Debate Material for Coed Schools vs Single Sex schools

Researchers: Coed schools provide societal benefits over single-sex classesPosted: May 04, 2011 Source: Arisona State University (https://asunews.asu.edu/20110504_coedschools) How can educators, families and communities promote and improve coeducation in schools from preschool through higher education? This is a far-reaching question two new initiatives at Arizona State University are addressing through the American Council for CoEducational Schooling (ACCES) and the Sanford Harmony Program. ACCES is operated through the university’s School of Social and Family Dynamics in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and is made up of scholars and citizens from across the United States who are focused on children, education, families and communities. The Sanford Harmony Program is a research and curriculum initiative also operated through the school, and funded by philanthropist T. Denny Sanford, that is working to understand and enhance relationships among girls and boys. While teaching in single-sex schools and classrooms has become increasingly popular in recent years, there is little scientific evidence that shows teaching boys and girls in separate public school classrooms is advantageous over teaching in coed classes, said Richard Fabes, professor and director of the School of Social and Family Dynamics and ACCES director of operations. In fact, there is evidence, according to Fabes, that single-sex classes can be detrimental – for instance, the more time that male and female students spend apart, the more the stereotypes about the sexes are reinforced. Other disadvantages include the costs of training teachers to teach girls and boys differently and the resource demand of staffing both single-sex classes and coed classes at a time when resources are stretched very thin. The cost of single-sex education is not only a burden on schools, but within society if children fail to learn to work with other-sex individuals, said Carol Lynn Martin, ASU School of Social and Family Dynamics professor and ACCES co-director of school relations. One study looked at “buddy up” time when boys and girls are paired together to work on projects in classrooms. One boy who said he “didn’t like girls” was surprised to find out his female buddy wasn’t so different from him and they became good friends, Martin explained. “This boy learned that there are many more similarities between the sexes than differences.” The team at ASU’s School of Social and Family Dynamics is creating curriculum for preschool age children and fifth- graders on the cusp of adolescence as part of the Sanford Harmony Program. According to Fabes, these are “bookend” periods when preschool age children start to segregate according to sex and when many fifth graders are entering adolescence and becoming interested in the other sex. “If you want to bring people together and engage in positive contact, school is a good place to do that,” Martin said. The curriculum focuses on building relationships, problem solving and enhancing communication and collaboration. A primary goal of the Sanford Harmony Program is to produce better relationships between boys and girls in classes, thereby allowing them to communicate, work, collaborate and form friendships. Research shows that children who are able to play with both girls and boys tend to have good social skills, according to ACCES. Learning how to work on problems and communicate effectively can also address issues like teasing, anxiety and bullying in schools, said Laura Hanish, School of Social and Family Dynamics associate professor and ACCS co-director of school relations. “Many bullying programs are not effective. We need alternative approaches to enhancing relationships in classes,” Hanish said. Coed verus single-sex ed Does separating boys and girls improve their education? Experts on both sides of the issue weigh in. By Amy Novotney February 2011, Vol 42, No. 2 Print version: page 58 Source: American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/coed.aspx) Chicago’s Urban Prep Academy boasts of some remarkable statistics: In 2006, only 4 percent of the inaugural freshman class at the school — a public all-male, predominantly black high school located in one of the city’s most beleaguered neighborhoods — could read at grade level. Yet in May, 100 percent of the school’s seniors had been accepted to four- year colleges or universities, many on full academic scholarships. Many education experts attribute Urban Prep’s success to its eight-hour school day, intense focus on college and double periods of English. But some credit another factor: the school’s single-sex format and use of teaching methods that are engaging to young men. Single-sex education has been growing in popularity since the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act was passed, allowing local educational agencies to use “Innovative Programs” funds to support same-gender schools and classrooms “consistent with existing law.” The U.S. Department of Education loosened its Title IX regulation in 2006 to diminish prohibitions on single-sex education. Today, Urban Prep is among the nation’s 95 single-sex public schools, according to the National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE). In addition, more than 445 public coed schools offer single-sex classrooms. While simply separating boys and girls doesn’t guarantee success, schools that use best practices for gender-specific teaching may be more successful at teaching to boys’ and girls’ strengths, says NASSPE Executive Director Leonard Sax, MD, PhD, a psychologist and family physician. “What we’re doing right now — pretending that gender doesn’t matter — is not working,” he says. “We are losing ground.” Yet many experts say much of the success of single-sex schools stems from a demanding curriculum and a focus on extracurricular activities — gains that would have been seen regardless of whether the opposite sex was in attendance. “You can’t simply attribute the outcome to the fact that they’re single-sex when you’re changing lots of other things at the same time,” says Diane F. Halpern, PhD, a psychology professor at Claremont McKenna College who has served as an expert witness in several federal court cases on single-sex education in public schools. Halpern and several other psychologists have also joined together to create the American Council for CoEducational Schooling (ACCES), a nonprofit research organization that is examining the science and implications of organizing classrooms on the basis of students’ biological sex. Coeducation advocates and researchers also report that segregating students by gender — be it via entire schools or simply classrooms — can lead to greater gender discrimination and make it harder for students to deal with the other sex later in life. “School is preparation for adult life,” says Halpern, a former APA president. “How can boys and girls learn how to interact as equals in the workplace if they have no experience interacting as equals in school?” What the two sides can agree on, however, is that every child is unique and deserves an education that uses evidence- based teaching approaches to meet their particular needs. “What’s particularly important is presenting school structures and educational opportunities in ways that can appeal to and draw on individuals’ interests, aptitudes and motivations as opposed to their category membership,” says Pennsylvania State University psychologist Lynn Liben, PhD, who studies how stereotypes affect children’s educational and occupational choices. Learning differences Single-sex education advocates often point to brain differences as evidence for the benefits of separating girls from boys in the classroom. According to a 2007 longitudinal pediatric neuroimaging study led by a team of neuroscientists from the National Institute of Mental Health, various brain regions develop in a different sequence and tempo in girls compared with boys (NeuroImage, Vol. 36, No. 4). Using 829 brain scans gathered over two years from 387 subjects from 3 to 27 years old, researchers found several remarkable differences. The occipital lobe, for example — the one most associated with visual processing — shows rapid development in girls 6 to 10 years old, while boys show the largest growth in this region after 14 years old. Other studies have also shown disparities in language processing between the sexes, concluding that the language areas of the brain in many 5-year-old boys look similar to that of many 3-year-old girls (Developmental Neuropsychology, Vol. 16, No. 3). “Timing is everything, in education as in many other fields,” says Sax, author of several books on the science of sex differences, including “Girls on the Edge: The Four Factors Driving the New Crisis for Girls” (Basic Books, 2010). “It’s not enough to teach well; you have to teach well to kids who are developmentally ripe for learning.” For example, asking 5- year-old boys to sit still, be quiet and pay attention is often not developmentally appropriate for them, but there are other ways to teach boys to read that don’t require boys to sit still and be quiet, he says. “In some of the most effective boys’ classrooms for 5-year-old boys, one boy is standing and making buzzing noises, while another is lying on the floor, and another is twirling,” Sax says. “But all of them are learning to read.” Coeducation advocates agree that there are some small physiological differences in male and female brains. But they also say there’s a lack of evidence that these differences matter to learning at the individual level. For example, a meta- analysis of 242 studies conducted between 1990 and 2007 — published in the November 2010 Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 136, No. 6) — examines gender differences in math performance and finds that girls perform as well in the subject as boys. “The great majority of these girls and boys did their learning in coeducational classrooms,” say the article’s authors, who include University of Wisconsin–Madison psychologist Janet Hyde, PhD. Both Sax and psychologist Lisa Damour, PhD, who co-directs the Center for Research on Girls at Laurel School, an independent girls’ day school in Shaker Heights, Ohio, agree that gender differences can be overblown. “We really shouldn’t be developing curricula or approaches to teaching that don’t account for the fact that a lot of girls in a girls’ school are going to think and act like boys and the other way around,” Damour says. The benefit of single-sex schools, however, is that they offer the dynamic of having only one sex in the classroom at a time, creating opportunities that don’t exist in the coed classroom, she says. Teachers, therefore, can use strategies in the all-girls classroom and in the all-boys classroom that don’t work as well — or don’t work at all — in the coed classroom. For example, despite performing as well as boys in math courses, girls often doubt their ability to develop their math skills when faced with difficult material, according to research by Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck, PhD. This mindset appears to contribute to substantial gender gaps in math scores that emerge during and after middle school, Damour says, so to help students learn that ability can be improved through effort, teachers at Laurel School provide grade-level appropriate neuroscience lessons about how the brain creates new connections when it’s learning challenging material. Teachers also draw parallels between brain and muscle development, reminding struggling students that the mind strengthens with effort, and that practice makes the work easier. “We can focus on the needs of girls all day long and never have to give a second thought to whether we’re giving someone else short shrift,” Damour says. While these types of teaching approaches may be thought to improve grades, test scores and college acceptance rates, there’s little empirical evidence showing that sex-segregated classes improve educational outcomes. A 2005 U.S. Department of Education comparison of same-sex and coeducational schools found a dearth of quality studies examining academic benefits and concluded that the results are mixed and not conclusive enough for the department to endorse single-sex education. The problem, many experts say, is that it’s nearly impossible to compare apples to apples when it comes to single-sex versus coeducation. Most research on single-sex education has been done with private schools, not on single-sex classes in U.S. public schools. In addition, it’s rare for any studies on the topic to use random assignment. Even if they are public — and not charter or magnet — schools often also make academic changes when they switch to a single-sex format, making it hard to attribute gains or falls to any one measure. “The entire literature on single-sex schooling is confounded by the possible presence of student and school selection biases,” says Rebecca S. Bigler, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies gender role development and racial stereotyping. “You can’t conclude a thing about single-sex schooling if you don’t check for and control those two potential biases.” Research on single-sex education is also complicated by the legal requirement that assignment to single-sex classes must be completely voluntary. Bigler adds, however, that as public single-sex schools increasingly begin to offer admission based on a lottery system, opportunities for more effective studies on the topic should emerge. Bigler is co-editing a special issue of the journal Sex Roles slated for this year that will include several studies on single-sex schooling that have controlled for selection biases. Rewriting gender stereotypes? Mixed academic outcomes aren’t the only reason the debate on single-sex education continues. The research is also inconsistent on whether single-sex education can reduce gender stereotypes. Sax and other advocates say that single- sex education has been shown to broaden students’ horizons and encourage them