Gender Segregation In The Education System - Research Paper Example

 Gender Segregation In The Education System Gender segregation, which for a long time has been the preserve for private learning institutions, is now finding its way into the public school system. This is since amendments were made by the department of education to allow for single sex schools and classes (Federal Register, 2004). Gender segregation remains a largely confounding issue in the society since there is a lack of direct evidence that it promotes better learning outcomes amongst students. This is also because extrapolating its effects from private schools would be misguided since such schools differ from public ones in terms of resources and student backgrounds. Besides, the issue is relatively recent and needs constructive discussion. This study will investigate the impacts of gender segregation in the education system and whether it is still needed in public schools. The thesis of this study is that gender segregation in schools is counterproductive to the education system, hence should not be encouraged in public schools. Background Single sex schooling has characterized private education for decades. However, the amendment of Title IX by the Department of Education in 2004 effectively allowed for public schools to pursue gender segregation either in entire schools or classes. In 2006, single sex schools were formally legalized and even incentives provided for public schools to transform into single sex schools instead of just providing single sex classes within coeducation schools. The advent and legalization of single sex schools was mainly as a response to concerns from certain sections of the society that coeducation was promoting gender inequity in education. Some of the main concerns include the observation that coeducation schools were responsible for education stereotypes amongst boys and girls. Some of these stereotypes include perceptions that mathematics and sciences are traditionally for males while females are proficient in humanities and languages. Thus, single sex schools were muted as a way to allow boys and girls to pursue their interests without having to face stereotypes (National Association for Single Sex Public Education, 2011). Kiselewich (2008) advocates for gender segregation in education on a separate but equal basis just as is accepted in athletics. The evidence put forward to support single sex schools extrapolated from studies that are not directly related to single sex education. For instance, advantages given for single sex schooling were mainly drawn from studies on peer/role model effect. Hoxby’s (2000) class size study findings indicated that classes with majority female students had better performance in certain subjects. This is only indirectly related to single sex education, and there is no evidence that the impact on boys may be equal to that of girls. Other considerations that backed gender segregation stated that girls were likely to pursue male-dominated careers if they attended single sex schools. The argument further stated that women in single sex colleges pursued mathematics and sciences on a much greater level that those in coeducation schools (Billger, 2006). The Counterproductive Nature of Gender Segregation in the Education System One of the explanations as to why promotion of gender segregation in the education system is counterproductive is that, it promotes the same gender stereotypes it is said to be addressing. There are several aspects through which this is seen beginning with the insistence that by proponents of single sex schools that such a system places girls in a position to handle mathematics and sciences. By doing this and by labeling single sex schools as facilities where girls can pursue these areas of study, the perception that such subjects are better and that girls cannot excel in them is further strengthened. The emphasis on these areas of study has the counter-effect of making girls think that the stereotypically masculine subjects are superior to the stereotypically feminine subjects. When we take into consideration the fact that these are just stereotypes and do not actually mean that certain subjects are superior to others, single sex school ideology deepen these stereotypes. A criticism that may be raised against this argument is that emphasis on the said subjects is a form of breaking not only stereotypes but also traditional gender roles. Essentially, this means that single sex schools place considerable weight on this subject, thus helping girls to pursue careers outside their gender roles which result in breaking the stereotypes on boys' or girls proficiency. This, however, is countered by the view that more stereotyping will arise as femininity will be viewed as inferior. As Guarisco (2010) puts it, there is surely no problem in providing girls with opportunities to venture outside traditional gender roles, but the emphasis placed on certain subjects over others may end up devaluing femininity and appear to be indeed a form of sexism. Segregating girls and boys in education interferes with natural distribution of capabilities and thus may lead to stigmatization. Single sex education system ideology assumes that one model of education is optimal and adequately best for all girls and all boys. Natural order does not follow such a pattern and girls and boys may be inherently suited for different models of education. The consequence of pursuing gender segregation, therefore, is that it will specify what is expected (stereotypically) of girls and of boys. In such a situation, there is bound to be a considerable number of girls and boys who display what has been considered as a characteristic of the other gender, thus stigmatizing such individuals. According to