Single Sex Schools Are Worth Study

After finishing Albert Camus’ The Stranger, it is easy to see that I have read something similar to this work previously. I found myself able to correctly predict exactly what was going to happen to Meursault. This phenomenon is easily explained in Thomas Foster’s How to Read Literature Like a Professor. In Chapter 5 of Foster’s work, he discusses how the majority of literature really builds off other works of literature. The tale of someone that has a mediocre live goes through a redemption with himself is very similar to the tale of Buddha.

Imagine that you were in a classroom full of your gender how would you feel? Well, if you feel that you're not ok with that well, In school year 2004-05 122 public schools offered single sex classes and 34 public schools were single sex classes mandatory according to “Old Tactic Gets New Use: Public Schools Separate Boys and Girls.” Article. Close to 70% of kids in single sex classes raised their math and reading scores in “Old Tactic Gets New Use: Public Schools Separate Boys and Girls.” Article. Although this may seem bad and shouldn't happen it's really not. Kids in single sex classes will have more of a chance to succeed than students in non single sex class because of most kids have no problem with this in their school, less discipline, and most of all higher grades.

The single-sex format creates opportunities that do not exist in the coed classroom. (Edison 1) Researchers are unaware that both genders brains function differently. This lack of knowledge may be why the real truth about single-sex education being more efficient than co-ed education has not been discovered. Some say single-sex education may be the key for a brighter generation. It shows to improve test score dramatically. The number of public schools experimenting with single sex classes is now reported to be more than 350. (Silva 130) Some research also shows that single-sex classes have a more welcoming atmosphere. Single-sex education improves grades while coed educations keep an average pace.

Prior to the nineteenth century same sex schools were the norm in America, and even went all the up to collegiate level. Initially, Same sex education was only available for males (in America). During the nineteenth century, same sex education began to decrease in secondary and primary schools. Unlike primary and secondary schools, colleges remained as same sex schools until the twentieth century.

Juliet Williams, UCLA Department of Gender Studies professor, calls out LAUSD for nonresponsive action to results that suggest sex segregated schools not only don’t improve students performances, but also stunts certain necessary social and learning abilities, in the Los Angeles Times article “What's wrong with single-sex schools? A lot.” She begins exposing underlying sexist and racist motivations for sex-separated schools and proceeds to explain that the segregation supports generalization about differences between the sexes, which Williams suggests is common among school practices. Williams continues, admitting that the schools provide opportunities for smaller class sizes as well as allow for “strong mentoring relationships”, although she finds fault with the overall lack of evidence that single-sex education improve student’s performances. Ultimately, the author is exposing injustices in single-sex education in the hopes of not only motivating LAUSD, but also educate parents in the hopes of gathering a larger concerned

When deciding whether or not to experiment with single-sex classrooms, there are many issues that must be taken into consideration. Those who would be hurt most by this decision would be males. If boys are not able to learn alongside girls, their achievement level would decline and their character development would be hindered. Experimenting with this concept would arise multiple issues and put boys at disadvantages that would put them behind those who are able to learn in coeducational classrooms both educationally and behaviorally; these concerns must be taken into consideration before putting single-sex classrooms into place.

Recommend Article Article Comments Print Article Share this article on Facebook Share this article on Twitter Share this article on Google+ Share this article on Linkedin Share this article on StumbleUpon Share this article on Delicious Share this article on Digg Share this article on Reddit Share this article on Pinterest

Imagine you go to school where everybody you see is of the same gender. There are many students across the country that do not have to imagine because that is their reality. As opposed to single-gender schools, co-ed schools are highly beneficial to students. It will prepare them for adulthood, children will learn how to treat each other as equals, and students who attend co-ed schools do just as good academically as students attending single-gender schools.

Is coeducation harmful to students? Quite a few parents and teachers believe that learning for both boys and girls is inhibited by attending school with students of the opposite gender. The arguments for this view include eliminating distractions and promoting gender equality. However, the opposite view also has gathered much support, defended by students and other researchers. Support for this viewpoint includes encouraging diversity and providing real world experiences.

Have you ever wondered if single-gender schools are better than coed schools? Each side has advantages, but there are also disadvantages to them. My thoughts on this subject is coed schools aren’t as supportive and beneficial as single-gender schools. I think this for many reasons, including that single-gender schools improve student collaboration, self-improvement by not worrying about being judged by the breaking down of stereotypes, and teachers can use better teaching techniques when teaching one gender classes. Although, some people might think otherwise, that coeducational schools prepare students for the outside world more effectively, I think differently. In my own opinion, I indeed think that single-sex schools are better than coed schools.

The opponents of single-sex schooling should go beyond the text “whether single-sex schooling produces educational benefits to girls and boys,” and consider the subtext which includes the history and effects of single-sex schooling.

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.

Kamensky and Morales (2006, 45) define outsourcing as a management strategy that contracts out organizational activities to vendors or suppliers who specialize in these activities in order to perform them more efficiently and effectively. Outsourcing is defined as the practice of turning over entire business functions to an outside vendor that can supposedly can perform the specialized tasks better and less expensively than the organization choosing to outsource. Outsourcing differs from privatization in that outsourcing, the work load is shifted from in-house government providers to the private sector, but no transfer or sale of assets has occurred. Outsourcing needs the government to remain fully responsible for the provision of all services and management decisions. Other transactions include direct vendor delivery, hiring long term trained staff, etc.

In 2002, the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education (NASSPE) was first founded there were only about a dozen schools that offer some form of single-sex education. But since 2012, the number has increased by at least 500 public schools now offering single sex educational opportunities. Single-sex schools benefit students as they achieve better marks and test scores compared to co-ed schools. The academic achievement made by students in single-sex schools broadens when girls and boys are separated from the opposite sex due to distractions, gender differences, and learning environment.

One of the most debated arguments in the area of education has been the fight to make more single–sex schools available for students. Co-ed schooling has been the standard for education that many children enjoy being in. Many argue however that changing schools to be single-sex is one of the best solutions to upgrade the education for children. However, a school that provides single-sex education is not automatically a better school than a coeducational one. Thus, when seeing the whole picture, single-sex education is the same, if not worse than co-education.