to explore their own strengths and interests without feeling constrained by gender stereotypes. A 2003 University of Virginia study led by educational psychologist Abigail Norfleet James, PhD, for example, found that boys who attended single-sex schools were more than twice as likely to pursue interests in subjects such as art, music, drama and foreign languages compared with boys of comparable ability who attended coed schools (Psychology of Men and Masculinity, Vol. 4, No. 2). Although she has no research on it, Damour adds that at Laurel students seem much more focused on school than on the other typical concerns of adolescent girls. “During the school day, they’re not distracted by the cute boy down the hall, and they’re not worrying about how they look or what they’re wearing,” Damour says. “I never felt that relaxed in the hallway of my public coed high school.” Yet other experts suggest that segregating students by sex can actually increase gender stereotyping. A study by Liben and her graduate student Lacey Hilliard found that highlighting gender promotes stereotyped views in children as young as 3. The researchers evaluated 57 3- to 5-year-olds at two similar preschools over a two-week period. In one set of classrooms, teachers were asked to avoid making divisions by sex, and in the other, teachers were asked to use gendered language and divisions, such as lining children up by gender and asking boys and girls to post their work on separate bulletin boards. At the end of two weeks, the researchers examined the degree to which children endorsed cultural gender stereotypes — asking the children, for example, whether only girls should play with baby dolls and assessing their interest in playing with children of each sex. They found that children in the classrooms in which teachers avoided characterizations by sex showed no change in responses or behaviors. However, children in the other classrooms showed increases in stereotyped attitudes and decreases in their interest in playing with children of the other sex. They also were observed to play less with children of the other sex. The study appears in the November/December Child Development (Vol. 81, No. 6). These results suggest that children are strongly affected when the surrounding environment makes gender divisions explicit, even though they are already well aware of gender, Liben says. “These effects are likely to have profound impacts on the kinds of learning experiences and personal relationships kids have down the line.” Others point to the long-term effects of gender stereotyping on school infrastructure and curriculum as a down side of separating boys and girls in the classroom. Educational psychologist Sue Klein, EdD, education equity director with the Feminist Majority Foundation, a non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to women’s equality, reproductive health and nonviolence, says that separate rarely means equal in public schools that make the switch to a single-sex format. Often, Klein says, women receive fewer quality resources, and many single-sex schools and classrooms exaggerate and encourage sex stereotypes by emphasizing competition and aggression among boys and passivity among girls or by setting the expectation that boys are not good at writing. In addition, while many schools justify their separation of boys and girls using the 2006 updated Title IX regulation, many of the sex-segregated public education programs are illegal because parents aren’t provided with a coeducational choice for their child or the links between the education goal and the single-sex program aren’t shown, she says. “We need to understand this whole area better, but I think we know enough now that this is not a good way to spend our country’s limited education dollars,” Klein says. It’s about choice The bottom line, Sax says, is that most single-sex education advocates don’t believe that single-sex education is best for every child. “There is a great variation among girls and a great variation among boys and for that reason, choice is a good thing,” says Sax. “One size does not fit all.” Effective teaching often depends on getting children engaged and excited about learning the material, says Florida State University psychology professor Roy F. Baumeister, PhD, and for that, each teacher has to work with each child’s motivations, interests and preferences. “America’s schools have many problems, and there is no one solution,” says Baumeister, author of “Is There Anything Good About Men?” (Oxford, 2010). “But if there is one suggestion that is likely to yield solutions, it is to allow experiments.” So, as the research continues to explore the benefits of coed and single-sex schools, Baumeister suggests letting parents decide which option is best suited to a child’s individual needs and talents. “Many boys and girls do fine with coed schools, but some do better in same-sex schools,” Baumeister says. “Society can benefit from choice and diversity, so let’s offer options.” ACCES researchers, on the other hand, argue that segregation is very seldom a beneficial form of “choice” and that fostering diversity within schools, rather than across schools, is the best option. Psychologists and education experts are likely to hear much more about this controversial issue as researchers on both sides continue their work. Co-ed vs. Single Sex Schools Campus social life is likely to be very different at co-ed schools than at single sex schools. Source: http://www.universitylanguage.com/guides/co-ed-single-sex-schools/ If you’re considering the pros and cons of single sex and co-ed schools, you’ll certainly come across some strong feelings on both sides of the issue. But remember: You have to decide what is best for you. Some students simply prefer single-sex schools while others prefer co-ed schools. But how to decide? Start here … Pros and Cons of Single Sex Schools Many students at single sex schools point to the lack of opposite sex as an enormous advantage. Many students find it easier to focus on academics when they aren’t distracted by members of the opposite sex. Others may find it easier to participate actively in classes where everyone is the same sex. Others enjoy the camaraderie that often connects classmates at single-sex schools. But that advantage can also be a disadvantage. For one thing, student diversity suffers at a single sex school. In addition, although it may be easier for students to participate actively and do well academically at a single sex institution, the real world is not single sex. It may prove difficult for students from single sex schools to adjust to a co-ed work atmosphere after they graduate. Pros and Cons of Co-ed Schools Co-ed schools are likely to offer you more in the way of student diversity. Having both men and women in classes allow students of both sexes to interact with a wider range of people and learn how to work with and talk to people of the opposite sex. However, the mixing of the sexes can also serve as a disadvantage for some students at co-ed schools. Students who are intimidated by the opposite sex may find it difficult to participate in class at co-ed schools, while others (admit it!) simply find the opposite sex to be a distraction from their academic work. What About Dating?! For many heterosexual students, dating is one of the biggest issues at stake when considering co-ed schools, single sex schools and the impact their choice will have on the social life of campus. Co-ed schools offer the obvious benefit that the dating pool on campus is all-encompassing. However, as already mentioned, some students find it more difficult to focus on academics at co-ed schools. After all, it’s hard to listen to your professor’s lecture when you’re constantly looking at that cute classmate across the aisle! Single sex schools may be a major turn-off for heterosexual students who believe that their dating options will be severely limited. The Disadvantages of Coed Schools Source: ehow.com (http://www.ehow.com/info_12033692_disadvantages-coed-schools.html, http://www.ehow.com/info_8596903_disadvantages-coed-schools.html) Romantic Relationships Coed schools typically have a large number of students interested in dating and pursuing romantic relationships. This can be a distraction to the school day. This can lead to incidents in the school, especially if the couple is having problems or a disagreement of some kind. As many adolescents are going through changes with their bodies and sexual interests, this can create more conflict in coed schools than single-sex schools. Boys vs. Girls Student often square off over the issue of gender. Who's better at sports? Who's smarter? Which gender does the teacher favor? While a lot of these conflicts might especially exist in younger students who often find the other gender gross or annoying, these gender-based conflicts can exist with students of any age, and can be a distraction to the learning process of a school day. Intimidation Toward Other Genders Many students feel intimated by the other gender, whether it is because of a romantic interest or something else entirely. This can cause students to be fearful to raise their hand or afraid to speak up during group work. This can cause students to be shyer or more self-conscious than if they were only around their own gender. In turn this can lead to students participating less in class and their studies. Gender Stereotypes Coed schools can lead to gender stereotypes. For examples, girls might feel like math and science is for boys and let boys take the lead in those classes, while boys might feel like poetry and music is for girls and let girls take the lead in those classes. Sports can cause stereotypes too, especially with the idea that sports are for boys and girls should stick to other things. In single-sex schools, students often feel less pressure to conform to certain gender stereotypes, because the gender that might judge them is not present. Lowered Academic Performance Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of coed schools is the lowered academic performance they sometimes create. This is primarily due to the potential for distraction when opposite sexes interact on a daily basis. For example, a boy might find it difficult to fully concentrate on his professor's lecture when there is an attractive girl across the room. A single-sex school eliminates this type of distraction among heterosexual students and can lead to increased academic performance as a result. Dissension Among Genders Another issue that often develops is dissension among the same genders. For example, boys who attend a coed school are more likely to act aggressively among each other than boys who attend a single-sex school. When females are present, it naturally creates a vying for dominance and often creates conflicts among males. Worsened Behavior An additional disadvantage is the worsened behavior that coed schools sometimes create in students. This is especially evident in boys who often misbehave and act out in attempt to impress girls. In fact, one study (Target Study) showed that switching from a coed to single-sex structure reduced discipline referrals from 30 per day to two per day. As a result, this implies that the overall behavior of students is considerably better in a single-sex environment. Single-sex education: the pros and cons Should boys and girls be taught separately? Does single-sex education boost academic success? Read the arguments for and against. Source: http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/defining-your-ideal/1139-single-sex-education-the-pros-and- cons.gs?page=all Single-sex education (teaching boys and girls in separate classrooms or schools) is an old approach that's gaining new momentum. While single-sex education has long existed in many private schools, it's a relatively new option for public schools. The National Association for Single-Sex Public Education estimates that approximately 400 public schools now offer some form of single-sex education. What is fueling this movement? And what are the risks and benefits of single- sex education? A driving force in the single-sex education movement is recent research showing natural differences in how males and females learn. Putting this research into practice, however, has triggered a debate that extends beyond pure academics. Political, civil rights, socioeconomic and legal concerns also come into play. As the debate heats up, it helps to understand all sides of the issue. Nature vs. nurture Before weighing the pros and cons of single-sex education, consider the influences of "nature versus nurture." Many factors affect each child's learning profile and preferences: Some factors relate to the child's nature, such as gender, temperament, abilities (and disabilities), and intelligence. Other influences stem from the way parents and society nurture the child: Family upbringing, socioeconomic status, culture and stereotypes all fall under the "nurture" category. According to Leonard Sax, founder of the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, "...whenever girls and boys are together, their behavior inevitably reflects the larger society in which they live." Depending on one's point of view, this statement can trigger arguments both for and against single-sex education. Making the case for single-sex education Those who advocate for single-sex education in public schools argue that: Some parents don't want their children to be in mixed-gender classrooms because, especially at certain ages, students of the opposite sex can be a distraction. Leonard Sax and others agree that merely placing boys in separate classrooms from girls accomplishes little. But single- sex education enhances student success when teachers use techniques geared toward the gender of their students. Some research indicates that girls learn better when classroom temperature is warm, while boys perform better in cooler classrooms. If that's true, then the temperature in a single-sex classroom could be set to optimize the learning of either male or female students. Some research and