We Need Single Sex Public Schools "[W]e are all often complicit in the silencing of students. The victims often silence themselves as well..."(Hall 7). Is my hair ok? How does my makeup look? Am I going to look like a geek if I answer another question? Do I have to play sports to impress the girls? These kinds of insecurities flood an adolescents mind when placed into a coed education. Instead of focusing on the task put forth by the teacher, the task that should be the most important thing on his or her mind, adolescents are distracted by others around them, especially the opposite sex. Preteens have "a lot on their plates". New schoolwork, new bodies, and new feelings are just part of their every day lives. On top of all of this they are required to navigate through a coed school. Many may argue that the coed factor is just a part of life and the faster a child learns how to cope with it the better off they will be. However, one must learn how to crawl before being able to walk. Perhaps the issue is not learning the fastest way to walk but instead learning the most proficient way to walk. With this idea in mind the way to learn with the most dexterity would be by following the path of single sex education from the fourth grade to the eighth grade or during the age of adolescence. As a product of four years of single sex education I can attest first hand that it is the path to take for one's adolescent years. Leon Podles and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, journalists for the American Enterprise, agree with my argument for same sex education through the adolescent years. They state: "The point of separating boys and girls during adolescence is to separate the training of good citizens from the vicissitudes of mating and dating, which notoriously distract adolescents from the business at hand" (Fox-Genovese, 2). These journalists believe that the most efficient way of learning during the adolescent age is through a single-sex experience. This experience allows the student to become more confident and to find ones own identity without the strong influences of the opposite sex. From the fourth grade to the eighth grade I was in an all girls school. At first it seemed unnecessary and I felt overprotected by my parents and my school. However as I progressed through the grades I came to see the benefits of this sort of education. Roberta Hall and her colleagues state that even in a college environment single-sex education is beneficial to girls. She writes, "Another study showed that women in women's colleges participated more in discussion at the end of the semester then at the beginning, but that at coeducational institutions, women's participation declines throughout the semester" (Hall 7). Learning in a single sex environment, I became an outspoken student in all areas, even the ones I felt ungrounded in. Participation was accepted and greatly encouraged. I would not be labeled as an overachiever if I wanted to succeed. On the one hand I had my school time, which was focused around a single sex education, but on the other I was not completely isolated from the outer coed world. My school was a part of a set of schools, one all boys and one all girls. This situation gave the student the best of both worlds. During our class time we were an exclusively female school but we had a very strong connection with our brother school. Socials, dances, and the very popular Spring Musical brought the two schools together. The girls were very excited to begin working on the play and even more excited to begin working with the boys and seeing them on a weekly basis. It was more fun than work. Rehearsals quickly turned into an eye-opening experience. Most of the girls would completely change their personalities as soon as the first boy came through the door of the auditorium. One of my friends (who is a funny, outgoing, loud girl) would catch a glimpse of a boy and turn into this shy, demure, clam. All she could do was nod yes or no and smile when someone made a joke. The boys immediately saw her as uninteresting, which could not have been farther from the truth. This is stereotypical of adolescent boys but the fact that they could have such an affect on this girl was extreme. Hall refers to this silence as a double standard for boys and girls. She states, " Silence itself may be viewed differently for men and women. Silent men are thought to be "thinking". The words "strong and silent" are positively attributed to silent males. In contrast women who are silent may be viewed as unassertive and uninformed" (Hall 8). To be labeled as unassertive or uninformed at such an early age is detrimental to a person's self image. This reaction would also happen in the opposite direction. Some girls who seemed quiet and unobtrusive would turn into viscous flirting machines. These "alter-egos" that appeared every time a boy was around was a product of too many uncontrolled emotions stemming from rising hormones. In a coed educational system the same problem arises but it is on such a constant basis that it is very distracting. This is a time in one's life where many things are changing. In order to understand and to fully relish in these changes one must not be distracted. It also makes it very difficult for girls to form strong friendships with one another when they are constantly vacillating between two identities, the girl for the girl and the girl for the boy. In single sex education the pressure to act a certain way in order for the opposite sex to see you as appealing is emphatically removed. These expectations obstruct the learning procedure in a coed educational system. One can focus mainly on finding their individual selves as well as making lifelong friendships in a single sex environment. I keep in touch with at least 5 friends from my grade school. This is a large number considering that we all went in different directions after elementary school. These friendships are so strong because students in single sex education are never putting themselves on display for the opposite sex. This may be even more prevalent in girls then in the boys. Girls are far more critical of other girls in front of boys. Most of them, especially preteens, want to live up to a certain standard that is set by the opposite sex. Developing close friendships is much easier to do in a single sex environment. From preschool one until today I have been close with my childhood best friend, Rachel. Although we have grown apart in many ways due to changing schools for high school and college we still make it a point to get in touch at least once every month. Our relationship would not have been as strong if it were in a coed environment. Our attitude towards boys in the fourth grade was so different that if they had been part of our every day lives we would have surely been torn apart. When we recently talked about our experiences in single sex education she told me, "Going to a single sex school definitely helped me because I didn't have to worry about what they[boys] thought of me or how I should act around them". Robin Lakoff encapsulates Rachel's worries when she says, " If a little girl "talks rough" like