Single Sex Schooling And Coeducation

S. Bruck Comp110 October 5, 2017 Gender in Education The laws of the United States of America require that children attend school regardless of their sex, race, or religious background. This can be achieved by attending public schools, private schools, or by doing homeschooling. The most popular school system is the public system where children from both genders attend. According to Christina Hoff Sommers in her article, “The Boys at the Back”, published on the internet February 2, 2013, we are seeing girls in these institutions outperforming boys at an increasing rate.

Facts: This is a case about trespassing. Two hunters, Post (P) and Pierson (D), were chasing the same fox. The land they were hunting on belonged to someone else. P had trapped the fox, but then D came in and killed it and took it as his own. P claimed he had control over the fox at the time D killed it and therefore had title to the fox. D argued the opposite. D appealed as P won the case.

Restorative justice generate an opportunity for people who have been effected by crime to talk about their experiences (Shapland, Sorsby, & Robinson,2011). Not only can this be a therapeutic process, it can also be valuable to not only the victim but the community. By hearing the stories from person that was affected by a criminal act, it helps to develop awareness of all involved, which can in turn allow many people to gain a deeper perspective into the root or origins of the crime ( Shapland at el.,2011). In addition, storytelling grows compassion among individuals who find themselves connected by wrongdoing.

Schools are divided into two categories around the world as we know: single-sex or mixed schools. While mixed schools accept both males and females, single-sex schools accept students of a certain single sex only. Both coed and single-sex schools have pros and cons, which nobody can deny. Some studies, however, have shown that there is no particular benefit to single-sex education. The study of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 1998, for example, “found no evidence to support single-sex education as better than coed education.” (qtd. in Elizabeth).

In more recent years, our educational system has faced challenges that are leading our country back into segregation. Single-sex education has resurfaced; jeopardizing the gains our ancestors fought so hard for. A few people believe that the biological make-up between genders is significantly different, that having coeducational classes is doing more harm than good. Conversely, there is no proven study that supports these claims; however studies have displayed the exact opposite. Separating genders within the educational system will only perpetuate and magnify

Single-sex education is an old approach that continues to gain momentum in today’s society. The concept has existed in many private schools, but it is a new system of education for public schools. Single-sex education advocates often cite learning differences as evidence for the benefits of separating male and female students in the classroom. However, other experts suggest that segregating by sex can increase gender stereotyping. Essentially, effective teaching depends on the engagement and excitement of students regarding certain material. While it may be easier for students at single-sex schools to participate in class and succeed academically, the real world is not composed of one sex. Additionally, co-educational schools offer more diversity and a realistic social ecosystem. However, students may become distracted by the opposite sex, hindering their academic successes. “Single-sex education: the pros and cons” by Kristin Stanberry and “Research Spotlight on Single-Gender Education” are two articles that pinpoint the advantages and disadvantages of single-sex education. Ultimately, single-gender education is better than co-educational education because teachers can use techniques geared towards a specific gender, the educational prospects for girls and boys widen, and distractions are limited.

It is quite disturbing to witness someone undergo much suffering due to a fatal disease, and it is even more painful to lose a loved one because of some kind illness that cannot be cured. Over the years, many individuals have been unfortunate to face the devastating effects of diseases such as diabetes, cancer, among others. However, the emergence of yet another deadly disease known as AIDS has again complicated matters. AIDS has proved to be one of the most fatal health condition across the world, and its impact in the society has grown to be a major global challenge today. The disease is essentially caused by the HIV virus, which can be spread from one person to another through sexual intercourse, blood transfusion, and sharing of cutting and piecing instruments with an infected person (Shukla, 2014). AIDS has not only claimed the lives of millions of people, but also has its economic implications to the nations of the world. Although various treatment procedures have been designed to help address this health threat, such as the use of antiretroviral therapies, the disease, and its associated effects, can only be dealt with effectively through the development of HIV/AIDS vaccine.