reports from educators suggest that single-sex education can broaden the educational prospects for both girls and boys. Advocates claim co-ed schools tend to reinforce gender stereotypes, while single-sex schools can break down gender stereotypes. For example, girls are free of the pressure to compete with boys in male-dominated subjects such as math and science. Boys, on the other hand, can more easily pursue traditionally "feminine" interests such as music and poetry. One mother, whose daughter has attended a girls-only school for three years, shares her experience on the GreatSchools parent community: "I feel that the single gender environment has given her a level of confidence and informed interest in math and science that she may not have had otherwise." Federal law supports the option of single-sex education. In 2006, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings eased federal regulations, allowing schools to offer single-sex classrooms and schools, as long as such options are completely voluntary. This move gives parents and school districts greater flexibility. What critics say about single-sex education Those who claim single-sex education is ineffective and/or undesirable make the following claims: Few educators are formally trained to use gender-specific teaching techniques. However, it's no secret that experienced teachers usually understand gender differences and are adept at accommodating a variety of learning styles within their mixed-gender classrooms. Gender differences in learning aren't the same across the board; they vary along a continuum of what is considered normal. For a sensitive boy or an assertive girl, the teaching style promoted by advocates of single-sex education could be ineffective (at best) or detrimental (at worst). For example, a sensitive boy might be intimidated by a teacher who "gets in his face" and speaks loudly believing "that's what boys want and need to learn." Students in single-sex classrooms will one day live and work side-by-side with members of the opposite sex. Educating students in single-sex schools limits their opportunity to work cooperatively and co-exist successfully with members of the opposite sex. At least one study found that the higher the percentage of girls in a co-ed classroom, the better the academic performance for all students (both male and female). Professor Analia Schlosser, an economist from the Eitan Berglas School of Economics at Tel Aviv, found that elementary school, co-ed classrooms with a majority of female students showed increased academic performance for both boys and girls. In high school, the classrooms with the best academic achievement were consistently those that had a higher percentage of girls. Dr. Schlosser theorizes that a higher percentage of girls lowers the amount of classroom disruption and fosters a better relationship between all students and the teacher. The American Council on Education reports that there is less academic disparity between male and female students overall and a far greater achievement gap between students in different racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups, with poor and minority students children faring poorly. Bridging that academic chasm, they argue, deserves more attention than does the gender divide. Single-sex education is illegal and discriminatory, or so states the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) . In May 2008, the ACLU filed suit in federal court, arguing that Breckinridge County Middle School's (Kentucky) practice of offering single-sex classrooms in their public school is illegal and discriminatory. The school doesn't require any child to attend a single-sex class, yet the suit argues that the practice violates several state and federal laws, including Title IX and the equal Educational Opportunities Act. Measuring public perception How does the general public view single-sex education? To answer that question, Knowledge Networks conducted a nationwide survey in early 2008. (Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University sponsored the survey.) Survey results indicate: More than one-third of Americans feel parents should have the option of sending their child to a single-sex school. (25% of respondents oppose the idea.) Yet when asked if they'd consider a single-sex school for their own children, only 14% said they "definitely would" and 28% said they "probably would." The fact remains that there are relatively few single-sex schools in our nation's public education system, and where they do exist, they are offered as an option rather than a requirement. If the single-sex education movement continues, you may find yourself in a position to vote for or against it in your own community. The Disadvantages of Single Gender Education Schools Source: ehow.com (http://www.ehow.com/info_7949839_disadvantages-single-gender-education-schools.html) Cost a wide spread belief that all-girls schools improve girls' grades in science and math and that boys in all-boys schools perform better without the distraction of girls, the demand for admission is more competitive than at other types of schools, according to an article by Richard Harker in the June 2000 issue of the "British Journal of Sociology of Education." This demand raises the tuition fees. As a result, girls and boys from lower-income families have less of a chance of acceptance than those from moneyed families. Grades It has not been proved that girls in single-gender schools get better grades than in traditional schools, says Eliot Jones in the August 2009 issue of the "International Debate Education Association." In fact, it appears that students in schools that have a small student-to-teacher ratio and that maintain non-gender-biased instruction perform just as well as those in all-girls schools. Social Skills In their daily lives, males and females regularly interact both socially as well as professionally. When students attend single-gender schools, they become limited in their abilities to successfully interact with members of the opposite sex. This may promote an inability to understand each other, thereby increasing negative future interactions. In upper elementary and middle school, girls often develop and mature more quickly than boys. Boys may develop some maturity as a result of observing and working with girls. Small amounts of competition spur each group to do better academically. Without some competition and observation, male students may lose out on increased academic and emotional growth. Gender Inequalities For years men were treated to the best education available and were offered more job opportunities than females. All- boys schools promote this discrepancy and foster the belief that females are less capable than their male counterparts. Additionally, single-gender schools are prejudiced toward members of their own sex. Schools for females tend to have more female teachers and schools for males tend to have more male teachers. Argument for & Against Single-Sex Schools Source: ehow.com (http://www.ehow.com/info_8083079_argument-against-singlesex-schools.html) Pro: Single-Sex Education Increases Student Achievement Single-sex education leads to increased student achievement in some subjects. Females perform better when they are not competing with males. In coeducational classes, females feel pressure to act dumb so that they won't appear brainy to the males in class. They don't feel this pressure in a single-sex environment. Males don't feel pressure to try to impress females by clowning or acting out in the classroom. Greater attention is directed toward academic gains in the single-sex environment. Pro: Single-Sex Education Increases Attendance Frequency Some people think that single-sex education leads to an increase in the frequency of attendance. The students in single- sex classes enjoy the learning environment more, and therefore, want to attend school. Pro: Single Sex Education Increases Opportunities for Leadership Single sex education increases opportunities for leadership, especially for females. In a female single sex environment, females hold leadership positions that they might not have the opportunity to hold in a coeducational environment. Males may be less inhibited to get involved and assume leadership roles in the absence of females. Con: Single-Sex Education Leads to Instilling Stereotypes Single-sex educational environment inadvertently leads to the reinforcement of stereotypes. Assigning all individuals of one gender to a class and using gender-based instructional techniques is evidence that it is assumed that all students of one gender are alike and will respond in like fashion. Just because a boy is in the boys' class, does not mean that he is interested in physical activities and the use of manipulatives. Likewise, all girls are not interested in collaborative activities that are used in girls' classes. Con: Single-Sex Education Does Not Parallel Real Life The educational experience should parallel real life. Real life means having to interact in a coed world. Single-sex education prevents students from developing social skills necessary for a coed world. Students of both genders should learn to work, think, learn and play together during the formative years. Con: Single-Sex Education GroupS Unruly Boys Together Single-sex education groups all rambunctious little boys together so that teaching is almost impossible. A quiet and calm environment is impossible if only boys are in the classroom. A boys' class will not have the benefit of a good learning environment. Advantages & Disadvantages of Co-Education Schools Source: ehow.com (http://www.ehow.com/info_8138587_advantages-disadvantages-coeducation-schools.html) Preparation for Professional World Co-educational schools prepare students for the professional world, which is not segregated between men and women. By teaching students to interact with members of the opposite sex in school, by the time they enter the workplace they will be well accustomed to relating with people of both genders and won't regard people of the other sex as strange creatures. Preventing Gender Stereotyping Males and females who do not regularly interact with each other are likely to entertain stereotypical beliefs about the other sex. If, throughout the schooling, students never interact with members of the opposite sex in or outside of the classroom, these stereotypes can become more and more ingrained over time. In co-educational schools, students learn that they have much in common with members of the opposite sex. Distractions from Opposite Sex Girls and boys are easily distracted by each other, which takes their attention off of their schoolwork. Especially during middle school, a crush on another student can preoccupy a student to the extent it hurts his grades. Or, a student might be so worried about how she is perceived by the opposite sex that she spends time fretting about her self-presentation instead of her performance. Immature Romantic Relationships Parents often fear their child is romantically involved with another student and perhaps even becoming very intimate with that person at school, where parents are not able to supervise. With all-girl or all-boy schools, parents do not need to worry as much about inappropriate relationships between students. Single-Sex vs. Coed: The Evidence Source: National Association for Single Sex Public Education, NASSPE (http://www.singlesexschools.org/evidence.html) What's the evidence? What have researchers found when they compare single-sex education with coeducation? Let's begin with two recent studies in which students were RANDOMLY assigned either to single-gender or coed classrooms, with no opt-out. We are aware of no other studies in which students were randomly assigned either to single-gender or coed classrooms, with no parental opt-out allowed. Any such study would be illegal in the United States; in the United States, federal statute 34 CFR 106.34 requires that any assignment to a single-gender classroom or school must be completely voluntary. In the first study, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania traveled to Seoul South Korea, because in Seoul, students are RANDOMLY assigned either to single-gender or to coed high schools. The assignment is truly random, and compulsory. Students cannot "opt out" of either the single-gender format or the coed format. This policy of random assignment was instituted in 1974 specifically to prevent clustering of students from particular backgrounds at particular schools. In recent decades, many Korean school districts have loosened the policy and they now allow parents to express preferences or to "opt out" of particular schools. But not in Seoul. In Seoul, it's still a true random assignment with no opt-out. The scholars from Penn recognized that the random nature of the assignment creates the opportunity to compare single-gender schools with coed schools, without the usual confounding variables which would accompany any attempt at a similar comparison among North American schools. All the schools in the study are publicly-funded; none of them charges any fees or tuition. The researchers found no differences between the single-gender and the coed schools in terms of teacher quality or in teacher training. Class sizes in the boys' schools were no different than in the typical coed school, and class sizes were actually slightly larger in girls' schools than in the typical coed school. There were no differences in socioeconomic background or prior academic achievement between students attending single-gender schools and those attending coed schools. What were the results? Girls attending girls' schools were significantly more likely to attend a 4-year college compared with girls attending coed schools (Cohen's d = 0.5, p < 0.01). Likewise, boys who graduated from boys' schools were significantly more likely to attend a 4-year college compared with boys who graduated from coed schools (Cohen's d = 0.8, p < 0.01). All these effects remain significant after controlling for eligibility for free school lunches, prior academic