{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02401921537229784, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024019215372297837, 'mean_word_length': 5.756756756756757, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Effect of Single-Sex Instruction in a Large, Urban, At-Risk High School

The authors used mixed methods to evaluate over 2 years the effectiveness of single-sex instruction (SSI) on achievement outcomes, instructional practices, teacher efficacy, student behaviors, and classroom culture in an urban, at-risk high school primarily composed of individuals from disadvantaged populations. Students grouped according to sex in algebra and English classes were compared with coeducational students by assessment of course grades, standardized test scores, classroom observations, surveys, teacher interviews, and a focus group discussion. Achievement results associated with SSI were inconsistent, with gains shifting between groups. The authors observed gains in algebra achievement for SSI in Year 1 but not in Year 2. Differences in English achievement were not observed between SSI and coeducational groups. Standardized test results indicated superior performance for coeducational students. SSI provided a supportive environment for girls, inducing greater participation and academic risk-taking. Teachers believed that the SSI environment was conducive to learning, whereas students denounced both the social and the academic benefits of SSI.