Single Sex Education vs Co-Education - Research Paper Example

?Single sex education Vs. Co-education Introduction The debates over single sex education and coeducation have assumed new dimensions today as there have been growing numbers of studies and researches on the positive and negative effects of both system of education on male and female learners. Today, most of the single sex educational institutions in various countries have been converted into coeducation schools or colleges. However, the effectiveness of coeducation is still doubtful as many researches have pointed out the benefits of single sex education as well. It has been identified that single-sex education caters best to the academic achievement of girls. The present study, therefore, seeks to explore the various advantages and disadvantages of both single sex and coeducation systems of education and in doing so the paper deals with the history and growth of both the educational systems as well. Definitions It is worthwhile to understand the scope and significance of both single-sex and coeducation systems. Single-sex education is so designed to meet the educational needs of a particular sex only. As pointed out by Mael et al, “single-sex education refers most generally to education at the elementary, secondary, or postsecondary level in which males or females attend school exclusively with members of their own sex” (Mael et al ix). On the other hand, coeducation can be defined as an integrated system of education for both the sexes and as such the educational system is also known as mixed schooling. Coeducational system seeks to put an end to the educational disparities that prevail in communities and the ultimate aim of coeducation is to offer equal educational opportunities to everyone irrespective of one’s gender or sex. It can be seen that feminist and women empowerment movements had been partly instrumental in promoting coeducation for girls. Topic issue During the 1960s and 1970s there has been a considerable decrease in the number of single-sex educational institutions in both the United Kingdom and the United States. This has prompted many researchers to undertake comparative and contrastive studies on the merits and demerits of both educational systems. There are many factors that propagated coeducation system in many countries. In this respect, Radford observes that it is the “social pressures to encourage cross-sex contact and socialization in a more ‘natural’ environment” that have promoted the growing number of co-education system since the 1960s (Radford 27). Early researches on co-education and single-sex education identified that co-education is highly beneficial for boys whereas there was no noticeable positive impacts on the academic achievement of girls. Studies have also shown that in terms of academic achievement single-sex education best suits for girls. Marsh et al merged one girls’ and one boys’ school into two co-educational schools and the results of the five-year longitudinal study revealed that the merger increased the self-concept of both sexes even though there was no considerable evidence in terms of better academic achievement (Radford 28). Another remarkable study conducted by Lee and Bryk in 1986 revealed that “girls in single-sex schools were more likely to associate with academically oriented peers, and have an interest in both mathematics and English” (Radford 29). On the other hand, there are many others who hold that coeducation facilitates socialization and that the system prepares girls towards social and democratic life. Therefore, it is imperative to identify which of the two systems best cater to the modern society and for this it is essential to make a probe into the pros and cons of both coeducation and single-sex education. Literature Review The literature review of the paper focuses on the history and growth of both coeducation and single sex education, evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of both the system, reviews the previous researches and studies on their pros and cons, evaluates the present day status of both systems, and seeks to explore the future projections. History of Coeducation The origins of coeducation in the State can be traced back to the colonial period when New England colonies “legally obligated parents to teach reading and writing to boys and at least reading to girls” (Gale Encyclopedia of US History: Coeducation). The American Revolution has been instrumental in promoting female education in the nation as the revolution regarded the role of educated wives and mothers as very much significant to an enlightened citizenry. It was the Oberlin College founded in Ohio in 1833 that offered the first coeducation services at the college level. Later, in 1855 the University of Iowa was the first University to introduce coeducation in the state. This was followed by other state universities in Wisconsin, Kansas, and Minnesota during the 1860s. There were also universities that resisted coeducation. However, by the end of the 1980s most of the universities adopted full coeducation. Today, coeducation has become the dominant educational system at all levels of education in the United States. It