyakova L. Yu. Problems of implementing a gender approach in educational institutions of Russia in the 20th century. (based on materials from the Middle Volga region) // Integration of education.
• Pyzhikov A. V. Separate education in the Soviet school // Pedagogy, No. 5, 2004.
• Rostovtsev E. A., Sidorchuk I. V. Non-governmental educational organizations and initiatives in Russia (late 19th - early 20th centuries) // Schedule of changes: Essays on the history of educational and scientific policy in the Russian Empire - USSR (late 1880s - 1930s). Moscow, 2012.
• Talina I. V. Education as a strategy of mental tolerance: the genesis of the problem of separate education in domestic pedagogical theory and practice // Bulletin of the Kazan Technological University.
• Co-education // Great Russian Encyclopedia.
• Sukhova N. N. General characteristics of female education in Russia in the 18th - 20th centuries. // Society: sociology, psychology, pedagogy.
• Chernova Zh. V. Modern models of gender-segregated education // Journal of Social Policy Studies.
• Shestakov I. Gender injection: why the tradition of single-sex education is a profanation // Izvestia.
• Shtyleva L. Myths and realities of the transition to separate education of children: social and pedagogical lessons of the period 1943-1954 // Social pedagogy in Russia. Scientific and methodological journal.
• Anderson M. D. The Resurgence of Single-Sex Education // The Atlantic.
• As another elite boys’ school goes co-ed, are single-sex schools becoming an endangered species? // The Conversation.
• Clavel J. G., Flannery D. Single-sex schooling, gender and educational performance: Evidence using PISA data // British Educational Research Journal.
• De Marchi B. Why do we have single sex schools? What’s the history behind one of the biggest debates in education? // The Conversation.
• Dormus K. The development of coeducation in Poland against European backdrop (19th-21st century) // SHS Web of Conferences.
• Eliot L., Ahmed A., Khan H., Patel J. Dump the “dimorphism”: Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size // Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews.
• Eliot L. Single-Sex Education and the Brain // Sex Roles.
• Eliot L. The myth of pink and blue brains // Educational leadership: journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A.
• Koza Ciftci S., Karadag E., Melis Cin F. Between gendered walls: Assessing the impact of single-sex and co-education on student achievement, self-confidence, and communication skills // Women's Studies International Forum.
• Robinson D. B., Mitton J., Hadley G., Kettley M. Single-sex education in the 21st century: A 20-year scoping review of the literature // Teaching and Teacher Education.
• Rogers R. Coeducation (19th—21st centuries) // Encyclopédie d’histoire numérique de l’Europe.
• Pahlke, E., Hyde, J. S., Allison, C. M. The effects of single-sex compared with coeducational schooling on students’ performance and attitudes: A meta-analysis // Psychological Bulletin.
• Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review. Washington, D.C., - 2005.