Gender Stereotypes In Schools

The way in which we teach our kids is one of the most important issues we face today. Most parents want what’s best for their kids and that starts with education. Education is a major factor and some people have different beliefs. The children that are currently in schools right now will someday be running this country. Education plays a big role in teaching kids, bringing kids together, and making our world better. In order to teach students in the best way possible we must do what is best for them. Putting the students first should always be the main priority. Providing equal and productive education is a way to help our children succeed. The option is whether or not we want our kids to be in classes with the opposite gender or have classes

based on gender.
The idea that single-gender classes provide better education is one of the biggest fallacies that has been around for a long time. Multiple other factors that deal with coed classes other than simply being with the opposite gender tie into this topic. Statistics, quotes, and personal experiences prove my argument to be strong and factual. In order to maintain equality and the best education for students in the future we must continue to have co-ed schools as the major public school option.
People may believe single gender schooling to be more effective but often don’t look at the other components adding into these situations. For example, the reality of single gender education has been created off of how private schools systems work. Public schools are starting to try and model their classes the same way some private schools do. Which is by separating genders. The way single gender classes may work at a private schools will have no correlation as to how they will work at a public school. Private schools have other factors than just single-gender classes. Private school students typically come from a more privileged household which already gives them an advantage. Private school tuition also has an effect on the students there because they do not want to waste the money they are spending by doing poorly. Not all private schools use single-gender classes either. In fact, in private schools there is no proven advantage to making the classes single-gender. So to model public schools after some private schools that have no proven research behind it would be ineffective. The reason is based off of other factors that play a big role in this situation. Janet Hyde, a University of Wisconsin-Madison psychology professor, was chosen along with others to form a team that reviewed 184 single-gender education studies in 2014. Hyde was interviewed by John O’Connor for his article “Explaining The Research On Single-Gender Classes.” In the article Hyde talks about how single-gender education will often show improvements in the first year because of the enthusiasm and funds getting poured into it, but after that there seems to be no benefit (O’Connor). This credible source is also the director for a national co-education advocacy group. She believes we need to stick to our co-educational system.
The opposing side believes that they have science and research on their side to back them up. In his article, O’Connor states that some people refer to that research as “Junk Science” (O’Connor). This is because, at least in the US, it is against the law to force a student into a single-gender classroom without consent. This means there cannot be a sufficient way to find information because there has not been any blind assessments done. The article, “Single-Sex Education: Results One-Sided,” uses this argument to try and back up their stance on this issue. This article gives the example that the argument of not having a blind assessment was also used to try and say smoking cigarettes was not bad for peoples health (Kalkus). This article tries to relate two completely unrelated topics. A blind assessment is necessary in order to get factual research. If all students are voluntarily choosing a single-gender school then the chances of them reporting they enjoy it become higher. In order to record solid research there must be blind assessments done to understand the differences when using who do not have a bias. Although this would be hard to do in the United States with all of the laws I believe it is essential for researchers to see a blind study.
The argument for single-gender education will be how much better it is for each gender because they are not worried about the opposite gender surrounding them. This is a way for students to mature and learn how to work with the opposite gender. Supporters of single-gender education think that boys and girls are regularly treated differently in coeducational settings and that they both could both benefit from single-gender classrooms.
Advocates say girls who learn in all-girl environments are more comfortable answering questions and sharing their opinions in class and more likely to explore more subjects such as math, science, and technology. In addition, advocates believe that when children learn with single-gender peers, they are more likely to speak more openly in the classroom, and feel more encouraged to pursue their interests and achieve their fullest potential. Of course, this science is strictly based off of personal experiences. Advocates for single-gender classes are missing facts and proof in their studies. Parents want their children to be comfortable in a classroom which is why the school system much teach students to learn to be comfortable with the opposite gender. If they are only comfortable working with their own gender then the real world will come up and bite them. Being comfortable with the opposite gender will not only improve relations between the two but also improve the learning that happens at schools which will benefit both boys and girls.
Personal experience is something I have when it comes to both single-gender classes and mixed-gender classes. I have been apart of both types of classroom styles which gives me a good perspective about this topic. Of course I can not speak for the female students considering I only spent time in an all male classroom, but while I was in an all male classroom some things were definitely different. The whole argument that coed classes cause more distraction is one that I did not experience. If anything, it was the opposite. Everyone was constantly talking, making jokes, and messing around in ways they wouldn’t normally have if it were in front of female students. The loud and obnoxious classrooms would disrupt the teacher constantly. Having a female teacher teach thirty 8th grade boys was not always a good mix. It is hard enough for teachers to relate to their students as is, but when the students are all one gender and the teacher is another it becomes even more difficult. Students in single-gender classes miss out on the different opinions and viewpoints that they would be exposed to at a coed school. What students learn while participating in classes with the opposite gender is future real life skills. They will learn how to interact with the opposite sex just like they will have to in the future when they find a career. In every workplace there is a mix of genders that they will have to learn to work with and be productive with. By separating genders at a young age we will take away positive learning skills that could potentially benefit students in the future.
People often stress that a classroom with mixed genders creates an unequal learning environment. They say that girls and boys learn in different ways, which isn’t as real as some may say. An article posted by Kansas University titled, “Study: Single-gender schools may lead to stereotyping,” gives research done by their associate professor of psychology and research in education, Meagan Patterson. In her findings, Patterson addresses the idea that boys and girls brains learn so much differently. Patterson found that teachers largely embrace the idea that differences in boys’ and girls’ brains affect the way they learn. Patterson reports, “Neuroscience research fails to support that claim. But despite neuroscientists showing that such differences are small and the similarities between the two genders’ brains and learning styles are much greater, the idea has found its way into teaching materials, the media, and acceptance in society,” showing how our educational system has taken that idea and ran with it (Krings). Even if there was more evidence of boys and girls learning differently, why should we separate them because of it? Patterson goes on about how researchers are finding evidence that teachers and policymakers endorse this idea that girls’ and boys’ brains are different and that they learn differently. Patterson explains that single-gender classes can lead to gender stereotyping rather than expanded educational opportunities. By keeping them together in a classroom they will adopt new learning techniques and have more ways to learn. By giving them an equal education it makes the students adapt to ways they aren’t usually used to which will push them out of their comfort zones and that is something we need to strive for in the education community. Pushing students to learn more and in new ways will result in a better outcome for students.
The opposing side also focuses solely on the girls in the classroom receiving unfair treatment but in reality the boys in the classroom are the ones that are struggling when compared to the girls. The argument that girls cannot learn in an environment with boys is one that is very outdated. The girls are achieving higher than ever which is a positive that comes from coed classes. According to the article, “For & Against Single Sex Schools,” by Anthony Owens, single gender classes can create more stereotyping than if students were in a classroom with the opposite gender (Owens). Owens says, “Perhaps this is because single-sex bonding at all-boy and all-girl schools somehow generates disdain at the opposite sex,” to explain why stereotyping becomes a bigger factor in single-gender schools.
The last thing that would help this country move forward is to create more gender stereotyping.