achievement, and other demographic and student parameters. Boys at boys' schools also earned significantly higher test scores compared with boys at coed schools; likewise, girls at girls' schools also earned significantly higher test scores compared with girls at coed schools. The authors conclude: Our analyses show that single-sex schools are causally linked with both college entrance exam scores and college- attendance rates for both boys and girls. Attending all-boys schools or all-girls schools, rather than attending coeducational schools, is significantly associated with higher average scores on Korean and English test scores. Compared with coeducational schools, single-sex schools have a higher percentage of graduates who moved on to four- year colleges. The full text of this article is now available online. It was published in October 2012 by the journal Demography, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-012-0157-1. This article is important. As the authors observe, this study is the first large-scale study of students RANDOMLY assigned to single-gender and coed schools. Our only concern with the article is with its underlying premise: namely, that either single-gender or coed must be "best." We believe that premise is fundamentally mistaken. The single-gender format is better for some students, and coed is better for others, as we stress on our new web site, The Association for Choice in Education. (Our Association is in the process of changing our name from NASSPE to The Association for Choice in Education, for reasons explained at the new web site.) The all-girls format can greatly enhance the engagement of girls in physics. That reality was demonstrated most dramatically by the research of Bettina Hannover and Ursula Kessels. They randomly assigned 401 8th-graders either to single-gender physics class or to coed physics class, for one school year. At the end of the year, the girls who had been randomly assigned to the all-girls classroom were more engaged in physics and less likely to agree with statements such as "physics is for boys." Girls who had been randomly assigned to coed physics class were more likely to agree that "physics is for boys." The article is titled "When being a girl matters less: accessibility of gender-related self-knowledge in single-sex and coeducational classes and its impact on students' physics-related self-concept of ability,"British Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 78, pp. 273 � 289, 2008. First point to remember, when you consider evidence regarding the effectiveness of gender-separate classrooms: Simply putting girls in one room, and boys in another, is no guarantee of anything good happening. On the contrary: some public schools which have adopted single-sex classrooms, without appropriate preparation, have experienced bad outcomes. Dr. Leonard Sax, executive director of NASSPE, made this point back in 2005 in a commentary for Education Week entitled "the Promise and PERIL of Single-Sex Public Education". The single-sex format creates opportunities that don't exist in the coed classroom. Teachers can employ strategies in the all-girls classroom, and in the all-boys classroom, which don't work as well (or don't work at all) in the coed classroom. If teachers have appropriate training and professional development, then great things can happen, and often do happen. On this page you can learn about the experience of schools such as Woodward Avenue Elementary in Deland, Florida; Foley Intermediate in Foley, Alabama; Jefferson Middle School in Springfield, Illinois; the Cunningham School for Excellence in Waterloo, Iowa; and many other schools which have seen a dramatic improvement in grades and test scores after adopting single-sex classrooms. But those schools did much more than simply put girls in one room and boys in another. In each of the schools just mentioned, teachers received training from NASSPE in practical gender-specific classroom strategies and best practices for the gender-separate classroom. For more information about NASSPE- sponsored professional development, please contact us. Researchers at Stetson University in Florida completed a three-year pilot project comparing single-sex classrooms with coed classrooms at Woodward Avenue Elementary School, a nearby neighborhood public school. For example, students in the 4th grade at Woodward were assigned either to single-sex or coed classrooms. All relevant parameters were matched: the class sizes were all the same, the demographics were the same, all teachers had the same training in what works and what doesn't work, etc. On the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test), here were the results: Percentage of students scoring proficient on the FCAT boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient girls in coed classes: 59% scored proficient girls in single-sex classes: 75% scored proficient boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient. Remember, these students were all learning the same curriculum in the same school. And, this school "mainstreams" students who are learning-disabled, or who have ADHD etc. Many of those boys who scored proficient in the all-boys classes had previously been labeled "ADHD" or "ESE" in coed classes. 2008 update: in a recent report on NBC Nightly News, Professor Kathy Piechura-Couture of Stetson University , reported that over the four years of the pilot study, 55% of boys in the coed classrooms scored proficient on the FCAT, compared with 85% of boys in the all-boys classes. Same class size. Same curriculum. Same demographics. 2013 update: at our NASSPE conference in October 2013, the team of researchers from Stetson informed us that the gap between the single-gender classrooms and coed schools has narrowed. The single-gender classrooms remain high- performing, but the coed classrooms are catching up. After extensive interviews with the teachers, the Stetson researchers believe that the coed classrooms are catching up because the teachers are learning how to deploy the strategies learned in the single-gender classrooms in coed classrooms. Critics of single-gender classroom formats often insist that we should ignore gender differences or work against them. But the teachers' own experience suggests just the opposite: that working in consonance with gender differences can help to boost achievement for both girls and boys, even in a coed classroom. Researchers at Cambridge University released results of a four-year study of gender differences in education. The researchers investigated hundreds of different schools, representing a wide variety of socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, seeking to identify strategies which improved performance of both girls and boys while narrowing the gender gap between girls and boys. What makes this study really unique is that the researchers did not merely observe and document what they found; they then intervened, and attempted to graft those strategies onto other, less successful schools. A total of 50 schools were involved either as "originator schools" (schools which had successfully improved student performance while narrowing the gender gap) or "partner schools" (less successful schools onto which the "originator" strategies were grafted). One of those strategies was single-sex education. These researchers found that the single-sex classroom format was remarkably effective at boosting boys' performance particularly in English and foreign languages, as well as improving girls' performance in math and science. Here is how Dr. Sax (director of NASSPE) summarized the report in his newsletter to NASSPE e-subscribers (if you would like to be on our e-mailing list, please contact us): I had the honor of sharing the podium last week with the lead authors of the study, Michael Younger and Molly Warrington. Together, we did six presentations in two days! It was a privilege to be able to discuss the study with the lead investigators face-to-face. Michael Younger more than once referred to the improved performance of the boys in the single-sex foreign languages classes as "astonishing." Both researchers emphasized that it is not sufficient simply to put all the girls in one room and all the boys in another and say "let's give it a whirl." Teachers and administrators need to be committed to the program and must be determined to see it through. The full report contains many fascinating insights from students and teachers. Consider this comment from one of the boys in the single-gender class: "We don't just do war poems and Macbeth, we do Wordsworth too. It's a challenge, in a way, which Mr J sets us to show the girls we're capable of doing it, but I couldn't talk about these things if there were girls there!" (p. 85) The researchers conducted extensive interviews with individual students, and thus were able to distinguish among students rather than lumping all the boys into one group and all the girls into another. The researchers were particularly interested in gender-atypical boys: boys who don't care for sports, for example. How do these pupils fare in the all-boys classroom? Here's another excerpt: "Interviews with [these] 'non-macho' boys suggest that these boys did not feel exposed in single-sex classes. . . .Such boys told us - without exception - that they felt at ease and comfortable, that they did not experience bullying or aggressive behaviour from other boys, and that they were not intimidated by the atmosphere in all-boys' classes." (p. 86) November 2005 U. S. Department of Education study of single-sex education "a disappointment", a "missed opportunity," "many studies overlooked" Most of the studies comparing single-sex education with coeducation focus on grades and test scores as the parameters of interest. Before we look at those studies, we want you to consider another variable altogether: namely, breadth of educational opportunity. Girls in all-girls schools are more likely to study subjects such as advanced math, computer science, and physics. Boys in all-boys schools are more than twice as likely to study subjects such as foreign languages, art, music, and drama. Those boys might not get better grades in those subjects than comparable boys get in more gender-typical subjects. Studies which focus only on grades and test scores won't detect any difference in outcome. For more about benefits beyond grades and test scores, see the advantages for girls page and the advantages for boys page. Returning to grades and test scores: There are three categories of evidence: 1. Major nationwide studies, involving tens or hundreds of thousands of students, in countries such as Australia or the United Kingdom where single-sex public education is widely available; 2. "Before and after" studies, examining a particular school or schools before and after the introduction of single-sex classrooms. Because these studies usually involve no change in resources -- the facilities and student-teacher ratios are the same before and after the switch -- the school serves as its own control; 3. Academic studies, in which investigators study coed and single-sex schools while attempting to control for extraneous variables First category of evidence: Major nationwide studies: England, Australia, Jamaica England, July 2002: The National Foundation for Educational Research was commissioned to study the effect of school size and school type (single-sex vs. coed) on academic performance. The Foundation studied 2,954 high schools throughout England, where single-sex public high schools are widely available. They released their report on July 8 2002. They found: 1. Even after controlling for students' academic ability and other background factors, both girls and boys did significantly better in single-sex schools than in coed schools. In this age group (senior high school), the benefits were larger and more consistent across the board for girls than for boys. Specifically, girls at all levels of academic ability did better in single-sex schools than in coed schools; whereas for boys, the beneficial effect of single-sex schools was significant only for boys at the lower end of the ability scale. For higher-achieving boys, there was no statistically significant effect of school type on performance, positive or negative. (Remember, though, that this study only examined students in grades 9 through 12; other evidence [see below] suggests that single-sex education is most effective for boys in kindergarten and elementary school.) 2. Girls at single-sex schools were more likely to take non-traditional courses -- courses which run against gender stereotypes -- such as advanced math and physics. The researchers concluded that girls' schools are "helping to counter rather than reinforce the distinctions between 'girls' subjects' such as English and foreign languages and 'boys' subjects' such as physics and computer science" (p. 43). No such effect was seen for boys: for example, boys at single-sex schools were no more likely (actually somewhat less likely) to take courses in cooking than were boys at coed schools. 