Education is the main base for everyone in today’s society. There are several factors that could affect one's education. Statistics show that single sex schools have been shown to receive higher test scores than their coeducational counter-parts, therefore, one of the most important factors that could affect one's education is whether they attend a single sex or coeducational school. The separation of genders during education has been considered a great importance because it has been shown to be able to increase a student’s educational achievements and quality of his or her work. The use of single sex education has been used since the 19th century, with the common idea being that if boys and girls were separated during the school day, it would allow for fewer distractions in the classroom. To this current day, many people still believe in the use of single sex education, which is still being utilized in many areas of the United States. This issue is on a national level due to it being an issue that needs to be addressed by the whole country. In light of the increase of single-sex schools, the United States government must require schools nationwide to offer a less distracting environment without the opposite sex in all subjects, which provides each sex with greater self-confidence and higher academic success.
In a school of all girls or boys, students will have a less distracting learning environment. Meghan Coyle illustrates this very well when she explains “Single-sex schools say boys and girls can focus better on schoolwork when they are separated”(Coyle). Meaning when both genders are separated there are less distractions when compared to when both genders mix together. For example in a coed school, a girl can be dist...
... middle of paper ...
... Rules Back Single-Sex Public Education." nytimes.com. The New York Times, 25 October 2013. Web. 13 Dec 2013. education/25gender.html?_r=0>. Strauss, Valerie. "The case against single-sex schooling." washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 04 Jun 2012. Web. 13 Dec 2013. .
Tenenbaum, David. "Study challenges claims of single-sex schooling benefits." news.wisc.edu. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 3 Feb 2014. Web. 25 Feb 2014. wisc.edu/22504>. Wolfgang, Ben. "Boys in one class, girls in another at more schools." washingtontimes.com. The Washington Times, 02 Sep 2011. Web. 13 Dec 2013.
news/2011/sep/1/boys-in-one-class-girls-in-another-at-more-schools/?page=all
Sadker, Myra, David Sadker, and Susan Klein. "The Issue of Gender in Elementary and Secondary Education." Review of Research in Education 17 (1991): 269. JSTOR. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.
Brooks argues that male and female brains work and experience things differently. He suggests that this theory is also the reason as to why young girls are surpassing their male counterparts in school settings. He incorrectly assumes that by separating males and females, males will be allowed to break free from gender stereotypes. Brooks strengthens his argument with results of brain research on sex differences. But, Brook’s argument is unpersuasive. He categorizes all young males, and suggest that single sex-schools are the best solution for them. He wants to apply a black-and-white solution to something that is just not that simple. While Brooks uses comparisons and surveys to convince the reader, his argument simply does
There is a long history of single-sex schooling, in which males and females attend specific classes or schools only with members of their same sex. This separation of genders may be done for educational purposes or in combination with other factors, such as social interactions that occur between male and female students. There is some support for the idea that single-sex schooling can be beneficial, especially for outcomes related to academic achievement and more positive academic aspirations (Lee, 2008). Although, there are many benefits of children attending single-sex schools, evidence shows that sex segregation can also gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism (Kennedy, 2000).
It has been noticed that the amount of boys who are reading has greatly decreased, and men are shying away from jobs that involve reading. David Brooks has come up with a solution to this problem; he believes that single-sex schools would help boys and girls to achieve better grades, to gain more of a desire to read, and to break free from gender stereotypes. In the article “The Gender Gap at School”, David Brooks is correct in his stance, boys and girls should go to single-sex schools in order to help them succeed; therefore, boys will be more likely to do better in class if they are reading books that they are interested in because they can have more of a desire to read, can have more understanding, and can be taught differently if needed.
It seems that single-sex education perpetuates gender stereotypes and promotes gender bias among students (Taylor). Gender-separate education requires schools and teachers to create gender-oriented courses, facilities, and learning environment. As a result, sing-sex schools exacerbate sexist attitudes and “feelings of superiority toward women” (Guarisco). It is fair to argue that the best way to achieve gender equality is to promote rather than eliminate interaction among girls and boys. However, girls in the sex-mixed class receive less attention from teachers than boys, which may lead to gender bias. More precisely, boys always have disciplinary issues, such as interruption; teachers have to pay more attention to boys’ behaviors in order to proceed the lecture more smoothly. Girls may feel less important and supportive in male-dominated classes; boys may think that males are smarter and far superior than females. Single-sex schools can address both girls’ and boys’ issues of gender stereotypes directly and accordingly. Male students may be freer to engage in some activities they have not considered before in mixed schools. For example, boys feel pressure to follow some non-macho interests when girls stay around them; however, the all-boys schools eliminate their pressure toward gender stereotyping to pursue music, dance, and drawing. Single-sex schools would help boys explore and develop themselves. Also, girls in sex-separate schools show more confidence and power (Guarisco). They could receive full attention from teachers and express their opinions in science classes without worrying about the boys’ banter. They may realize that they are as important as boys. Hence, both girls and boys can be free from gender stereotypes and benefit from a same-sex learning
Wolfgang, Benjamin. "Boys in One Class, Girls in Another at More Schools; Single-sex Option Grows, but Some Still Skeptical." Washington Times [Washington, DC] 2 Sept. 2011: A07. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Dec. 2013.
