The picture I absorbed there of what it is to be a young man was intensely limited, and frequently cruel.

So it may come as a surprise I still believe there is a role for single-sex boys' schools.

It's true traditional boys' schools that have made the jump to co-ed, like Canberra Grammar School did six years ago, are typically very positive about the transition. That might be some reassurance to the parents and Old Boys protesting outside the 160-year-old Newington College last week as they contemplate that school's upcoming break with tradition.

But I can't jump on board the train of thought that insists there is something inherently wrong with single-sex boys' schools. That's largely because of my experiences as a teacher for 10 years teaching history and coaching sport in an all-boys' school in Sydney. (I am now on the council at that school). I also taught in a few different co-ed schools in the UK, of vastly varying standards.

I have seen the best and worst of these different environments. In the best of the boys' schools, I experienced a deliberate attempt to celebrate and foster a wide set of abilities and interests. In this environment, being male didn't just mean one thing. And there was a concerted effort to teach good character - to foster a culture of respect, empathy and kindness.

JENNA PRICE: What are single-sex school traditionalists trying to protect?

I don't want to overclaim here. It was an imperfect environment and no doubt it contained some of the regrettable elements of masculinity that are well-canvassed. But my time at that school gave me a powerful illustration of what is possible with intentional, organised efforts to nourish the best in young men.

Critics argue life is co-ed and so school should be also. But this overlooks any advantages to a provisional, intentionally single-sex environment in teenage formative years. Are there positives that might justify keeping the boys together?

A key one is choice. We mostly think choice is a good thing and when it comes to the education of our children, many parents recognise a "horses for courses" principle makes sense. Some kids do well in single-sex environments while others, sometimes within the same family, are better off in a co-ed situation.

Academic achievement is often cited as a reason for going co-ed, mostly because of the belief the boys will score better with the girls around as a "civilising" influence. That always seemed to me like quite a burden for the girls to carry, and the research is mixed anyway. And of course, academic results are only one measure of the education parents seek for their children.

But it might be the general plight of boys and young men in our society that should give us greatest pause. We've known for some time girls are consistently outperforming boys in education. A University Admissions Centre study in 2022 found boys were "enrolling at lower rates, less likely to pass all their subjects and more likely to fail everything". The same study found being male was "greater than any of the other recognised disadvantages" it looked at.

In school 90 per cent of children with behavioural problems are boys and 85 per cent of children with learning problems are, too. Worldwide, boys are 50 per cent more likely than girls to be below basic proficiency in reading, science and maths.

Differences in learning styles for boys and girls might be relevant here. A 2002 inquiry into the declining performance of boys noted the need for structure, discipline and clearly defined objectives and instructions for boys. But since then, Australian classrooms have committed to a more open-ended, enquiry-based approach that educational experts suggest is better suited to girls. This has implications for what might be possible in terms of tailoring the single-sex classroom.

We also know when it comes to mental health outcomes, the stats are grim for men. Government figures released in 2020 revealed a record-breaking 2502 male suicides (816 were females). Of the nine daily suicides in Australia, seven will be male.

Books like psychologist William Pollock's Real Boys and Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys by Dan Kindlon and Michael Thompson make an urgent case for helping boys develop a full emotional repertoire. They say it is entirely possible to create environments where boys can be physically active and vigorous without having to suppress their expressive, loving, tender natures.

Pollock says boys need to be able to express the full range of emotions - fear, sadness, disappointment - and to know these are normal and fit with being a man. The modelling of a rich emotional life with a male identity is a crucial part of this process. Boys' schools ought to be able to play an important role in this evolution.

Recently, in my capacity as council member at the boys' school I used to teach at, I was present for a drama class of senior boys. What I witnessed was amazing and encouraging. The teaching was brilliant. The boys were fully engaged, and I watched as they spontaneously acted out a series of scenarios thrown at them. They did it without a hint of self-consciousness, or fear of judgement or failure.

That surely would be different, at least for some students, in a co-ed setting. They were clearly operating within an environment that had been cultivated to make this kind of self-expression normal.

The gulf between my own schooling culture and this one could not have been more obvious. It showed me again what's possible. And if finding ways for boys to experience and express the full range of emotions is needed to grow healthy men, then these kinds of initiatives in single-sex boys' schools might prove to be something we can all celebrate.