Cohen (2009), although children join schooling bearing a sense of own identity, they do not necessarily bear a sense of gender identity as per the characteristics associated with the specific gender. Single sex schools would thus shape their gender identity on gender characteristics, and those inherently bearing characteristics of the other gender will suffer from stigma. Cohen (2009) is categorical that the arguments for gender segregation in the education sector and insistence on opportunities to take on certain subjects fortify the myths associated with masculinity and femininity outside the natural sense. The concepts that sink in amongst boys and girls in single sex schools are the mythical views that there is only one way to be masculine. This means that both sexes suffer from this consequence with boys acting differently suffering emotionally while the girls suffer at the hands of boys who are conditioned to think that they are superior. An argument that may be raised against this revolves around the fact that a coed school also shapes children’s views on gender characteristics just as is being argued against. Here, boys and girls are also shaped to associate certain gender characteristics with their gender and other characteristics with the other gender. This, however, fails to critique the argument that single sex schools restrict and stigmatize children as they are forced to learn only from members of their gender and those who are naturally different become isolated. Opponents of gender segregation in the education system do not contest shaping of gender characteristics in coed system. Instead, they only argue that there is a lack of accommodation of natural variety of characteristics in a single sex school. Pursuing gender segregation in the education system has the consequence of denying boys and girls the opportunity to interact, thus shielding them from the realities of life. Outside the single sex school, there is not another place in life where an individual may spend considerable periods of their life without interacting with the other gender. The implications of this are compounded by the fact that individuals attend school during their formative years. This is where they are not only supposed to undergo academic learning but also social development. By segregating them from the other gender, the education system effectively denies them the chance to experience quite an essential element of real life i.e. cross-gender interaction. Lamb (2010) states that single-sex schools set limits on cross-gender interaction for long periods of time. This author also notes that this period is crucial for social development. The ultimate implication is that individuals from single sex schools may find it difficult to interact and associate with the opposite gender later in life. From personal reflection of life experiences in coed tertiary education students are drawn from both coed and single sex schools, an observation is made that perhaps some of the social challenges experienced is due to single sex education. Such individuals either fail to adapt positively to having the opposite sex around them, or go overboard in their reaction, which is exacerbated by the freedom they have. An argument against this view is that, for the formative years, boys and girls gravitate towards their own gender as they seek to develop an identity and thus it is not entirely necessary that the formative years require gender interaction. Proponents of gender segregation in the education system also argue that the concerns raised shielding children from the reality of life are not apparent among single sex students from private schools. This argument, however, is challenged by the fact that students from single sex private schools are fewer, and the effect on public education may be greater. The other point of concern about single sex schools is that it is tantamount to taking steps backwards in respect to human development. Segregation is not only in terms of gender but also race, ethnicity and nationality. Any other form of segregation may be, in fact, a form of retrogressing into the past. Whereas the world is moving towards integration, acceptance, equal opportunities and coexistence, single sex schools are an exhibition the opposite direction. Women in the past were segregated while men with femininity were treated as weak. Coed schools are a break from such bondage, promoting equality and equity in terms of life opportunities and social standing. When segregation is reestablished, the gains made by society in pursuing equality between women and men will start diminishing. Besides, the natural differences between the two should be appreciated and provided for in the same context rather than using these differences to denigrate members of either gender as appears to be happening through single sex schools (Guarisco 2010). Single sex education is essentially a practice of segregation of an entire aspect of the society, thus a reversal of gains made in the integration. Proponents of single sex education may seek to critique this argument on the grounds that the aims of gender segregation are to cater for the different needs of boys and girls and not to segregate the society. This is, however, countered on two levels. First, result of single sex schools is segregation regardless of the intent. Secondly, separating boys from girls in order to achieve academically reverses the gains made on gender equality as it suggests that one gender is in need of exceptional conditions for it to excel. This is the wrong message that the educations system would wish to relay to the society and to the children. The importance of cross-gender interactions at school is lost when single sex education is pursued. Certain behaviors and attitudes between and