Can you think of a girl you know who loves sports? How about a boy who is conservative and isn’t rough and ready to “get their hands dirty”? Are single-gender schools going to help those students who don’t fit into the typical stereotype, learn in the best way possible? Or are they going to force them into a stereotype that isn’t who they want to see themselves as? In the 1990s, schools across the nation began researching on whether separating girls and boys were beneficial for their education. Some schools adopted this idea as their own and made it a reality, but others we against the idea altogether. Although children in non-separated schools can become easily distracted by the opposite gender, we should not separate girls and boys at school because there

Just as there are arguments against single-sex schooling, there are also arguments for the use of these schools. One person who supports these schools is Hillary Clinton; an article by Nancy Autin states that “In 2001, in pursuit of gender equity, an amendment bill coauthored by Hillary Clinton allowed provisions for public schools and districts to offer the choice of single-sex schools or classrooms to its students” (1). This amendment was adamant on providing equal opportunities for boys and girls in these single-sex schools, while also using the results as research towards furthering the theory that boys and girls learn differently. As the issue over single-sex schools began to arise, people began to research to prove whether or not these schools are the most effective way of learning; furthermore, many arguments are now being made which support that single-sex schools are actually a more effective way of learning for students.

Segregation in schools is where students of both genders are taught in independent preparing units or even in diverse schools or other educational organizations. The supporters of single sex school education claim that boys have less attention in their studies when learning in co-educational schools. Boys learn less because they need more physical activities and visualization in comparison to girls. Some believe that girls have more advantage in co-educational school because of their feminine and sedentary behavior in class. In the previous years, this topic has been a focus of debates and is more heated up. There are many different reasons that show whether people are with or against the arguments for single sex schools. In the view of most parents, the segregation of co-educational schools and single sex schools is important and has

Considering this, I propose that public school systems give students a choice between single-sex and coeducation in order to further expand their minds and allow them to grow in their chosen environment. A room full of girls is not discrimination towards the male gender, but rather a sisterhood that could last a lifetime. Their platonic connections would become widespread and carry enough importance to withstand anything. Good friends will be there through every heartbreak and offer their shoulder to cry on every time. Apart from deeper connections, single-sex education gives students the resources to learn at their gender specific pace with limited distractions. The

This paper is written to discuss if schools should move towards single-sex classrooms. There are many reasons to move towards having this type of learning environment be an option.

Single-sex and co educators have different views on single-sex education; however, both agree that students can distract and influence each other. One way students influence each other is by competing for the opposite sex’ attention. For instance, girls will compete against each other to win a boys’ attention and vice versa. “Snow and others point out that in a single-gender environment they don’t see the competition for attention or showing off that can occur in coed classrooms” (Frazer-Harrison, 2014, p. 2). Similarly, both boys and girls have crushes, which affects their schoolwork; they act differently and often lose sight of what is important, such as academics, in order to impress their crush. Undoubtedly, boys are affected by girls, while girls are affected by boys. “Research shows that male students in a coed setting are affected by “a politeness factor” in the presence of female peers, according to Dona Matthews, a Toronto-based developmental psychologist and former instructor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education” (Kwong, 2013, p. 3). The presence of the opposite sex impacts how students focus in class, which can lead to a decline in academic achievements. Educators from both single-sex and coed agree that students focusing on academics can be affected by students of the opposite sex. Battle Creek has become one school that has embraced single-sex education. As a result of separating boys and girls, they act more mature and are not trying to catch a

In the1990s, single-sex education gained interest over coeducation, and by the early 2000s, it had gained support from congress and the Bush administration. Since then single-sex education has benefitted many students, teachers, and parents. For all of the 1800s and most of 1900s coeducation had dominated schooling over the single-sex catholic and private schools.

While many educators, parents, activists, and policymakers argue that single-sex education unleashes academic excellence for both boys and girls, evidence supporting this claim is insufficient. Single-sex education is ineffective as it increases gender stereotypes by reducing the ability for both genders to effectively work together. In all-boy schools, boys who spend more time with boys are increasingly aggressive, while girls who spend more time with other girls are stereotyped. Supporters of single-sex education often point to obvious success in terms of reforming education; however single-sex approaches have failed to produce positive results. Rather than including statistics and research, supporters of single-sex education argue every child is different, and with this type of diversity comes a preference for certain skills and surroundings. The United States, along with multiple parts of the world, have stretched the influence single-sex education has on society, by making it prevalent to one's well-being. Overall, single-sex education shows no significant advantage for boys or girls.