3. Schools of medium size (about 180 students per grade) seemed to do best. At smaller schools, there was a lack of course offerings especially at the advanced levels. At much larger schools, student performance appeared to suffer. The Foundation concluded: "It would be possible to infer from the findings that, in order to maximise performance, [public] schools should [have] about 180 pupils per cohort, or year, and be single-sex." You can download the full text of the report as a PDF (115 pages, 13 MB) by clicking here. A large Australian study, 2000:The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) compared performance of students at single-sex and coeducational schools. Their analysis, based on six years of study of over 270,000 students, in 53 academic subjects, demonstrated that both boys and girls who were educated in single-sex classrooms scored on average 15 to 22 percentile ranks higher than did boys and girls in coeducational settings. The report also documented that "boys and girls in single-sex schools were more likely to be better behaved and to find learning more enjoyable and the curriculum more relevant." The report concludes: "Evidence suggests that coeducational settings are limited by their capacity to accommodate the large differences in cognitive, social and development growth rates of boys and girls aged between 12 and 16." The findings of the Australian commission were widely reported and were available on the ACER site through 2005. Curiously, late in 2005 all trace of this study was purged from the ACER web site. However, the ACER's own press release describing the study is still available at this link from archive.org. Some critics used to argue that single-sex public schools attract children from more affluent families. These critics suggested that the superior performance of students in single-sex schools may be due to the higher socioeconomic class from which such students are purportedly recruited, rather than the single-sex character of the school itself. However, both the ACER study in Australia just mentioned, and the Foundation study mentioned at the top of the page, both found no evidence to support that hypothesis. In the United States, Cornelius Riordan has shown that girls who attend single-sex Catholic schools typically come from a lower socioeconomic background than girls who attend coed Catholic schools. Among boys, Professor Riordan found no difference in socioeconomic status. In 1998, the British Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) tested whether socioeconomic variables might account for the superior performance of students in single-sex schools. They examined test results from 800 public schools, single-sex and coeducational. OFSTED found that the superior performance of students in single-sex schools cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic factors, but appears instead to be a direct result of single-sex education. They also found that students in single-sex schools have a significantly more positive attitude toward learning. Source: Clare Dean, "Inspectors say girls' schools are the best," Times Educational Supplement, October 9, 1998. The Foundation study, which suggests that single-sex education is more beneficial for girls than for boys, is somewhat at variance with an earlier study which suggested that single-sex education was more beneficial for boys than for girls. Educator Graham Able published a study of student performance in 30 coeducational and single-sex schools in England. Dr. Able's study documented superior academic performance of students in single-sex schools, after controlling for socioeconomic class and other variables. "The most significant finding was that the advantage of single-sex schooling is even greater for boys in terms of academic results than for girls," Able said. "The unsubstantiated mythology of the educational establishment has been that girls do better in single sex schools but that boys are 'brought on' by the more studious girls in a co-educational environment. This mythology has never been supported by any objective evidence, and any policy derived from it must presumably sacrifice the advantages to one sex in order to promote the cause of the other," he wrote. "[Our] results suggest that single sex schools give an even greater academic advantage to boys than for girls. This directly contradicts the popular educational myth that boys do better in the classroom if girls are present to set them a good example. One could reasonably conclude from this study that both boys and girls are academically disadvantaged in co-educational schools, but that the disadvantage is greater for the boys. Source: Alison Gordon, "In a class of their own: boys benefit even more than girls from single-sex schools, A-level grades study reveals," in The Mail on Sunday (UK), June 11 2000, p. 42. A classic study from Jamaica: Marlene Hamilton, studying students in Jamaica, found that students attending single-sex schools outperformed students in coed schools in almost every subject tested. At the time of the study, public single-sex schools were still widely available in Jamaica, so that there were few if any socioeconomic or academic variables which distinguished students at single-sex schools from students at coed schools. Hamilton noted the same pattern of results which has been found in most studies worldwide: Girls at single-sex schools attain the highest achievement; boys at single-sex schools are next; boys at coed schools are next; and girls at coed schools do worst of all. Source: Marlene Hamilton. Performance levels in science and other subjects for Jamaican adolescents attending single-sex and coeducational high schools, International Science Education, 69(4):535-547, 1985. Second category of evidence: "Before and after" studies Critics of single-sex education sometimes object that studies comparing students at single-sex schools with students at coed schools are intrinsically untrustworthy, because (they say) one can never control for all the confounding variables. "Before and after" studies are done at just one school, before and after its transformation to a single-sex school. Same students, same teachers, same facilities. These studies offer another compelling proof of the superiority of single-sex education. In 2000, Benjamin Wright, principal of the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School in Seattle, Washington, led his school in a transformation from traditional coed classrooms to single-sex classrooms. . . with astonishing results. Mr. Wright was concerned about the high number of discipline referrals he was seeing: about 30 children every day were being sent to the principal's office because of discipline problems (about 80% were boys). He decided to make the switch to single-sex classrooms in hopes of decreasing the discipline problem. The results exceeded his hopes. Discipline referrals dropped from about 30 per day to just one or two per day. "Overnight. The change in the atmosphere happened overnight." Same kids, same teachers. Switching to single-sex classrooms had a dramatic effect, instantly. But improved discipline wasn't the only benefit of the change. "We were just doing it to make sure that the discipline was taken care of. But once we made the switch, the boys were able to focus on academics, and so were the girls. The boys, remarkably, shocked the state with what they did on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning. Our boys went from being in the 10 to 30 percent listing to 73 percent. They went from a reading average of about 20 percent to 66 percent. Our boys outperformed the entire state in writing. They went from being in a low percentile of 20-something to 53 percent in writing. These results aren't confined to elementary schools. An inner-city high school in Montreal made the switch from coed classrooms to single-sex classrooms five years ago. Since making that switch, absenteeism has dropped from 20 percent before the switch to 7 percent now. About 80 percent of students pass their final exams, compared with 65 percent before the switch. And, the rate of students going on to college has nearly doubled. You can read more about this Montreal high school here. Numerous similar cases have been documented in the United Kingdom. For example: John Fairhurst, principal of the Fairhurst High School (in Essex, in southeastern England) decided to reinvent his school as two single-sex academies under one roof. The students would take the same courses from the same teachers, but boys and girls would attend separate classes. Three years after making the change, the proportion of Shenfield boys achieving high scores on standardized tests had risen by 26%. The girls performance improved only slightly less, by 22%, and they still outperformed the boys. Source: Judith O'Reilly, "Mixed school hits new heights with single-sex classes." Sunday Times (London), August 20, 2000. A similar experiment in Mill Hill, also in England, achieved similar results. In Mill Hill, the county high school was divided up into a girls' wing and a boys' wing in 1994. Since that time, the number of pupils scoring high on the GCSE exam has risen from 40 percent to 79 percent. Dr. Alan Davison, the principal, comments that "Men and women's brains are different. It is crucial that we in education recognise that." Source: Times Educational Supplement (London, UK), "News & Opinion," August 25 2000, "London School Segregates. . ." The "before and after" experience of schools undertaking this transformation has been so consistent, and so impressive, that the British Secretary of Education (then David Blunkett) asked the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) to investigate whether this model should be applied widely throughout Britain, in a wholesale conversion of coed schools to single-sex academies. Source: Nicholas Pyke, "Blunkett plans single-sex classrooms." The Independent (London), August 20, 2000, p. 8. Note: In June 2001, Mr. Blunkett was promoted to the post of Home Secretary. Researchers at Manchester University in England tested this approach more formally. They assigned students at five public schools either to single-sex or to coed classrooms. 68 percent of boys who were assigned to single-sex classes subsequently passed a standardized test of language skills, vs. 33 percent of boys assigned to coed classes. Among the girls, 89 percent assigned to single-sex classes passed the test, vs. 48 percent of girls assigned to coed classes. Source: Julie Henry, "Help for the boys helps the girls," Times Educational Supplement (London, UK), June 1 2001. Similar findings were reported by researchers at Cambridge University, who examined the effects of single-sex classrooms in schools in four different neighborhoods, including rural, suburban and inner-city schools. They found that "using single-sex groups was a significant factor in establishing a school culture that would raise educational achievement." For example, at Morley High School in Leeds, only one-third of boys had been earning passing grades in German and French prior to institution of the program. After the change to single-sex classes, 100% of boys earned passing grades. Click on the link to read the story which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph March 30, 2003. Third category of evidence: academic studies comparing single-sex schools with coed schools Cornelius Riordan, professor of sociology at Providence University in Rhode Island, published a series of studies in the 1980's and early 1990's comparing short- and long-term outcomes of graduates of single-sex Catholic schools in the United States with graduates of coed Catholic schools in the United States. On a variety of measures, Riordan found that girls in single-sex schools consistently outperformed girls at coed schools. In Riordan's studies, the beneficial effect for boys is smaller than it is for girls (contrast this finding with Graham Able's report [see above] that the benefits of single- sex schooling are greater for boys than for girls). Riordan believes that the beneficial effects of single-sex schooling are most impressive for children from underprivileged backgrounds. However, this belief sets him apart from many other researchers in the field, particularly outside the United States. Source: Cornelius Riordan. Girls and Boys in School: together or separate? New York: Teachers College Press, 1990. Researchers at the University of Michigan compared graduates of Catholic single-sex high schools with graduates of Catholic coeducational private schools. Boys in the single-sex high schools scored better in reading, writing, and math than did boys at coed high schools. Girls at the single-sex schools did better in science and reading than girls in coed schools. In fact, these researchers found that students at single-sex schools had not only superior academic achievement, but also had higher educational aspirations, more confidence in their abilities, and a more positive attitude toward academics, than did students at coed high schools. And, girls at the single-sex schools had less stereotyped ideas about what women can and cannot do. Source: Valerie Lee and Anthony Bryk. Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78:381-395, 1986. The same University of Michigan team later reported that the beneficial effects of single-sex education don't end after students leave the school. They found that graduates of single-sex schools were more likely to go to a prestigious college, and more likely to aspire to graduate school or professional school, than were graduates of coed schools. That finding held for both girls and boys. Source: Valerie Lee and H. M. Marks. Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82:578-592, 1990. In one remarkable study of 2,777 English high school students, girls at coed schools were found to lose ground to boys in science and vocabulary as they progressed through high school. Exactly the opposite occurred at single-sex schools: the girls at single-sex schools outperformed both the boys at single-sex schools and the boys at coed schools. Again, this study reported the familiar pattern: girls at single-sex schools on top, followed by boys at single-sex schools, then boys at coed schools, with girls at coed schools doing the worst. Source: J. D. Finn. Sex differences in educational outcomes: a cross-national study. Sex Roles, 6:9-25, 1980. Not just better students; more well-rounded people The benefits of single-sex schools are not only academic. Just as importantly, single-sex education has been shown to broaden students' horizons, to allow them to feel free to explore the own strengths and interests, not constrained by gender stereotypes. A British researcher compared the attitudes of 13 and 14 year-old pupils toward different subjects. Students at coed schools tended to have gender-typical subject preferences: boys at coed schools liked math and science and did NOT like drama or languages, whereas boys at single-sex schools were more interested in drama, biology and languages. Likewise, girls at girls-only schools were more interested in math and science than were girls at coed schools. Source: A. Stables. Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex schools in their enjoyment of school subjects and in their attitudes to science and to school. Educational Review, 42(3):221-230, 1990. A University of Virginia study published in 2003 found that boys who attended single-sex schools were more than twice as likely to pursue interests in subjects such as art, music, drama, and foreign languages, compared to boys of comparable ability who attended coed schools. Single-sex schools break down gender stereotypes. Coed schools reinforce gender stereotypes. Source: Abigail Norfleet James and Herbert Richards, ?Escaping Stereotypes: educational attitudes of male alumni of single-sex and coed schools,? Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4:136-148, 2003. Andrew Hunter, now the principal of Merchiston Castle School in Edinburgh (Scotland) agrees. Having taught in both coed schools and single-sex schools, Mr. Hunter observes that there is "a subtle and invidious pressure towards gender stereotyping in mixed [= coed] schools. Girls tend to be cautious about going into subjects or activities which are thought of as essentially boys' things, but in boys' schools boys feel free to be themselves and develop, to follow their interests and talents in what might be regarded as non-macho pursuits: music, arts, drama. Quoted in: Elizabeth Buie, "Today's sexual evolution," The Herald (Glasgow), November 21 2000, p. 16. Brian Walsh, who has been a principal at both boys' schools and coed schools, made this observation: "Boys ordinarily do not even try to sing in a coed school, whereas they love choral singing in a boys' school; in the coed setting they make fun of French pronunciation, whereas in the single-sex setting they enjoy becoming fluent in French; in drama, they muck up or clown around to avoid seeming imperfect in a coed setting, whereas they excel at drama when by themselves. Quoted in: David Riesman. A margin of difference: the case for single-sex education. In J. R. Blau (editor), Social roles and social institutions, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1990, pp. 243-244. At many coed schools, it's not "cool" for kids to be excited about school. The game of who likes who, who's going out with who, who's cool and who's not, is what's really important at most coed schools. That's seldom the case at single-sex schools. Edison Trickett and Penelope Trickett, comparing students at private single-sex schools in the United States with students at private coed schools in the United States, found that students in the single-sex schools had a far more positive attitude toward academics than did students in coed schools. This finding held for both boys and girls. The students at the single-sex schools also developed better organizational skills, and were more involved in classroom activities. Source: Edison Trickett, Penelope Trickett, et al. The independent school experience: aspects of the normative environment of single-sex and coed secondary schools, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(3):374-381, 1982. 'Separate class needed for boys' Single-sex school classes could help overcome a "laddish" culture that stops boys from learning, a study shows. The Cambridge University research found that separating children for some subjects helped boys to concentrate and improved their exam grades. Girls consistently score better than boys in school examinations. The Department for Education commissioned the four-year project involving 50 schools in an attempt to close the gap. Led by Mike Younger and Molly Warrington, the researchers said: "Many girls and boys feel more at ease in such classes, feel more able to interact with learning and to show real interest without inhibition, and often achieve more highly as a result." Schools' choice Some single-sex classes have developed problems, however, as groups of boys set up a "macho regime" which alienated others in the class. But overall, the academics concluded: "Evidence in favour of the development of single-sex classes for some subjects, from both students' voices and from an analysis of levels of academic achievement, is nonetheless persuasive." Last year, David Miliband, who was schools minister at the time, backed the idea of single-sex classes. But ministers have not publicised the concept since. A spokesman for the Education Department said a range of policies including "reading champions" were already in place to address the gender gap. He said: "We consider that it is a matter for individual schools to determine which strategies are most appropriate for their particular circumstances and to address their pupils' specific needs." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/4591653.stm Published: 2005/05/29 16:18:22 GMT © BBC 2013 Single-Sex Schools Have Negative Impact on Kids, Says Study Source: abc news (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/single-sex-schools-negative-kids-study/story?id=14581023) By MIKAELA CONLEY (@mikaelaconley) Sept. 22, 2011 Boys and girls may be opposites, but new research shows that in the classroom, separating the two sexes may not be the best way for either gender to learn and grow. A new report, published in the journal Science, states that students who attend single-sex schools are no better educated than those who attend co-ed schools. Plus, children are more likely to accept gender stereotypes when they go to an all-boys or all-girls school. "There's really no good evidence that single-sex schools are in any way academically superior, but there is evidence of a negative impact," said Lynn Liben, professor of psychology and education at Penn State and co-author of the study. "Kids' own occupational aspirations are going to be limited, and there could be long-term consequences where, for example, girls are used to being in roles only among other girls, then they have to face the real world where that's not the case." Supporters of single-sex schools argue that boys' and girls' brains are wired differently, and therefore require different teaching styles to maximize education, but study authors note that neuroscientists have not found hard evidence that show differences in girls' and boys' different learning styles. The report also cited a 2010 study which compared two preschool classes. In one class, the teacher used gender-specific language to address the children. The other teacher did not. After just two weeks, the researchers reported that children who had the teacher using sex-specific language played less with children of the other sex. The kids also showed an increase in gender-specific stereotypes (i.e. boys played with trucks, girls with dolls). The study also noted that a review commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education found little overall difference in academic outcomes between children in single-sex schools versus those in coed schools. Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments outlawed discrimination on the basis of gender in educational programs that receive federal funds, meaning students were no longer allowed to be rejected from gender seemingly-specific classes, like home economics or metal shop. But Liben said several people still argue for gender separation in the classroom. "We know from the history of our country that separate is not equal," said Liben. "There's no reason to divide along the lines of biological sex." Single-Sex or Co-Ed Schools: Which is better? FEBRUARY 13, 2013 BY PUBLISHER Source: masalamommas, An Online Magazine for Today’s Moms with a South Asian Connection (http://masalamommas.com/2013/02/13/single-sex-or-co-ed-schools/) Article by: OurKids.net, Canada’s trusted source for camps and schools. If you are considering an independent or private school for your child, you may be wondering whether they would be better suited to a single-sex or co-ed environment. If you are considering an independent school for your child, then finding the right fit be it a single-sex or co-ed classroom, is key. Boys will be boys, and girls will be girls, but what about at school? Opinions vary on whether segregating the sexes is the key to a better learning experience. Supporters of the single-sex model say that, because studies show boys and girls learn differently, they should be in a school that caters to those needs. That said, co-ed enthusiasts explain that their environment better reflects the real world and, if done right, can offer a balance. Sarah McMahon, admissions director at Lakefield College School, about 1 hours northeast of Toronto, stresses that, while “it’s an individual decision,” she’s a fan of the co-ed approach. “This is the reality of the world. You’re going to be in an environment that’s both male and female, and I think it’s a healthy environment to grow up in,” she explains. “The camaraderie that develops between the boys and girls is very special. In a single-sex school, you miss out on that.” Until 12 years ago, Lakefield was boys-only, but is now co-ed. Grade 11 student Kelly Bignell has been there since Grade 7, and some of her best friends are boys. “I can talk to my guy friends about anything,” she says. “I cherish the friendships I’ve made here.” Socialization is one thing, but research shows boys and girls have unique requirements if they’re to reach their full potential. “Girls and boys really do learn differently,” says Dona Matthews, an author and education psychologist at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in Toronto. “Girls are more likely than boys to want to learn co-operatively and collaboratively. Boys tend to be more competitive and to get something good from being competitive.” Eleanor Moore, of The Linden School for girls in Toronto, says people ask a lot of the co-ed classroom because “it’s hard to be all things to all people.” Until recently, much of the research highlighted the challenges faced by girls. Many felt intimidated during adolescence; not only were their voices being lost in the co-ed classroom, they were missing out on developing leadership, math, science and technology skills. The focus has shifted, however, to how co-ed classrooms are failing boys. Statistics released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2001 showed girls significantly outscored boys in reading in all 32 countries tested. In Canada, boys lagged more than 30 points behind girls. And, with Ontario’s province-wide tests also showing that boys are suffering, many parents are looking for options that will focus on their sons’ needs. Traditional classrooms are more female-friendly, says Peter Jackson, administrator at Saint John’s School of Alberta, a boys-only facility outside Edmonton. Boys aren’t programmed to sit quietly for long periods and focus on one task. They’re easily distracted, they’re loud and, especially in early adolescence, “they’re brimming over with energy- – if you could harness it, you could power a city,” he says. “Boys are having a much harder time,” acknowledges Matthews, who, in her private psychology practice, sees a lot of smart little boys who are identified as having behaviour problems, when really they’re just curious children. As a result, Saint John’s structures its schedule to respond to boys’ needs. “We have smaller classes and we’re able to work out that energy,” Jackson says. “The day is broken so they’re not just sitting at a desk.” Instead, they’re doing chores, playing sports and participating in the school’s Outdoor Adventure Program, which includes expeditions to explore Canada’s geography and history. At Linden, a women-centred approach focuses on women’s stories and takes into account girls’ personalities. “We know that girls are very much socially and psychologically rooted in relationships.” Moore says. “If girls view relationships as key, then it’s important in teaching.” Arranging the Linden science lab in an hour-glass shape encourages discussions, and students also call teachers by their first names, treating them as guides, or comrades, rather than all-knowing beings. This holistic approach allows girls to take responsibility for their education and develop independence. It also puts the focus on academics, says Moore, who, like Jackson, believes students are less distracted in a single-sex school. “I think for the most part they’re much freer in nature,” she explains. “They don’t have to put being cool before learning.” Kimberley Noble says she’s relieved her 13-year-old daughter Lucy doesn’t have to deal with the peer pressure of the co- ed classroom, where some girls are pushed to grow up too soon or act a certain way to impress boys. “I would much rather Lucy go out into the world of relationships as a really strong fully formed person and I think that’s what she’s getting where she is,” says Noble. “The all-girls environment gives them a lot of freedom to look at who they are and what they want to be in the world.” While single-sex classrooms do help girls maintain confidence and keep their options open when it comes to careers and academics, says Matthews, separating the girls from the boys isn’t the only answer. “When there’s been qualitative study done of single-sex environments in which girls are shown to do better, and when people learn about what’s going on there and apply that to co-ed environments, you get even better things going on. “Rather than segregate, it’s always better to figure out how to diversify the classroom,” she suggests. Kelly Bignell agrees, emphasizing that she enjoys the well-rounded experience her co-ed school offers: “I think you get so many more different views, especially in a classroom discussion.” While the single-sex/co-ed question raises plenty of issues for parents and students to consider, no one answer is right or wrong. “It’s very much an individual differences phenomenon,” Matthews says. “For some girls and some boys the single-sex environment is absolutely right, for some it’s absolutely wrong.” OTHERS Online debating and etc. Sources: debate.org