Single Sex Schools Are Worth Study

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.

Single-sex schooling and coeducation have been doing through a huge debate throughout the years. Researchers wonder if single-sex education is more useful than coeducation. Single-sex schooling occurred throughout the United States history. Single-sex schooling was prevalent before the 19th century. During the 19th century, more single-sex schools were transforming into coeducational schools. In 1917 coeducation was instructed in the Soviet Union. According to Cornelius Riordan, “By the end of the nineteenth century, coeducation was all but universal in America elementary and secondary public schools.” This statement came true by the end of the 20th century. Coeducation is grown more throughout the years and have become common around the United States. This huge debate between these two different forms of education are based upon grades, stereotypes, and students social environment.

Single-sex education, also known as single-gender education, is the practice of conducting education where male and females students attend separate classes or in separate buildings or schools. It has been a topic of debate especially for parents who have to think about where to send their children to school. There are many reasons and evidence to suggest that single sex schools are more beneficial. They provide students to learn better, allow them to socialize without pressure from the other sex and the increased academic records of students in these types of schools.

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.

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.

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

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.

Single-gender schools are not proven to be more academically successful. "Single-gender education does not educate girls and boys any better than co-ed schools, according to research published by the American Psychological Association analyzing 184 studies of more than 1.6 million students from around the world," (Single-sex). Having single-gender schools will not change the way student, learn and do work. "Based on my experience, I don’t think it makes much of a long-term difference whether boys and girls go to school together," said Brooke Tasovac who has gone to a single-gender school before, (Tasovac). Co-ed schools make big differences, unlike

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.