among the sexes are shaped by cross-gender interaction. It does not only dictate how the two genders will treat each other but also how interaction within the same gender will occur. A study undertaken by Faris and Felmlee (2011) had the goal of establishing the relationship between cross-gender interaction and formation in terms of aggressiveness among school-going children and the differences that gender segregation causes. The researchers found out that gender segregation in schools had no significant effect on same-gender aggression. However, cross-gender friendships significantly reduce aggression. Adolescents who had several cross-gender relationships were about 16% less aggressive than those without this interaction. Criticism to this argument may be centered on the view that since cross-gender interaction is always likely to occur in life, the attitudes and behaviors will still be shaped in the specific gender later in life. This, however, ignores the importance of the concept of formative years where much of the shaping occurs, which incidentally happens to be during the school-going period. The Question of Whether Gender Segregation should still be pursued in Public Schools Besides the demonstration that gender segregation is counterproductive to education, several considerations also inform the opposition of this study to continued implementation of single sex education systems. These considerations are based on the conditions under which Title IX was amended. This guaranteed equality on education opportunities and the legalization of gender-based segregation in the public education system. The decision to introduce single public sex schools was not based on conclusive empirical evidence about the advantages of such a system to both boys and girls, instead relying on related studies (Rigdon, 2008). This weakens the justification to legalize gender segregation by the Department of Education which actually admitted to lacking certainty (Guarisco 2010; NCWE, 2007). This essentially amounted to gambling with quite a serious issue. As most opponents towards gender segregation in education would admit, their main concern is the lack of sufficient evidence to back the policy. Most opponents would readily cross to the other side of the debate in case evidence was to be availed. Haphazard implementation of pertinent issues may be accompanied by serious consequences that may take years to reverse, hence the question on why the hurry to implement single sex education in public schools without the prerequisite research and evidence. The Department of Education also failed to provide mechanisms to prevent stereotyping and injustice based on gender. The emphasis on educational achievement may be used to exclude boys and girls from schools based on light arguments such as the need to improve education achievements and desired models of studying by school administration. While these concerns are not relevant to private schools where there is own volition, the consequences among public schools are grave. According to NCWE (2007), the legalization of single sex schools was done amidst much public and expert debate, with the majority of the views being in opposition. This shows disregard to stakeholder input in the policy. All these considerations lead to the position that gender segregation in public schools is still not needed. Conclusion The legalization of gender segregation in public school education system has been accompanied by much debate. The concepts and evidence that informed the changes are largely dependent on indirect studies. Besides this, there are several issues that expose the ideologies behind gender segregation as weak, central to which perpetration of the stereotypes it seeks to abolish is evident. This lead to the view that gender segregation in schools is counterproductive to the education system hence should not be encouraged in public schools. An important point to note is that most of the position to single sex schools is due to its lack of clear evidence on not only effectiveness but also insignificance of the concerns raised. Thus, there is the need for more studies to establish the short-term and long-term implications of gender segregation on the education system. Until then, the observed debate will continue to rage on, which should actually be encouraged since the debate is particularly constructive and insightful. References Billger, S. M. (2006). Reconstructing school segregation: On the efficacy and equity of single-sex schooling. IZA Discussion Paper, 2037. Cohen, D. S. (2009). No boy left behind? Single-sex education and the essentialist myth of masculinity. Indiana Law Journal, 84(1), 135-188. Faris, R. & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles: Network centrality and gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76(1), 48–73. Guarisco, C. (2010). Single-sex schools and gender roles: Barrier or breakthrough? Chicago, Loyola University. Hoxby, C. M. (2000). The effects of class size and composition on student achievement: New evidence from natural population variation. Quarterly Journal Economics, 115(4), 1239-1285. Kiselewich, R. A. (2008). Note, in defense of the 2006 Title IX regulations for single-sex public education: How separate can be equal. Boston College Law Review, 49 (1), 217-261. Lamb, S. (2010). School dropout and completion: International comparative studies in theory and policy. New York, Springer. National Association for Single Sex Public Education, 2011. Single sex education. Retrieved 26 October, 2011 from http://www.singlesexschools.org/ NCWE (2007). Single sex education. Beyond The Headlines, 35, 39-44. Rigdon, A. R. (2008). Dangerous data: How disputed research legalized public single-sex education. Stetson Law Review, 37, 527-570 Read More