a boy she will normally be ostracized, scolded, or made fun of" (Lakoff 5) Later she also states: " If the little girl learns her lesson well, she is not rewarded with unquestioned acceptance on the part of society, rather the acquisition of this special style of speech will later be an excuse others use to keep her in a demeaning position, to refuse to take her seriously as a human being" (Lakoff 5). Fear of being made fun of for knowing too much or knowing too little is a constant distraction from the learning process. Instead of focusing on what they can do to succeed, girls focus on what they will fail in when in front of the opposite sex. Joan Swann states, "In mixed-sex conversations it has been found that men's topics are more often pursued, while women play a 'supportive role'"(Swann 123). This makes for very little learning and too many worries. Some girls do have the confidence to learn and be outspoken in a learning situation with the opposite sex but many preteen girls must first build the confidence to be able to perform well in a classroom situation with the opposite sex. Rachel talked about how her confidence was built in a single sex environment. She said, "I think I've gone into high school and college more confident in myself because I had a good base to work off of." She talked about not being afraid to speak out in class because of the small class sizes and the single -sex environment. The combination of the two made it easy for Rachel to succeed in grade school. This success sent her off to a prestigious prep school and then to Princeton. The focus thus far has been on a girl's perspective of single sex education and how it affects her confidence level, however it works in a similar, but perhaps not as apparent fashion in adolescent boys. My brother, Marc, has spent four years in an all boys school and is finishing his fifth and final year. He confirmed that a single-sex education is as beneficial for a boy as it is for a girl. Marc voiced the same worries of boys being very concerned with what the girls will think of them when they speak and act. He said that seeing his friends around girls was, at times, a very revealing experience. As with my friends at that age his friends changed their personalities completely, out of fear that the girls would not accept them for who they really were. He recalled some experiences that could not have been, had he been in a coed environment. One of the most prominent was a class trip to Chewonki, a camping trip meant for making tight bonds between the boys. The trip was a week long and involved camping out in the middle of the woods and getting involved in all sorts of activities such as rope courses, scavenger hunts, and trust games. Although this experience could have been conducted as a coed adventure, sleeping situations would have been split up and activities involving strength would have been harder to accomplish. Instead of using the amount of strength necessary to successfully complete the activity, the males would have overused their strength in order to impress the females and the females would not have tried as hard as they could. This show of trying to fulfill male and female norms would have been very inhibiting. The object of the tasks (which is group bonding and working as a team to reach a goal) would have never been reached. Marc now has to make a decision between six preparatory schools that he has been admitted to. Once again it is apparent that single-sex education for the years of adolescence have truly paid off. He now has the knowledge and confidence he needs to succeed in a coed education. Without this confidence he would not have been able to excel in coed academia. Ron Geraci, who was a product of single- sex education himself, addresses this confidence, displayed by my brother. Geraci went back to his old school to observe the students in this environment. He states, "The real reason that boys' schools are looked down upon is because they are based on the notion that, yes, boys and girls are different. But men and women learn differently, grow at different rates and relate to people differently" (Geraci, 1). To be able to learn at our different paces we must get past the idea that men and women should be treated the same in all aspects. Adolescence is a time when we should be treated differently if there is a beneficial outcome. Geraci's concluding statement sums up his point concisely. "Single-sex schools have accounted for some of the best schools we have ever known. Shouldn't that be all that matters?" (Geraci, 2). In Marc's education it was al that mattered. The boy's school he attended is a renowned single sex middle school. Attending this school allowed him to focus more intensely on his work and move on from that point to become a successful high school student in a coed atmosphere. There is however a stronger argument against boys schools as opposed to girls schools. In a girl's case there is more sympathy in allowing them to be educated alone. The evidence proving that single-sex education works very well for girls is over whelming while the evidence for single-sex education for boys is very little. This needs to be changed. Single-sex education for boys' works just as well as it does for girls. As in all cases it is not necessarily the course to take for everyone but for the vast majority it is the most noteworthy path to follow. One of the most powerful arguments against boys' schools I came across was in an article about a debate between many different sources from school boards around the country. Deborah Tannen, author of "You just don't understand", a book about the differences between men and women, mediated the debate. The headmaster of a school from the east stated, "The research I'm familiar with actually shows a null effect for single sex education for men. And there have been shown to be disadvantages, one of them being intolerance for differences fostered by excluding women, the lack of female role models, who very important for young men being educated in a coed world" (Tannen, 2). This argument is one that is often put to use when speaking against single-sex education, however it is more efficient when speaking about high school. In the adolescent stages it is very appropriate and advantageous for boys to be in single-sex education. They are not taught to be intolerant of the opposite sex but rather to be able to learn in a way that caters specifically to their needs at that age. Distraction is the underlying and most crucial problem. When an adolescent is in a situation where the opposite sex is a around, learning about Paul Revere is the furthest thing from their mind. The stress of impressing others is a learning impediment that a preteen must face everyday. In stress management courses one is taught to locate the stress factor and then work to remove it to create a less stressful environment. In this case the added stress and distraction stems directly from the opposite sex. Thus, the removal of the stress (the opposite sex) would break through the barrier that is inhibiting the learning process in adolescents and lead to new paths of knowledge and confidence.
