They Say, I say #11

 1. Single-schools have been criticized and denoted for many years by coeducational school leaders and parents, but are they better than coeducational schools? Single-sex schools have been around since the 19th century in the US, not to mention earlier in various countries. Coeducational schools were not popularized in the USA until the early 1970s (Hughes 6). It has been common today to dismiss the advantages of single-sex schools since coeducational schools are more popular and have shown the same amount of academic benefits. However, recent studies have shown that single-sex schools can benefit a student academically and even behaviorally. Single-sex schools allow girls and boys to focus on academics and not have to constantly worry about looking good, or saying the right things to impress each other. Being put in a more professional and focussed environment is sure to prepare students for the future and help them to achieve their full intellectual abilities. Many parents may not send their children to single-sex schools because it is “sexist” or “stereotypical”, but it is just providing students with a more ambitious learning environment with fewer distractions and more opportunities for students to participate in many extracurricular and leadership positions. Single-sex schools are proven to be better than coeducational schools because they have better academics, improve behavior, and are not stereotypical.

It is believed by many people that coeducational and single-sex schools are equal academically wise and have the same overall test scores. On the contrary, single-sex schools have been proven to do better on tests through lots of recent research and studies. For example, a popular study called “Public and Catholic schooling: The effects of gender context policy” and a study in New Zealand both resulted in the single-sex schools outperforming the coed schools (Sills 1). Another example is in Seoul, Korea. Until 2009, students were all randomly organized into either single-sex or coeducation schools. An analysis of this showed that the students from single-sex schools had better national university exam scores and higher college attendance. In contrast to big studies like these, lots of articles that try to disprove the academical advantages of single-sex education are usually use smaller and less accurate studies. One of the articles that do this is in The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schoolings by Diane Halpern which uses the information from a study that concludes that single-sex schools are better (Sills 1). The article Why We Must Try Same-SexInstruction by Carol Laster, explains one of her recent studies where groups of 33 diverse girls, boys, and both were all taught with the same school curriculum. Overall, she found that the test results of the three classes were close but the single-sex classes had higher results (Laster 2). Single-sex schools get better academic scores than coeducational schools because there are fewer behavioral problems and more students can focus on the lessons.

Students in coeducational schools can be easily distracted by each other, act out trying to impress each other, or even put their focus on others instead of their school work. Critics of single-sex schools say that there is no reason to separate the boys and the girls because there are no neurological or biological differences between the genders. However, it is proven by many studies that there are some physiological differences between genders. A study ,mentioned earlier, called Why We Must Try Same-SexInstruction by Carol Laster shows an in-depth comparative look between the two types of educational settings. According to the math and social studies teachers of the research project, the coed group was reported to have some discipline problems; while the all-girls groups were described as hard-working and neat and the all-boys group participated the most out of both groups. All the teachers that participated in the study expressed how, although all groups got close test results, the single-sex classes were more competitive which is known to not only bond the class but also increase interest in the classes and other academic activities. Laster writes “This instructor explained that, although she felt it was a good study, the pressure to perform for students in the single-sex classes was very high”(Laster 1). The study shows how single-sex classes work in a more professional-like environment, which a lot of people believe can help them achieve more in future careers and general life-experiences. In single-sex schools, not only do girls not have to worry about what boys think about them, but they are free to pursue more strong leadership positions and feel more comfortable engaging in extracurriculars. Students can excel better in an educational environment that is competitive and gives them the initiative to reach full intellectual potential.

Many parents, students, and staff members of coeducational schools all agree that single-sex schools are sexist, stereotypical, and do not provide equal opportunities for minority students.  A few coeducational school leaders even compare single-sex schools to racially segregated schools. However, single-sex schools are optional, are proven to increase academic success in students, and can help minority students; unlike racially segregated schools which were not optional and not for the benefit of the students. There is also lots of evidence that show coeducational schools are stereotypical and more sexist than single-sex schools are pronounced to be. A study done called "The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?" explains many ways that women were and still are excluded from classroom activities and conversations. In the study; the men dominated most of the discussions, the pronoun “he” was used to indicate professionals while “she” was used to indicate the clients, and men were asked the more critical and challenging questions (Hatch 2) This study is one of many that shows how coeducational schools may be even more stereotypical than single-sex schools are rumored to be; and how single-sex schools only separate boys and girls for their own academic and behavioral benefits, and not for sexist or stereotypical reasons. After school, single-sex school students have many opportunities to interact with the opposite gender including, camps, work, sports, and more. The claim that single-sex schools do not help minority students is completely false and inaccurate. Cornelius Riordan, professor of sociology at Providence College, stated that "When he studied data on minorities attending Catholic schools, he found that black and Latino students in single-gender schools academically outperformed their peers in co-ed Catholic schools" (Hughes 10). It is disappointing how few public single-sex schools there are because modern-day society only displays single-sex schools as sexist and lacking in academic benefits when it is agreed by many single-sex school associates that coeducational schools are the ones demonstrating bad behavior, stereotypes, and no real educational benefits.

Better academics, improved behavior, and enhanced opportunities prove that single-sex schools are more beneficial than coeducational schools. Various studies and test scores have shown that, although it is close, single-sex schools the best test scores. They also help students to work in a professional environment free of outside distractions. Boys and girls, not only behave and focus more on single-sex schools but also have equally academic and leadership opportunities. On the contrary, coeducational schools can be stereotypical and don’t allow students to reach their full intellectual potential. Why aren’t more single-sex public schools being created when they could help benefit students everywhere?

Works cited

Park, Hyunjoon, et al. “Single-Sex Education: Positive Effects.” Science, vol. 335, no. 6065, Jan. 2012, pp. 165–166. EBSCOhost, DOI:10.1126/science.335.6065.165-b. Accessed 18 September 2020.

Woodward, Nancy Hatch. “Talking in Class.” Independent School, vol. 52, no. 1, Fall 1992,p.35.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=9604173380&site=ehost-live. Accessed 18 September 2020.

Teresa A. Hughes. “The Advantages of Single-Sex Education”. NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 23, NUMBER 2, 2006-2007, https://a5acc83a1039db83ade3-b17a16b1ea83a0e82700f3d165b465bb.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/hxzyxj6dja/The%20Advantages%20of%20Single%20Sex%20Education.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2020.

Laster, Carol. “Why We Must Try Same-Sex Instruction.” Education Digest, vol. 70, no.    1,Sept.2004,EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=14494083&site=ehost-live, pp.59–62. Accessed 18 September 2020.