In order to move forward with equality we must avoid any option that will create gender stereotyping. When teachers believe that boys and girls need to be taught differently, they can end up reinforcing gender stereotypes instead of fighting them. This is a problem that we can easily fix by teaching our teachers that students are more alike than different and that they must be treated like that. When teachers try and say that genders learn differently and need to be split up because of it I don’t understand at all why that would help gender discrimination. Kristin Maschka talks in her article, “Single-Sex Schools and Gender Stereotypes,” about discrimination problems. Maschka speaks her mind about the problems that single-gender schools can cause on our youth. She writes, “Can you imagine anyone today advocating in earnest for public schools or classrooms to be segregated by race? By sexual orientation? By socio-economic status? Why are we okay with segregating by gender?” to show how important this problem is (Maschka). It does no good to separate genders. Separating genders will cause nothing but more division between the genders. In a study they found that there is no evidence of single-gender schools succeeding simply because it is divided by gender. But, they did find that separating students legitimizes institutionalized sexism

(Maschka).
By ignoring the other factors involved with single-gender schools we will be praising an idea that has no scientific backing. Single-gender schools by themselves have no proof showing that they are better than coed schools. Single-gender schools on their own will result in a loss of cohesion between boys and girls attending school. Unifying boys and girls in this day and age is something that must be put as one of the top priorities. Students must continue to receive the same fair treatment and education that every child deserves. Separating boys and girls may say to the young students that there is a reason they are split up into different classes. They might start to think of themselves as so different that they must not sit in the same classroom and learn together. What that says is we’re different and must be treated differently simply because we aren’t the same gender. Advocates for single-gender schools have said how girls respond better to quiet and calm questions whereas boys respond better to loud and direct questions. But, what happens if a girl isn’t quiet or shy, or a boy isn’t loud and obnoxious? Separating genders is simply acting on the typical stereotypes that have separated genders enough. Actually listening to those stereotypes enough to go as far as to separate them by schools because of it is where the line needs to be drawn. People must not fall for the research that advocates for single-gender schools come up with because there is truly no science behind it. Schools must work to focus less on where kids are learning or who they are learning with, and more on what they are learning. Coed schools promote a real world environment and students will benefit from that later on in life.
Single-sex education has been thought of as a way to bring equality to both genders in education. But the only thing single-sex education will do is separate our boys and girls even more. This will cause them to lose the skill of interacting with one another- a skill that is very much needed in today's world. We need to focus more on fixing how we teach coed classes instead of trying to destroy the complete theory of coed classes. Continuing to use coed classes will result in bettering relationships and give students more of a taste of what the real world is like.