As stated in an discussion within the New York Times, Science magazine has released a report regarding the “legality of separating students by sex and the education benefits of doing so”. This new study states that there is no empirical evidence that shows that single-sex environments improve academic results, and as a result, states that “separation reinforces sex stereotypes”. This presents the questions: should single-sex public school programs be legal? For the purpose of this post, I will focus on the second question: Is it helpful or harmful to have single-sex education in public or private schools?
One of the areas of knowledge used is reason. As stated by Richard Fabes, who restates the views of the authors of the recent Science report, “academic achievement is not superior in single-sex schools after controlling for qualities of children at entry (for example, socioeconomic status) and programs (demanding curriculums, for instance).” Another problem addressed by Fabes is that research suggests that separating people into classrooms by gender would “likely generate and exacerbate stereotyping and sexist attitudes,” promoting gender segregation, instead of teaching a “diverse body of students to work together and to respect each other.” He states that single-sex schooling argue that genders differ fundamentally in areas such as “brain functioning, sensory abilities, interests, stress responsiveness and more that they cannot be taught effectively in the same classrooms,” a statement not supported by scientific data.
These scientists believe this because there are no quantitative findings supporting the idea that single-sex education promotes learning. However, it is important to note the difficulty of measuring knowledge. One of the reasons is the difficulty in language. What defines knowledge? There is also the problem of perception. How can knowledge be measured? The determination of the extent of knowledge and learning becomes subjective rather than objective, one of the reasons being that learning can be in all areas of knowledge. Tests such as the IQ, SAT, and ACT tests have been devised to make attempts at quantifying intelligence and knowledge, but there is no standard, absolute method of determining the extent of knowledge. The difficulty of measuring knowledge or intelligence is addressed in the area of psychology.
Also arguing that single-sex schooling is detrimental rather than beneficial in terms of education argues Verna L. Williams. She states that “There is little to no data showing that sex separation alone leads to better outcomes. These schools work when class sizes are reasonable, academics are paramount and parents are involved,” which are all gender neutral factors. In analyzing this argument, Williams is encouraging us to focus on telling the difference between correlation and causation. There are too many factors involved to state that sex separation leads to better outcomes, when the reason may be that, certain single-sex schools have better environmental factors, including the difference in class size, funding, and parent involvement.
Christina Hoff Sommers brings up another point, showing that the opposing side is using the logical fallacy of false analogy. “For them, girls and boys schools are like racial segregation. But race and sex are different, as the Supreme Court has emphasized and as most everyone recognizes.” Relating race and sex together creates a false analogy. The two subjects are too different to be related to each other. Racial segregation leads to the demeaning of human beings, and “forecloses life prospects,” staying mandatory. However, single-sex education is not only freely chosen, but aims to help students grow both intellectually and socially. Arguing against Fabes’ argument, Sommers shows that single-sex schools do not promote gender segregation, but eliminates it. A 2007 British study compared life outcomes between thousands of middle-aged graduates and coed schools to find that gender stereotypes were ““exacerbated” in coed schools and “moderated” in single-sex schools.” Rather than, stereotypically, aligning girls with the school newspaper, boys with dissections, single-sex schooling provides a more, well-rounded education. Furthermore, studies have shown that, “in single-sex schools, males were more likely to focus on language and literature, and females on math and science. And for girls, "single-sex schooling was linked to higher wages.” Using the area of reason here, it is shown that single-sex schooling helps eliminate gender issues, and are therefore beneficial towards education.
The same point regarding the elimination of gender stereotypes is addressed by Rosemary C. Salomone. As she states, single-sex programs can help to “counter socially conditioned expectations. They help students unlearn sex stereotypes, encouraging interest among girls in math and science and among boys in writing and foreign languages, skills critical to the global information economy.” Leonard Sax show that some children are less constrained by gender stereotypes when they are in a single-sex classroom. This is supported by scientific research, a study done in 2008 by German researchers, in which 401 teenage girls and boys were randomly allocated to single-sex and coed classrooms to study physics for a year. it was found that those in girls’ classrooms were less likely to think of physics as a “boys’ subject”, compared to girls in co-ed classrooms.
This topic brings out further questions. Should single-sex environments be encouraged? If so, why shouldn’t single-sex working environments be implemented? Another debate commonly addressed is: Does Living Environment (Co-ed vs. Single Sex) Impact the Housing Experience? Should dormitories be single-sex? As stated in an article, in the past, The Catholic University of America attempted implement single-sex dormitories to eradicate binge drinking and hooking up. However, complaints were issued that “women under the new policy would lack “equivalent access to educational opportunities” or be subject to “material harm.”” Other news issues stem from this subject.
Personally, I believe that single-sex environments can be academically beneficial as well as help eliminate certain gender stereotypes. However, it may not be the right environment for every child.
Most of the time I've heard that single-sex schools are beneficial, but your article made me understand better about this issue. I like how you concluded that whether or not a same-sex school will beneficial will depend on each child, and that it is not right for every child. Indeed, we might not be able to draw a general conclusion, because each child is different.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the environmental factors are more important. What I know is, most single-sex schools are private and elite, which gives students discipline to work hard with their studies. Those schools that show otherwise probably does not have a as strong education offered.
I think that the way that you addressed both sides of this controversial topic is effective. Personally, I think that it all comes down to the students and parents choice of whether or not they want a single-sex environment to study in. One advantage would be that the students will most likely be more focused on their studies, as the opposite sex may be a prominent distraction. However, this purpose would be ultimately pointless based on the sexual orientation of students such as homosexuals, in which case, the non-distraction element would be destroyed. With the point of there being no stereotypical pressure involving the subjects of which the students study, I don’t think that because of these gender specific stereotypes, the students will completely steer themselves away from topics in which they are interested in. However, I agree with your conclusion that some students may prosper in a single-sex environment while other students may work better in co-ed environments.
ReplyDeleteTo your second question, “Is it helpful or harmful to have single-sex education in public or private schools?” I would say that it depends on each person. Personally, after reading your blog post, I think that single-sex education will be more harmful than beneficial. My reason to that is because when we separate the genders when children are still at a very young age, they would not learn the difference between their opposite genders. Not understanding another gender is a pretty scary thing. It would be harmful to the kids if they don’t know how to communicate with the opposite gender. Furthermore, according to your post, studies show that there is no evidence that single sex education improve academic results. From all your examples, I find myself most agreed with Verna L. Williams. She clearly pointed out to us that besides single sex education, there are all sort of factors like class sizes, academics, and parents involving; these could all contribute to better academic results or better learning behavior. And also, I agree with your idea of correlation and causation. Correlation and causation are two different things. It does not mean that there's a cause in relationship between values. They may be related, but not cause from each other. I think you connect this idea pretty well to your topic here. Since we are arguing whether single-sex education could improve student’s academic results or behaviors.
ReplyDelete