DEBATE.ORG(http://www.debate.org/debates/Are-the-co-ed-schools-better-than-single-sex-schools/1/) Are the co-ed schools better than single sex schools? PRO: Did you know that 75% of Korean children go to the co-ed schools and 25% go to single sex schools? According to this research, we can know that co-ed schools are more popular. Also, they are better than single sex schools. Three reasons why co-ed schools are better than single sex schools are boys and girls can cooperate with opposite sex, they can gain ability to fight against obstacles, and girls and boys can understand the differences between them. For the first reason, boys and girls can cooperate with opposite sex. If they go to single sex schools, they have to work only with same sex. When they grow up and get the job, they cannot work with the opposite sex. It is because they did not learn how to cooperate with other sex when they were young. According to research of a Canadian university, over half of the students went to co-ed elementary schools. They said that they could learn how to do group work with opposite sex, and they could cooperate with them, too. By doing group projects with the opposite sex, they can understand each other and learn about each other. Therefore, co-ed schools can help cooperation between boys and girls. Secondly, they can gain ability to fight against obstacles such as teasing. This does not happen if they children go to single sex schools. Teasing and fights will not happen because they are same sex. Teasing and fighting are not positive for children. If it happens to them, they will surely be unhappy or annoyed. However, they can learn how to ignore the tease of opposite sex or how to prevent fight with opposite sex. For example, CNN student news said that a lot of young girls and boys at Seattle elementary school got teased. Because of this, they could learn how to endure their anger. Therefore, co-ed schools can provide ability to get over obstacles. Finally, girls and boys can understand the differences between them. Girls have things that they are better at, such as making food and speaking. Boys have things that they are better at too, such as math and science. Actually, it does not mean that all girls are better at those things and all boys are better at those things. It is different from each person. Anyway, they have different thoughts and body shape. If they go to the co-ed school, they can learn about these differences. Also, by understanding these differences, they will find out the person who they will marry with or who they want to marry with. For example, school research found out that 75% of students at co-ed school said they understand the difference between the two different sexes. At single sex school, 54% of them said that they understand about it. Therefore, co-ed schools can provide more understanding between two different sex. Co-ed schools are better than single sex schools, because of three reasons. It’s because boys and girls can cooperate, they can gain ability to get over obstacles, and they can understand the differences between them. Opponents say that boys and girls are different in learning. However, they should learn together if they are different in learning. Girls can teach the boys what they are not better at, and boys can teach the girls what they are bad at. Thus, co-ed schools are better. CON: I’d assume my opponent has the BOP. Therefore I must prove that single-sex schools are either equal to or superior to Co-educational schools. Clarified Resolution: Co-ed schools are better than single-sex schools. My opponent (pro) must affirm this resolution and I (con) must negate it. This topic has been debated over professors, teachers and principals for many years. Yet, the solution is still unclear. Asof this debate, I am arguing forsingle-sex schools over co-ed schools. Defintions: Single-sex schools: Schools thatcomprise of one gender only (male-only or female-only school) Co-edschools: Schools that comprise of both genders Rebuttals: “Did you know that 75% of Korean children go to the co-ed schools and 25% go to single sex schools?” From the above statistics, we can certainly agree that Co-ed based schools certainly are more popular in Korea, but not necessarily better. I’d also ask of my opponent to provide some sources to back up the numbers she has used. “boys and girls can cooperate with opposite sex” What is school? It is a place for learning. The first priority for students is studying. Social skills are a necessity for life. However, there are other ways to develop them, and certainly better places than school. Better ways to cooperate with members of the opposing sex include signing up for groups (sports for example) that are mixed gendered. This way, males and females will be highly encouraged to cooperate with each other to have a good time. Participating with extra-curricular group-based activities is much more successful for understanding each other for the following reasons: 1. Within the group, members have similar interests. 2. School projects with mixed members are more likely to be “forced” to cooperate. This is not beneficial for all members within the group project. “Secondly, they can gain ability to fight against obstacles such as teasing” This is a very one-sided argument. Without the presence of members of the opposing sex, other types of “teasing” occurs. For example, a homosexual male within a single-sex school is likely to bullied by guys taller and stronger than him. With the presence of females however, it is possible to say that the bullies are less tempted to bully and therefore lose his cool to the girl/s he may like. Another rebuttal I’d like to make towards this argument is teasing is not necessarily good. Teasing people for prolonged amounts of time is not necessarily the best way to provide them with the ability to get over obstacles. It can cause emotional scarring, lead to depression and even go as far as suicidal thoughts. I can use the same rebuttals for my opponent’s last argument as those I have already used for her first. Basically put, there are places other than school that would be a suitable environment for students to understand each other’s differences. Arguments: Contention 1: Better education in single-sex schools Single-sex schools have an advantage over co-educational schools as their education systems are geared towards the best methods to teach that gender as a whole. Females respond differently to boys when they are being taught. [1] As the following source shows, there are plenty of differences (generalized examples. The characteristics described represent the majority) in how they study. “Girls tend to be auditory learners, more attuned to sounds, and as a result talk earlier than boys. From the time they begin formal schooling, girls excel in auditory subjects, such as reading, which require the ability to break words into individual sound units, and then blend them back into a whole. As auditory learners, they perform well in classroom settings that demand attention to teacher instructions. As adults, they often lean toward careers in communications. Male broadcasters, courtroom attorneys and speech-language pathologists prove that there are exceptions to this rule. Beginning at birth, boys tend to be visually alert and take a whole body stance to learning. As visual learners, boys tend to excel in visual subjects, such as spelling and math. Spelling requires accurate visual recall of the patterns of words, and success in math hinges on the ability to mentally visualize and manipulate quantities. As adults, males tend to favor visually precise fields, or favor fields where they can be physically active. However, female airline pilots, accountants and landscape designers prove exceptions to this rule.” *2+ (Quoted) Co-educational schools are not able to provide an education system suitable for both genders at one time. By focusing too much on visual-based learning (the stronger point for males), females (the majority) will not reach their full potential. In a similar way, if a co-ed class was focusing on auditory-based education, the grades performed by males are highly likely to fall behind the females. As shown in this source, the scores achieved in schools in comparison (Co-ed vs Single-sex) are as follows[3]: Percentage of students scoring proficient on the FCAT boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient girls in coed classes: 59% scored proficient girls in single-sex classes: 75% scored proficient boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient In conclusion, co-educational schools are not better (as a whole) than single-sex schools. I have provided rebuttals to my opponents claims on how they promote understanding between opposing genders and how a simple solution can be used. I have also responded on my opponent’s claim about being “teased” in school and how that is a beneficial factor in the lives of teenagers. So far, one argument has been provided to explain why single-sex schools are indeed superior than Co-ed schools. The resolution has been successfully negated. PRO: I'd like to give rebuttals to my opponent's rebuttals and arguments. Problems of rebuttals: First, did you say that school is place for learning, and social skills can be developed in other places? However, I believe that the schools are the best place to learn and develop our social skills. At school, students of different gender work together, such as doing group projects. Then, they can learn social skills naturally, not in an unnatural way. If they meet each other in other groups, like you said, since they only met same gender at the school, they will not know how to work with a different gender or they will not have enough information about their opposite gender. Therefore, I think my opponent needs a stronger rebuttle. P.S. School projects are more likely to be forced to cooperate? Is that really true? Prove it, please. Second, my opponent said that teasing is not necessarily good. However, if the students grow and become an adults, they will probably get teased once or more. So, they should know how to fight against them when they are young. It is preparing for their future. Problems of arguments: First, my opponent said that single sex schools provide the better education, which is suitable for both genders at one time. However, I think that the co-ed schools provide high-quality education as the single sex schools. If they teach the things that only they want to learn, they will be unable to do things that their opposite gender is good at. Therefore, the single sex schools do not provide the better education. I thought my opponent would give many arguments, so I am surprised to see only one argument. I will be glad to see more of your arguments to prove that single sex schools are better than co-ed schools. CON: Defence: What I was pointing out was that the best place for learning is at school and the best place for developing social skills are out of school. Thus, when they are involved with extra-curricular activities that they enjoy, starting up a conversation is not difficult. At school however, the interests of other people who are not your friends still remain a mystery. This is one reason why not every single person in your class is your friend as a major factor of friendship is based on similar interests. Often people may even offend one another in an indirect way. For example, here is a clear scenario: John is a “hard-core” Christian and Cameron is a “hard-core” atheist. Cameron gets into a bad mood and then decides to use Christian terms in a derogatory manner e.g. “Oh my God”. By using the possessive term whilst addressing God, John will certainly not take this in the right way and react negatively. Similarly, these types of scenarios can easily happen at school. You cannot communicate and develop your social skills with everyone at school. Additionally, we can note that a typical female student in comparison with a typical male student differ greatly in personality and characteristics. In most cases, it will be hard to find a guy who enjoys window- shopping and a girl who enjoys shooting zombie heads during their spare time. Therefore, extra-curricular activities, such as drama clubs, chess clubs, mixed sports etc. are the best place for male to female interaction which will, in a long-term naturally develop a better understanding of the opposing sex. “P.S. School projects are more likely to be forced to cooperate? Is that really true? Prove it, please.” Usually, the majority of students will pair up or group with friends of the same gender for important projects. Learning styles also differ from each gender (as argued in R1) and therefore the way they approach the project may cause complications when working with the opposing gender. Although most teenagers should be fine whilst working with a member of their opposing gender, chances are most students would prefer to work with members of their gender. By having a teacher grouping up males students with female students, they are most likely not going with their preferences, and therefore it means they are forced to cooperate. Teasing The subject of teasing another individual to be able to cope and accept this type of behaviour is double-sided. For example, lighter cases of teasing such as calling other people bad names is not really going to help prepare an individual for the future. More extreme cases of teasing, such as racial slurs and severe discrimination can happen in both co-ed and single-sex schools. Additionally, these types of things often happen in single-sex schools as well, usually with different types of teasing. Therefore creating no beneficial factor for co-ed schools over single-sex. However, more severe cases of teasing are far from being beneficial. Bullying one another causes emotional scarring and even physical injuries. There have been many cases where same-sex attracted individuals commit suicide after being bullied for prolonged periods. Although this rebuttal is neither beneficial for my side, I am providing it in a manner to question the validity of my opponent’s arguments. It is an interesting