is also worthwhile to evaluate Rosenberg’s account of the history of coeducation in the United States. Rosenberg makes an authentic study of the history of coeducation in America and he also stresses on the role played by the early women rights movements. Early women’s rights movements held that coeducation was an essential pre-requisite for women’s emancipation and empowerment. They also argued that coeducation would result in a healthier sexual atmosphere whereby women could overcome the segregation that she is subjected to in single-sex education system. The Women's Rights Convention held in New York City in 1856 emphasized the need of women to be taught in coeducation institutions in Harvard and Yale colleges. By 1900 the number of women enrolled in colleges and universities of coeducation outnumbered that of men with regard to higher education. However, there are many who argue that the first generation of female students in coeducation was much more ambitious than their followers. Today, coeducation has become the predominant form of higher education in America and it has been estimated that “more than 95 percent of all college women are enrolled in coeducational institutions” (Rosenberg). One also needs to have a thorough understanding of the purpose as well as the factors that led to the growth of coeducation. The purpose of coeducation is to create an integrated system of education for both the sexes and as such the educational system is also known as mixed schooling. With the emergence of coeducational system many single-sex educational institutions for boys were converted into mixed schools. The preference towards coeducation stemmed from women empowerment movements that regarded coeducation as a gateway for equal educational opportunities for women and girls. As the author points out, “coeducation is often presented, particularly since the 1970s, as a universal cure for disparities in educational opportunities for women and girls. Coeducational schooling has been seen as crucial in places where many females are denied access to an education except in private, non-sanctioned facilities” (Kramarae & Spender 521). The society’s perception that educated women would better perform as wives and mothers also contributed to the growth and spread of coeducation system. In many countries where single-sex education prevailed girls were taught domestic skills whereas boys were taught skills that would help them to gain jobs in various sectors. As such, coeducation system put an end to these educational disparities and offered equal educational opportunities to girls as well. The Pros and Cons of coeducation The greatest strength of coeducation is that it treats all learners equally and seeks to offer equal educational opportunities for both the sexes. There are researchers whom hold that coeducation plays a pivotal role in the behavior modification of both boys and girls. In this respect, Kramarae and Spender argue that “the presence of girls in a classroom has a calming effect on the behavior of boys and that interacting with boys in the classroom helps girls become more self-reliant” (Kramarae & Spender 522). However, it is significant that the curriculum in a coeducational system is so designed as to meet the interest of both the sexes and such a competent curriculum is more likely to inculcate healthier relationships between the two sexes which will help learners to come out of the shackles of stereotypical attitudes toward each other. It has also been argued that co-education offers for both boys and girls “a more realistic way of training young people to take their places naturally in the wider community of men and women. It helps to break down the misconceptions of each sex about the other and provides an excellent foundation for the development of realistic, meaningful and lasting relationships in later life” (Advantages of coeducation). Similarly, a coeducation school challenges the sexist attitudes of learners. Learning activities such as classroom discussions and debates would offer unique opportunities for members of both sexes to understand each other’s perspectives. This would help learners to respect the differences between the two sexes rather than looking for sameness. Maqsood, in this respect, argues that coeducation help boys “become less coarse and girls less morbid and that will be beneficial for both sexes” (Maqsood). It has also been identified that coeducation promotes self-assurance, develops social skills, promotes diversity, improves safety and mutual respect, and offers a real world preparation for the learners (Top benefits of coed schools). Thus, it can be seen that coeducation has a number of benefits or positive outcomes which have been realized by the international community today. On the other hand, one can also come across a number of disadvantages of coeducation as well. Very often, in coeducation setting teachers and administers tend to offer more of attention to boys rather than girls. Patriarchal concepts perpetuated in coeducation institutions can lead to women’s subordination and learning activities can be male-centered. Thus, coeducation can contribute to a diminished self-esteem among