The proponents of single-sex education argue that boys and girls have differing needs and that their styles of learning are different. Education which respects personal differences must take this into account. ( Mullins 124) Single-gender schools seem logical, than, to a public that accepts that gender differences are real and likes the idea of expanding choices. (Silv...
The first all female schools began in the early 1800’s. These academies favored more traditional gender roles, women being the home makers and the men being the bread winners. The first generation of educated women was the result of single-sex colleges in 1873. Wendy Kaminer, an investigative journalist, states that “single-sex education was not exactly a choice; it was a cultural mandate at a time when sexual segregation was considered only natural” (1). Women of this time were technically not allowed to attend school with males. Feminists of this time worked hard to integrate the school system and by the early 1900’s, single sex classrooms were a thing of the past. In 1910, twenty-seven percent of colleges were for men only, fifteen percent were for women only and the remainders were coed. Today, women outnumber men among college graduates (Kaminer 1). After all the hard work of early feminists, there are thousands of people today who advocate bringing back the single sex classroom.
Garner, R. (2009). Why single-sex schools are bad for your health (if you're a boy). THE INDEPENDENT.
The late 1960s to early 1980s saw the first fave of organized sexual education opposition. (Pardini, Priscilla) These opposers aimed to criticize any form of sex ed being taught in schools.(Pardini, Priscilla) “Sex education programs were described by the Christian Crusade and other conservative groups as ‘smut" and ‘raw sex”.(Pardini, Priscilla) Some “far right” leaders argued that sexual education resulted in an increase in teen sexual activity.(Pardini, Priscilla)
Hoffman, Bobby, B.A. Badgett, Parker, R. “The Effect of Single-Sex Instruction in a Large, Urban, At-Risk High School.” Journal of Educational Research 102.01 October 2008: 16-28. EBSCO 18 February 2014.
This problem occurs in schools everywhere and is starting to become more evident in today's society. The problem is that boys and girls learning potential are not being reached when put into the same teaching atmosphere. Girls seem to be out smarting boys in many classes. While boys excel in math and sciences and girls seem to be better in English. The styles in which boys and girls feel comfortable with are extremely different. The learning styles of girls usually contain socializing and context. For instance, most girls like to talk in small groups about the current discussion. They also like hands on activities or real life situations to compare things to. Boys are confrontational and formal. They need to be challenged by their teachers to help motivate them to become better students and be prepared. In contrast girls do not like to be confronted by teachers who are asking for an immediate answers. In most cases, girls seem to be more reserved and modest than boys about their intelligence ("What are someÉ) are. Their differences may not seem evident but make a difference to reaching their highest learning potential.
The issue of single- sex education and mixed- sex education have occupied the minds of almost all the professors of the educational process all over the world for centuries. To deal with this issue, there must be many sayings and arguments. Also, other studies related, should be put into consideration. There are many more opinions that support single-sex education, others support co-education. Most world countries are following the opinion that says that coeducation is better and more effective than single sex education. Theoretically, co-educational process is more fruitful than single-sex education that's because of three main factors that affect greatly; firstly, the students' behavior; secondly, the educational level; thirdly the socialization in society and how students emotionally affected..
The teacher tossed a Styrofoam basketball to the outstretched arms of a fifth grade boy. Catching the ball was the incentive for the boys to point out missing conventions in a paragraph. The teacher projected a paragraph on the board with omitted punctuation for the students to add. The other boys in the class watched him as he went to the board to add the missing comma and then tossed the ball back to the teacher. A few seconds later, other arms shot up in the air to point out other missing conventions (Stotsky). A simple incentive of competition for the boys made them enjoy learning and actually got them to participate in class. Although single-sex classrooms can develop stereotypes for both genders, separating boys and girls can be beneficial for the students. Single-sex classes are more effective because they raise test scores, create fewer distractions, and make kids interested in school.
Seligson, Susan. "Debunking Myth That Girls and Boys Learn Differently: COM prof’s book challenges “toxic” stereotypes." BU Today. 10 Jun 2011: n. page. Print. (JUXTAPOSITION)