Current Educational Issues

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Same-Sex Schools
Conceptual Understanding
Disadvantages of Single–Sex Schools
Conclusion
References

Same-Sex Schools

Same sex classrooms were widely practiced in ancient times before the middle of the 20^th century (Yates 1971, p. 34). The concept of same sex classrooms works when girls and boys are separated into different classes, buildings or schools where they do not get to interact as freely as they would in the conventional classroom setup.

Same sex classrooms has been traditionally practiced in the past at specific levels of learning but more especially in high schools and in institutions of higher education. However, recent times have seen the practice infiltrate in practically all levels of education including the elementary level. This has created a new platform for debate as is affirmed by Hayes (2003) who notes that “Any number of studies show that single-sex education is beneficial for college-age women.

But the work done so far to study the issue for students in kindergarten through 12th grade is, at best, spotty and inconclusive” (p. 65). The practice has been evidenced in many parts of the world but it is important to acknowledge that its extensiveness are practically determined by the culture and religious backgrounds of the population group in question.

The establishment of single-sex classrooms has for long been a rather controversial issue considering segregating boys and girls are not essentially politically correct. This debate has especially been exacerbated by the fact that it is even applied at elementary levels. This has caused quite a stir in most centers of education across the world.

There are obviously a number of advantages and disadvantages associated with single sex classrooms but proponents of the concept note that it improves academic performance while its critics note that it essentially deprives young students from a healthy social life (University Language 2011).

The debate about the establishment of single-sex classrooms is very controversial and intense but this study notes that establishing single-sex classrooms especially for young children is not healthy for the comprehensive growth of children at an elementary level.

Conceptual Understanding

In the United Kingdom (UK) single sex schools have been quite common in a number of the country’s public and grammar schools. However, a number of these schools are currently coeducational but the trend has quickly infiltrated into other lower level of education schools such as elementary schools (Sullivan 2011).

In UK’s educational system, the commonly known single-sex schools at the primary level are Winterbourne Junior Boys’ School and Winterbourne Junior Girls’ School but through a government report released in the year 2007, single-sex classrooms have been approved by the government to uplift educational standards (Sullivan 2010, p. 6).

In Britain, the number of single-sex schools has not been commensurate with other parts of the world. For instance, the number of single-sex schools had been approximated to be approximately 2,400 in the past four decades but currently, Britain has approximately 400 such institutions of learning (Sullivan 2009, p. 259). Despite this development, the debate on whether to subject young children to single-sex schools has not slowed down.

An all-girl school in Nottingham city for example faced stiff opposition from parents who were against the administration’s move to close down the school because the demand for such schools were evidently dwindling (Asthana 2006). The parents claimed that it was their own personal decisions to take their children to an –all-girl school and the school had no right in closing the school down. This scenario has been replicated in a number of destinations across the globe.

In the United States (US), the constitutionality of single-sex schools has been challenged at the Supreme Court and subsequent rulings have however made the educational concept constitutional only on the basis that comparable courses, services and facilities are shared by both boys and girls (Forman-Brunell 2001, p. 437).

Because of this development in America, the number of public schools in the country has sharply raised from a meager eleven schools in the year 2004 to 549 single sex schools in the year 2009 (the number still continues to rise).

Australia poses different statistics with regard to the growth of single-sex schools because it is estimated that there were approximately 51% of boys and 54% of girls in the year 1985 who went to same-sex schools but in 1995, this figure dropped to 42% for male students and 46% for female students (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1998).

The situation is also quite different for Arab countries because in most of the countries it is almost mandatory that students and pupils alike should attend same-sex classrooms (Thomas 2005, p. 792). In Iran for example, almost all public schools are essentially single-sex schools, since the Islamic revolution ended. This situation is more evident in countries which are strongly under the influence of sharia laws but boys and girls alike are accepted in equal measures, in their respective schools.

Disadvantages of Single–Sex Schools

Recent research studies note that there is no significant improvement in performance from the establishment of sing-sex schools. These findings have been advocated by a British researcher by the name Alan Smithers from the University of Birmingham (Covington 2008, p. 175).

From these findings, he also suggests that mixed schools are not inferior to single-sex schools. He attributes the success seen from single-sex schools (especially girl schools) from the fact that they are essentially independent and are grammar schools and therefore their performance may be exaggerated (Asthana 2006).