The actually death count has been presumed to be from nineteen to twenty five between both Lake and Ng.
Ernesto Che Guevara (1928-1967) not only played a pivotal role in Cuba’s revolutionary movement’s seizure of power in 1959 but also in Cuba’s social revolution that elated the island nation into a communist state. He was the unifying and driving force behind the revolution playing a significant role as an unrelenting guerrilla soldier taking shelter under the giant Neotropical leaves and shrubbery of the unforgiving terrain of the Sierra Maestra Mountains and serving as a dedicated and loyal official in Fidel Castro’s victorious regime. But still today, the question of Che remains was he the good guy or the bad guy? A murderer and terrorist or a martyr and saint. Even today the young faces of Cuba pledge to be like the man whose face adorned the 3 peso note, women light candles and burn incense in remembrance of their sainted leader and his stern frugal gaze glares out at you from every grey city wall in Havana.
Brooks argues that male and female brains work and experience things differently. He suggests that this theory is also the reason as to why young girls are surpassing their male counterparts in school settings. He incorrectly assumes that by separating males and females, males will be allowed to break free from gender stereotypes. Brooks strengthens his argument with results of brain research on sex differences. But, Brook’s argument is unpersuasive. He categorizes all young males, and suggest that single sex-schools are the best solution for them. He wants to apply a black-and-white solution to something that is just not that simple. While Brooks uses comparisons and surveys to convince the reader, his argument simply does
According to Leonardo Sax, the founder of the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, “...whenever girls and boys are together, their behavior inevitably reflects the larger society in which they live” (Stanberry, 3). (1) It is a part of nature for girls and boys to socialize and get prepared for the real-world and develop skills to interact with another gender. (2) In the real-world it is conventional for both genders to work together and communicate everyday. (3) According with the journal “Forbes”, when students are separated by gender, they miss an opportunity of working together with different perspectives and developing their own, new, and unique thoughts as well as ideas (Saunders, 1). (4) Advocates often argue for schools to be a reflection of a ‘real’ world to prepare young adults for the future (Jackson, Ivinson, 15). (5) When both genders learn together, they learn from one another and benefit from absorbing various learning styles (Saunders, 4). (6)
Did you know that single-sex classrooms are the worst classes ever? Over the past decade, single-gender classrooms have been opened in at least 230 schools in the rural, suburban, and the urban areas. Single-gender classrooms are classrooms where either young girls’ are in one class together, or young boys are in another class together. Single-sex classrooms were created because studies showed that boys and girls learn differently and they could benefit from being in a classroom with peers to whom they can relate. Since 2008, single-gender education has been the key to improved educational performance among boys and girls throughout the years. Today, gender differences among girls and boys are steadily rising in the classrooms they are in, and single gender classrooms are increasing. Teachers go by the theory that “separate sexes meant equal education.” While some educational experts believe single-gender education is best, parents have begun to notice the development of sexual stereotypes, and the children work better together. Furthermore, single sex classrooms cause more students to fail and have behavior problems. Reasons for this are: students are more distracted and lack focus, boys and girls develop sexual stereotypes, their learning abilities are different, and single sex classrooms cause boys to be very problematic.