girls. One can also never undermine the possibility of sexual harassment and maltreatment of girls in coeducational settings. Pros and Cons of Single sex Education The proponents of single sex education argue that there are many benefits of the educational system. Many researchers have pointed out that “single-sex classes are useful for girls because they establish comfortable places in which girls can learn and explore the world” (Pollard). The wide range of self-reported reports in the literature about single-sex classes offer the best testimony to the fact that girls perform better in math and science when they are separated from coeducational classes. Similarly, researchers have also observed that “single-sex classes provide an opportunity for girls to consider issues of gender identity and the variety of roles girls and women can consider in today’s and tomorrow’s society” (Pollard). It has also been observed by researchers and developmental psychologists that single-sex education is better suited to girls in their early adolescence as this is the period when their sexual identity is being shaped. As girls mature earlier than boys it is essential that they are offered separate classes on developmental psychology and sex education. Similarly, it can also be argued that single sex education facilitates appropriate education for each sex. The differences in the biological make up between females have prompted many to think in favor of single-sex education. Similarly, it can also be seen that religion and culture play pivotal roles as Muslim countries tend to promote single-sex schooling rather than coeducation. Many advantages can be attributed to single sex education. It has been observed that in single sex education “girls and women feel less inhibited in the classroom and devote more time to academic work” and that most of them “receive more attention and mentoring from their teachers” compared to coeducation (Kramarae & Spender 522). Single sex education also offers a unique opportunity for girls to develop a ‘social solidarity based on shared gender identity’ and it has been documented by many international studies “that when variables related to social background are controlled, girls and women excel in single-sex settings” (Kramarae & Spender 522). NASSPE argues that gender-separate education improves the grades and test scores of both the sexes (NASSPE: Single Sex Education). On the other hand, Kaminer observes that single sex education would result in sexual segregation (Kaminer). However, advocates of single sex education argue that the system encourages students “to explore their own strengths and interests without feeling constrained by gender stereotypes” (Novotney 58). Another argument in favor of single sex education is that separate teaching styles are essential for both boys and girls as their brains develop differently (Asthana). In this respect, Baumeister is of the opinion that even though most boys and girls perform well with coed schools, there are some students who perform better in same-sex schools (Baumeister). The single-sex education system has effectively been employed to educate boys of color, especially the Black and Latino boys (Fergus & Noguera 4). The Times Online has also reported that girls tend to display more of academic achievements in single-sex state schools (Sugden). The drawbacks of single-sex education have also been pointed out. In this respect, Kramarae and Spender point out that “women and girls who attend single-sex schools lack the opportunities that students in coeducational schools enjoy; therefore, the women’s movement has frequently urged coeducation in order to achieve educational equality” (Kramarae & Spender 522). There is also the danger of single sex education products growing up in complete ignorance of the opposite sex. Girls in particular are most likely not to develop the necessary social skills needed in one’s life. Literature Review: Single sex education versus Coeducation The review of literature relating to single-sex education clearly depicts the various benefits of the system. It has been identified that single-sex education helps “to reduce sexually stereotyped subject choices, and to be academically advantageous, particularly for girls” (Spielhofer et al iii). Similarly, girls tend to develop more of self-confidence in single sex environment. Another remarkable study was undertaken by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) in 2000 and the researchers made special efforts to compare the performance of students at single-sex and coeducational schools. The researchers carried out their studies for almost six years over 270,000 students, in 53 academic subjects and the results of the study pointed out that “both boys and girls who were educated in single-sex classrooms scored on average 15 to 22 percentile ranks higher than did boys and girls in coeducational settings” (NASSPE: Single-Sex vs. Coed: The Evidence). It is also worthwhile to consider another classic study from Jamaica by Marlene Hamilton who also pointed out that students never make any remarkable academic achievements in co-education. There were many public single-sex schools in Jamaica when the