Smither instead advocated for the fact that teachers and educationists should stop focusing on gender and instead focus on the ability of their children and the background where these children hail from as the main drivers of academic performance. In other words, Smither tried to uphold the view that there were a number of factors (apart from gender) that drove academic performance. The same sentiments are shared by an American educational researcher (cited in Asthana 2006) who affirms that:

“There are a number of bestselling authors that [say] there are important gender differences in the brain and auditory system such that girls and boys see the world differently, so are best educated in single-sex schools. I have studied it and concluded that the arguments are not substantiated and miss the bigger agenda in this country [America]. Race and social class are far better predictors of outcomes” (p. 9).

This analogy is to affirm that though there are huge volumes of literature suggesting the assumption that single-sex schools are synonymous with excellent academic success, there are research studies done to show some inconsistencies with these findings (Pytel 2006, p. 1). For example, in the Middle East where single-sex schools are almost a norm, not much academic success can be attributed to that part of the world. Instead, some of the most excellent schools and institutions in the world are found elsewhere on the globe.

However, it should be understood that education is not only based on academics but also other factors such as earnings, marriages, childbearing social skills and a number of other factors which are not necessarily academic. From this understanding it is important to acknowledge the findings of other research studies done to establish the disadvantages of single-sex schools which concluded that single-sex classrooms puts on hold the development of social skills between boys and girls.

Though there have been a number of researchers who note that the upheaval of social skills among boys and girls in coeducational setting comes at the expense of academic achievement, there is evidence from research studies done by Marsh (1985 who notes that “there were social benefits from co-education and these were not at the expense of academic achievement for either girls or boys” (p. 25).

Moreover, coeducational schools environments bear a close similarity to the real life environment where both boys and girls, men and women exist together, it is therefore improper to expose students to an artificial environment which does not represent the real life setting (Ferguson Career Resource 2006, p. 19).

Like acknowledged above, affecting child growth for only five years (or so) at the expense of social skills which will be needed in the rest of the child’s lifetime after school is not justified. It therefore does not make sense for schools to establish single-sex schools for the sake of academic achievement while it is going to affect the child’s life skills in the long run.

This fact is reiterated by Robinson & Smithers (1999) who affirm that “It has been suggested that educating the sexes together is more like real life, and the experience of growing up with the opposite sex makes it easier to move on to the mixed environments of university and employment.” (pp. 25-26).

Children who are subjected to single-sex schools at a very young age and exposed to the system for very long are therefore likely to find it very difficult to adjust to the real environment as opposed to those who grow up learning in coeducational schools.

Moreover, students do not necessarily get to experience the diversity that exists among the student body and more so from the opposite sex (Pytel 2008, p. 12). This observation comes out of research studies observing that boys and girls are very different in their anatomy, the way they think and such like features.

Comprehensively, these studies note that girls are different from boys in the sense that they are much more comfortable asking questions in class than boys are; girls respond better to questions touching on matters to do with shopping, girls thrive best or learn best in environments where they work in groups or in pairs and normally, females work best in an environment that is very relaxed (Pytel 2008, p. 12).

Boys would therefore miss to appreciate these sorts of diversity that is synonymous to females but also on the other hand, the girls would miss to appreciate the extensive diversity that is characteristic of males.

They include the fact that boys perform better in environments that are competitive i9n nature; boys enjoys lessons that are bound to contain some action; boys enjoy tasks which are time-oriented; boys prefer to keep quiet and refrain from asking questions because they do not want to look less smart than their counterparts and lastly, boys are respond to sports questions as a unique area of interest.

There is also enough evidence from psychological research studies done to quantify the probability of single-sex schools that single-sex schools are bound to increase the likelihood of homosexual relationships due to the single-sex environment evident in such schools (Dale 1971, p. 224).

This is actually one extreme that has been identified by a number of psychology researchers because they also identify teat single-sex schools are likely to cause another extreme which is homophobic relationships among affected children in the distant future of their development. Moreover, there is enough evidence gathered to suggest that gender stereotypes are also likely to increase among children subjected to single-sex schools at a young age.