part to look at, but it does not appear to be completely justifiable. Counter-Rebuttals: My opponent’s response to my first and only argument is very weak. The studies and statistics I’ve provided have been completely ignored. To summarise my entire first argument once again, the stronger learning style of males depend on visual-based education and for females is auditory-based education. In single-sex schools, it is easier for the teachers to focus on teaching their students based on a majority’s strengths. In co-ed schools however, the education system must be balanced to ensure one of the gender counterparts do not drastically fall behind the other. I also provided statistics to back up that study [1] There are also strong sources to back up that female students benefit highly in single-sex schools [2]. Arguments: Negative peer pressure from opposing gender Sometimes there are cases of negative peer pressure from the opposing gender at co-ed schools. Sometimes girls feel pressured by the male counterpart to choose subjects that follow the general female stereotype, such as creative arts and music. Although the males may not realise how they could possibly be using this type of peer pressure, it still happens. Peer pressure for something as important as subject selection can alter a person’s future in a negative way. In single-sex schools, students (females in particular) do not feel pressured by students of their opposite gender to do stupid things such as follow a general stereotype (subject selection being a prime example). Early and unhealthy relationships Although there is nothing wrong with becoming friends with members of your opposing sex, when a couple develop their relationship to a boyfriend/girlfriend status, it will lead to distractions from more important such as their education. Although there is nothing wrong with having a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, the only problem is that during their teens, most students are not mature enough to keep a stable relationship, often ending up with breakups and heartbroken couples. These types of things are detrimental to teenage students and often result in students becoming insecure and not being able to trust anyone. DEBATE.ORG (http://www.debate.org/debates/Single-Sex-school-are-better-than-Co-ed-Schools/1/ ) Single Sex school are better than Co-ed Schools CON: "Single-sex school are better than Co-ed Schools". Since I am Negating the following topic, my resolution stands: "Co-ed Schools are better than Single-sex schools". Definitions: Single-sex school: Schools that comprise of one gender only (male-only or female-only school). Co-ed School: Schools that comprise of both genders. My resolution: Co-ed Schools are better than those that are single-sex. This topic has been debated over professors, teachers and principals for many years. Yet, the solution is still unclear. As of this debate, I am arguing for co-ed schools over single-sex schools. With that said, I will now begin with my arguments: Contention 1: Maturity with members of the opposite sex We can logically conclude that members from a coeducational school are generally more understanding of their opposing sex than those who are in a single-sex school. This doesn’t apply to students who have no siblings, relationships or are homophobic. It applies to the vast majority of students with any form of schooling. A sibling only has one personality, a girlfriend or a boyfriend only possess one personality. One must be able to understand and cope with members with different personality types to be counted as mature. A clear example can be shown here from recounting the words of a female college student who studied in an all-girls school: “Boys were exotic creatures for us. We only met them inside the pages of books. In college, where they appeared in human form, we had no idea what to say to them.” *1+ Students from single-sex schools are generally more immature (males in particular) when they face people of the opposing sex. They feel awkward, say stupid things and can’t talk to them like a real person because they don’t feel comfortable. With this point, how can they have a proper relationship? (leaving aside gay and lesbian relationships) Who wants to have a relationship with someone immature, let alone, live (if it comes to marriage) with them? Contention 2: More Diverse Friendship types This is a pretty obvious point that I don’t see can see as refutable by Pro. Co-ed students generally have a more diverse friendship than single-sex school students. Males aren’t as pressured to live up to the stereotypical muscular body build and females aren’t expected to live up to their stereotypes either. Guys are able to able to talk to girls with very feminine personalities and girls can expand their social life with guys with the typical masculine personalities. More diverse friendship types would supposedly lead to bigger and better social life, which is important to have for school students as they progress in life. The logic behind this reasoning is that once you are in the working force, you must be able to deal with anyone that you work with, work for and assign work to. We do not live in a utopian environment where everyone single person lives up to your expectations. Going back to my point, the gender difference usually poses a particularly bias towards some personality types. For example, you will find more try-hard types of guys then girls and you will find more gossiping types of girls than guys. Contention 3: Co-ed school provide better education It has been proven that the education provided in Co-ed schools is actually better than those of single-sex schools. The following source [2] proves that being in a mixed classroom with both boys and girls in beneficial to the education of the students. Although the source's dominant idea is that “boys achieve higher grades with female peers”, we can still conclude that girls can achieve better marks with male peers. After all, the first paragraph of the given text tells us so. This chart of the NSW HSC top scoring schools of 20120(two years ago) [3: http://ourkidz.com.au/content/view/1606/186/lang,en/] This chart shows the best scoring schools for the Higher School Certificate (an important test for high school students). The chart displays the best scoring schools within the state of New South Wales (Australia). The best scoring school for the HSC is James Ruse Agricultural School which happens to be co-educational. Perhaps we should also point out the massive difference percentage-wise between Rank #1 and Rank #2. James Ruse smashes North Sydney Girls High School (clearly a single-sex high school) by a clean 18.8%! How can you justify the superiority with the education of co-ed school to single-sex schools now? PRO: I totally disagree with the first argument that Famer has put down. It does matter if you don't socialise during your school, reason being is that you are able to go to university then that is co-ed so you have all the time in the world to socialise and get to know the opposite sex. Contention 1: Students in Single-sex school success more than Co-ed Schools Studies have shown that it gives students a better chance to do well in subjects where one sex or the other traditionally does better. Girls sometimes think it is not feminine to do well in maths and science. Boys sometimes think it is not masculine or 'macho' to do well in expressive subject such as English. If they are in segregated class, they may not be so affected by these ideas, and so be more likely to perform at their best. Studies from the National Association for Single Sex Public Education. Percentage of students scoring proficient on FCAT ( The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ) Boys in Co-ed classes: 37% scored proficient Girls in Co-ed classes: 59% scored proficient Girls in Single- sex classes: 75% scored proficient Boys in Single- sex classes: 86% scored proficient Contention 2 : Opposite Sex Studies at different rates Another main argument for segregated education is the fact that boys demand more of their teachers' time. Firstly boys need more discipline because they are more likely to misbehave in class. Secondly they get more attention than girls do, because they tend to speak up more in class. If girls are educated separately, they might have more of their teachers' time, and so learn faster. Contention 3 : Teacher that favour one sex over the other Teacher frequently favour their own gender when teaching co- educational classes; for example, male teacher can undermined the process and confidence of girl students by refusing to chose them to answer question etc. A recent study by the American Association of University Women found that ‘gender bias is a major problem at all levels of schooling', asserting ‘girls are plagued by sexual harassment and neglected by sexist teachers, who pay more attention to boys'.[1] As a result, girls tend to fall behind their male counterparts. CON: I will firstly respond to Pro’s arguments with a few quotes and rebuttals. DEFENCE “It does matter if you don't socialise during your school, reason being is that you are able to go to university then that is co-ed so you have all the time in the world to socialise and get to know the opposite sex.” It appears Pro has made a self-contradicting statement in response to my argument. He claims that it does matter if you don’t socialise, yet you have opportunities when you go to university. I can personally see Pro as trying to have either of the following: It does matter if you don’t socialise during your school, reason being is that you won’t be able to socialise as much when you are in university, when you have all the time in the world. It doesn’t matter if you don’t socialise during your school, reason being is that you will have all the time in the world to socialise when you are in university. The first of the suggested statements only support my case, so we can assume that this is not the case being put forth by Pro. Therefore, we can assume that Pro was following the second suggested statement. Even if this assumption was correct, it is flawed in a number of ways. First off, the main benefit that I clearly outlined in the second round for socialising with your opposing gender more is to develop high levels of maturity with them. If you study middle school, as well as high school and make it into university and decide to start a serious relationship, chances are, your girlfriend/boyfriend won’t take you that seriously if you are not mature. As for me, I would prefer to have a serious relationship with a girl who studied for 6 years in a co- educational school to a girl who studied for 6 years in a single-sex school. Second thing to note, which similar to the one pointed out above; good social skills are developed when you are young and are difficult to change when you progress through life. The same applies to bad social skills. If they are developed when you are young, these skills will most likely carry on throughout the rest of your life, and will become a burden to try and change. The third and last thing to note is the actual graduation rate for high school students. [1] In America, the success rate for high school students who manage to graduate to university in year 2009 was 75.5%. This means, a surprising 24.5% of students do not make it into university. Where will the social life of these poor souls go to? Other than that, most of my arguments have been ignored. Therefore, we can accept my arguments to be counted as conceded and are still standing strong in the face of my opponent to rebut to in his next argument. REBUTTALS “Students in Single-sex school success more than Co-ed Schools” My opponent’s first contention about students in single-sex schools having a higher success rate than Co-ed school is a direct contradiction of my 3rd contention in the previous round. My arguments and reasoning for third argument is so far conceded, but I will now respond to Pro’s argument. Pro has provided us his sources from the “FCAT” (an acronym of The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test). So far, I’d like to point out that although Pro has provided some stats that he most likely found, he has failed to provide any sources to prove of his claim. With this point put forth, we can accept this as a tentative truth until he proves he did not make up his sources. A second thing that I would like to point out is “Studies from the National Association for Single Sex Public Education.” I am astounded that Pro would have mentioned this. This clearly proves the huge bias of his source, whether they are true of or not is another matter. A study from the National Association for Single Sex Public Education is clearly going to try and support itself as much as possible. With this point, we have to seriously consider the reliability of Pro’s source. “Opposite Sex Studies at different rates” Well, considering that Pro has not provided any sources for his claim, we have to, for now, accept this merely as an opinion. And with this, as an opinion, it is very hard to justify exactly what he is talking about. Firstly, he claims that boys generally misbehave more during class. This is really hard to justify, as there are plenty of examples of boys who study diligently and are quite during class. He also claims that boys generally get more attention than girls do, because they tend to speak up more in class. In what context is Pro referring to? Is he referring to a all-boys school that are is known for a reputation for having rebellious boys and an all-girls school known to have the quietest classrooms that have ever existed? “Teacher that favour one sex over the other” Well a simple solution for this problem is that sexist teachers can just teach at a single-sex school. I am amazed that sexist teachers would teach at a co-education school. I wish Pro would actually provide his reference along with his citation point. For now, I have no more arguments to put forth. Most of my arguments have so far been conceded, so I will wait for Pro’s response in his following argument.