study was undertaken. For Hamilton, the educational achievement of students in Jamaica had the following pattern: “Girls at single-sex schools attain the highest achievement; boys at single-sex schools are next; boys at coed schools are next; and girls at coed schools do worst of all” (Evans 144). Cornelius Riordan, in his seminal book entitled Girls and Boys in School: together or separate elaborately evaluates the short and long term effects on both co-education and same sex education among boys and girls in Catholic schools. The author makes it clear that girls in single-sex schools consistently outperform girls at coeducation schools and that the benefits of learning in same-sex schooling is much greater for girls than boys (Riordan). The academic performance of girls in single sex schools in science and reading were comparatively better than that of girls in co-education schools. The author also holds that single sex schooling is highly beneficial for children from underprivileged backgrounds. Similarly, it has also been noticed that boys in single-sex schools excel more in reading, writing and in mathematics than their counterparts at co-education schools. Researchers such as Valerie Lee and Anthony Bryk emphasize that “students at single-sex schools had not only superior academic achievement, but also had higher educational aspirations, more confidence in their abilities, and a more positive attitude toward academics, than did students at coed high schools” (NASSPE: Single-Sex vs. Coed: The Evidence). It has also been found out by the researchers that graduates (both girls and boys) at the single sex schools are more likely to pursue their higher studies in prestigious colleges than graduates of so-education schools. Researchers have also observed that students at single-sex institutions are never constrained by gender stereotypes and this offer them absolute freedom to realize their strengths and to follow their interests without any sorts of inhibitions. Conclusions It can thus be concluded that both coeducation and single sex education have their own positive and negative effects on the academic performance, social and individual lives of both the sexes. Studies have identified that girls tend to achieve better academic results in single sex educational institutions whereas they are better equipped to perform their social and civic roles in coeducation system. On the other hand, researches have not pointed out that women benefit out of coeducation in terms of academic achievement. Today, worldwide, many single-sex male educational institutions are opening their doors towards females whereas single sex-educational institutions for girls are accommodating males. As such, it can be said that a trend towards coeducation is being institutionalized across the globe today. References “Advantages of coeducation.” The Cathedral School. Web. 6 August 2011. Asthana, Anushka. “Single-sex schools 'no benefit for girls'.” The Observer Sunday 25 June 2006. Web. 8 August 2011. Baumeister, Roy F. “Single Sex Schools?” Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, LLC, 2011. Web. 8 August 2011. Evans, Dennis L. Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in teaching and educational practice. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2005. Print. Fergus, Edward and Noguera, Pedro. “Theories of Change among Single-Sex Schools for Black and Latino Boys: An Intervention in Search of Theory.” Metropolitan Center for Urban Education. New York University, 2010. Web. 8 August 2011. “Gale Encyclopedia of US History: Coeducation.” Answers Corporation, 2011. Web. 6 August 2011. Kaminer, Wendy. “The Trouble With Single-Sex Schools.” Atlantic Monthly Group, 2011. Web. 8 August 2011. Kramarae, Cheris & Spender, Dale. Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Education: Health to Hypertension. Ed. Cheris Kramarae and Dale Spender. Taylor & Francis, 2000. Print. Mael et al. “Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review.” US Department of Education, 2005. Web. 5 August 2011. Maqsood, Amir. “Co-education: Advantages and disadvantages of mixed schooling.” Helium, Inc, 2011. Web. 8 August 2011. “NASSPE: Single Sex Education.” NASSPE, 2011. Web. 8 August 2011. Novotney, Amy. “Coed verus single-sex ed.” American Psychological Association, 2011. Web. 8 August 2011. Pollard, Diane S. “Single-Sex Education.” WEEA Digest. Education Development Center, Inc, 2002. Web. 6 August 2011. Radford, John. Gender and choice in education and occupation. Illustrated ed: Routledge, 1998. Print. Riordan, Cornelius. Girls and Boys in School: together or separate? New York: Teachers College Press, 1990. Print. Rosenberg, R. “The History Of Coeducation in America.” Web. 6 August 2011. “Single-Sex vs. Coed: The Evidence.” NASSPE, 2010. Web. 5 August 2011. Spielhofer et al. “The Impact of school size and single-sex education on performance. National Foundation for Educational Research”. LGA Research. Report 33, 2002. Web. 5 August 2011. Sugden, Joanna. “Girls get better results at single-sex state schools.” The Times. March 18, 2009. Web. 8 August 2011. “Top benefits of coed schools.” Our Kids Media, 2011. Web. 8 August 2011. Read More