The establishment of single-sex classrooms is also disadvantageous to most students because it creates educational inequalities and possibly opens an avenue for discrimination in schools (Portes 2005, p. 55). There are already symptoms of the growing discrimination among boys and girls in research because many educationists have consistently supported the establishment of single-sex schools because it is more advantageous to women.

Consequently, there have been very minimal volumes of research talking about the effects of single-sex schools for the boy child and more especially the males. This concern is also shared by Bronski (2002) who notes that “Any number of studies show that single-sex education is beneficial for college-age women.

But the work done so far to study the issue for students in kindergarten through 12th grade is, at best, spotty and inconclusive”. This is true because boys and girls do not lean differently and the same educational outcomes expected of one gender are also the same outcomes expected of the other and so there is no reason for segregating boys from girls. Moreover, the learning inputs are the same too.

The educational theory purporting the establishment of single-sex schools supports an upheaval of standards of education has in the past been punctured many holes and therefore it has failed to stand the test of time.

Same sex schools have also been noted to contravene existing legislations regarding the access of equal education opportunities for children guaranteed by the law (CQ Researcher 2009). In many parts of the developed world, the law does not discriminate on access to education for any gender and so single-sex schools go against this provision.

This case is especially evident in America where single-sex schools have been touted to contravene the Title IX law which guarantees equal educational experiences for both genders. Women organizations such as ACLU and the national organization for women have been on the forefront in showing their contempt for single-sex schools because they are identified to diminish the effects of the Title IX laws which guarantees equal treatment for both boys and girls in education (Russell 2007).

Conclusion

This study points out the fact that single-sex schools pose a number of developmental challenges to children who are subjected to it in the long run.

However, at the same time, it acknowledges the contribution of past research studies suggesting that single-sex schools essentially increase the academic performance of students in the short run. Nonetheless, this argument is seen to be defective in the sense that a number of other factors including, social classes, student’s background, and other socioeconomic factors also drive academic achievement to a significant degree.

Apart from this fact, this study also identifies that single-sex schools expose students to inadequacies in developing social skills and also from a social standpoint it increases the chances of many students developing gender stereotypes and homophobic symptoms.

These factors (among many more) other socio-economic factors contribute to the ongoing debate about whether single-sex schools are appropriate for students. Evidently, considering the intrigues of the above observations, we can conclude that establishing single-sex schools does not compliment student growth.

References

Asthana, A. (2006). Why Single-Sex Education Is Not the Route to Better Results. Web.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1998). Official Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, Issue. Sydney, Aust. Bureau of Statistics.

Covington, P. (2008). Success in Sociology AS for AQA. London, Folens Limited.

CQ Researcher. (2009). Issues in K-12 Education: Selections from CQ Researcher. London, SAGE.

Dale, R. (1971). Mixed Or Single-Sex School?: Some Social Aspects. London, Taylor & Francis.

Ferguson Career Resource. (2006). Ferguson Career Resource Guide for Women and Minorities: Resources for Women. New York, Infobase Publishing.

Forman-Brunell, M. (2001). Girlhood in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1. New York, ABC-CLIO.

Hayes, S. (2003). Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport: Contemporary Issues for Teachers, Trainees and Practitioners. London, Routledge.

Portes, P. (2005). Dismantling Educational Inequality: A Cultural-Historical Approach to Closing the Achievement Gap. New York, Peter Lang.

Pytel, B. (2006). Single Sex Classrooms. Web.

Pytel, B. (2008). Pros and Cons of Same-Sex Classrooms. Web.

Russell, S. (2007). Same-Sex Schooling – Pros and Cons. Web.

Sullivan, A. (2009). Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 259-288.

Sullivan, A. (2010). Single-sex Schooling and Academic Attainment at School and through the Lifecourse. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 6-36.

Sullivan, A. (2011). Single-Sex Schooling and Labour Market Outcomes. Oxford, Oxford Review of Education.

Thomas, J. (2005). Sears Youth, Education, and Sexualities: An International Encyclopedia. London, Greenwood Publishing Group.

University Language. (2011). Co-ed vs. Single Sex Schools. Web.

Yates, A. (1971). The Organization Of Schooling: A Study Of Educational Grouping Practices. London, Taylor & Francis.

Click Here To Order Now!