In 1993, American University professors Myra Sadker and David Sadker published their research in Failing in Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls, which pointed out key differences of how teachers treated students in the classroom. These included the teachers praising the boys over the girls, giving more attention to the male gender than female. So by separating the genders, there is less discrimination, and more focus on teaching single sex students. Without boys in their classes, girls are more likely to be leaders and reach higher levels of achievement, which leads to greater self-confidence and higher professional aspirations. And without girls in the classroom, boys are less distracted from the academic works, and make higher grades in the single sex environment. On a Washington Parent post, an argument supporting single sex education states, “Single-sex education encourages children to take risks in expressing themselves as they learn without the fear of embarrassing themselves in front of the opposite sex.” Being exposed to the opposite sex can be quite uncomfortable and even humiliating for some students, especially if there is the chance that your child could turn out to be
Despite the fact that learning in coed schools might be a distraction, separating boys and girls is not the solution to stopping this. Additionally, after a student’s school life is over, distraction will impact their lives tremendously anyway. Why do schools districts want to separate boys and girls if it will help them prepare for the future? Often times in classes, when someone needs help, the teacher will be great help. However, occasionally when a teacher does not know the answer to your question or is absent, someone else could offer assistance. Even if someone from the opposite gender is this person, risking the interruptions and diversions are worth the learning experience. Children should be learning ...
Imagine being a parent of a son or daughter and their being distracted by the opposite sex in class? Many parents like to believe that the opposite sex can be very distracting. The world should recognize that single gender schools can be more effective in several ways then coed schools can be.
Che was a Latin American revolutionary who wanted to end the poverty in Latin America, and the injustice brought upon by imperialism. Born as Ernesto Guevara in Rosario, Argentina, Che lived a very comfortable life, since both of his parents were from wealthy families. He developed asthma as an infant and his condition affected him for the rest of his life. Because of his illness his mother schooled him until age nine. After high school and college Che attended and graduated from medical school but had an urge to travel. He and his friends became avid travelers when they had time off from school. One of his travels around Latin...
Ernesto Guevara de la Serna was born in Rosario, Argentina, on June 14th, 1928. He was the eldest of five children, and was of Irish and Spanish decent. He was a ferocious and avid rugby player, despite being asthmatic. His ferocity earned him the nickname "Fuserh, a slang for the raging. Like many Latin American adolescents of his generation, he was enthusiastic about poetry, writing and reading it. He was also a zealous reader, and loved everything from Jack London to Sigmund Freud(Wikipedia).
...principal claim that single-sex programs run-more smoothly and have fewer discipline problems because they take away the tensions that spring up when boys and girls mix in classrooms (Black 1). This statement is not true because when students are separated their attitudes become worst. Ms. Hanish’s research found that when students are with same-sex classmates, they behave in more gender-stereotyped ways: Boys become more aggressive, and use more “rough and tuble” play over time; girls become more gendered played (Sparks 3). “Children develop a fairly limited set of interaction skills: less understanding, appreciation, respect of one another” (Ms. Hanish 3). Improving these skills can lead to less drama. To put it briefly, separating genders does not affect their education and relationship. It depends on how they are taught by their parents and/or teachers.
Mixed schools reflect the diversity in the society and promote the fight against sexism. As such, they are progressive because they facilitate the society to forget initially afflicted it. On the other hand, Pahlke, Bigler and Patterson argue that single-sex schools act as a throwback to the society since they remind the society of its past whereby only men were allowed to access modest education (265). Separating female students may act as a reminder of the painful past and negatively result in poor performance at school. In addition, the continued establishment of same-sex schools may affect the progress that has already been made. In order to prevent such a situation, parents should be encouraged to take their children to mixed schools. This may act as an effort of trying to move away from the past that was coupled with segregation and
Most research on Single-sex education have just advantages for girls. The advantages for girls are that they are more encouraged to take what they call “boy subjects” like science, math, and autos. Girls are usually uncomfortable to take the “boys subjects” because they do not want to be teased for being a “genius” or “nerdy”. As it says in the source of single-sex classes and Equal opportunities for girls and boys: perspective through time from mixed comprehensive schools in England...
Education has been an important factor of all of our lives for an exceptional amount of time, but unfortunately, America has been falling behind from other nations in their education system compared to other nations (Pahlke 444). Almost all of our public schools in our country are coeducational and only handful of them are single-sex educational schools. Single-sex education should be taken into high consideration for most students to attend because of the benefits they might gain from them. It is important to look at all possible ways to try and better our education system for the benefit of the children and teenagers attending school. The most important years of schooling that provide a solid background for all students would be kindergarten through senior year of high school. It provides the basic knowledge and problem solving skills that will be utilized for most of our lives. In order to ensure that the children and teenagers today are provided with the best quality of education, we want to make sure they are engaged and focused in school and single-sex schools will be able to make that possible for students. Not only will it help our students remain focused in the classroom, it will also provide a comfortable environment for them in which they can enable themselves to learn.
Single sex school will allow better focus for boys and girls. Single sex schools are mostly used for religious reasons and private schools. The government wants to change that to all single sex school. Parents are concerned on their child grades. Are there to many distractions in schools? Boys seem to get more distracted at school than women. Women seem to perform better when there isn 't any guys in the class. Women