When we file into Benjamin Hall for assembly, there is a clear sense of unity. We ready ourselves to hear the same speaker, receive the same announcements, and expect the experience to affect us all equally.
Recently, however, our assembly addressed the prevalence of gambling among young men. The delivered message was important, and its cited statistics were compelling. In fact, research shows that adolescent boys are significantly more likely to engage in sports betting and develop a crippling addiction, making the issue worthy of attention.
Yet, as the presentation continued, a quiet disconnect emerged. For many of the girls in the room, the statistics about teenage boys and sports betting did not reflect their experiences. While the issue certainly mastered, it did not necessarily feel personal or relevant. And when the message does not feel personal, people’s attention fades.
Moments like this raise a larger question: should assemblies, occasionally, be separated by gender?
At first glance, that idea may seem outdated or divisive. Our school values inclusion, and bringing students together definitely reinforces that sense of community. But in certain contexts, separating students may actually strengthen both unity and engagement.
Psychological research helps explain why. The Elaboration Likelihood Model, a foundational theory in persuasion, suggests that people process information more deeply when it feels directly relevant to them. In other words, if students perceive a topic as applying primarily to someone else, they are less likely to internalize it.
Additionally, separating students by gender would also create a smaller, more focused setting. In an auditorium as big as Benjamin Hall, it can be easy to blend into the crowd. In a more targeted space, that distance shrinks. The inaccessible announcement turns into a conversation and students, therefore, students will be more likely to participate and pay attention.
There is also the matter of shared experience. Being a teenager in high school comes with its set of expectations when it comes to masculinity, femininity, or identity. For certain situations, boys often face one set of pressures and girls another. In mixed settings, students may hesitate to speak candidly about those pressures, unsure of how they will be perceived. However, among peers navigating similar dynamics, that hesitation can be a lesson. A conversation about an expectation placed on boys, for example, may feel easier to participate in when the room is filled with other boys confronting those same expectations.
Taken together, these dynamics suggest that gendered assemblies might be a more effective format in certain situations.
Now, this is not to say that our school should begin separating students regularly, nor does it suggest that joint assemblies lack value. Many topics such as school-wide expectations, student announcements, or community milestones are strengthened by bringing everyone together. But when an issue clearly affects one group more directly, it is worth considering whether a more focused assembly might deepen the impact. If the purpose of an assembly is to encourage reflection and spark debate, then the targeted audience certainly matters.
As we continue shaping these conversations, the question may not simply be whether everyone hears the same message, but whether the format gives students the best opportunity to truly engage with it.
