The Concept of Mixed-Sex and Gender Education - Research Paper Example

Why is Single-sex Gender School better than Co-education? Education is an essential aspect of contemporary society, vital in promoting human interaction and development. Definitively, it refers to the process or action of imparting knowledge, within either formal or informal settings such as a schooling environment, college or university. It also refers to the skill, knowledge or understanding, which an individual gains from school attendance. Concerning formal education, one which entails classroom settings, there is a categorization of the same into two i.e. co-education (mixed-sex/gender education) and single-sex education. Single-sex/gender education, pertains to the practice of educating individuals through separate platforms i.e. classes and schooling area, by way of gender separation of the student body. Conversely, mixed-sex education refers to the integrated system of imparting knowledge, where both genders are present in a given educational setting. Education is critical for the proper upbringing of a person, aimed at influencing mental capability towards providing positive social input. While both categories of education are essential in society, given prevailing contexts that necessitate one form or the other, I am of the view that single-sex gender schooling is better than co-education. This is going to be portrayed in the paper, which will focus on why single-sex/ gender schooling is the preferable choice of schooling, compared to co-education. It will further provide an assessment of the impacts of both forms of education, on American social relations especially on the aspect of optimal environments for study. This is in terms of impacts, influences and effects on school going children, to the older generation of college students. In summation, it will provide reasons as to why single-sex education is the preferred avenue of schooling, as opposed to co-education, within American social contexts. Co-education is more of a modern ideal, as is portrayed by various debates, for or against such education settings. However, this does not necessarily mean that single-sex education is not considered within present contexts. It is in fact upon this notion that various debates are currently underway. Pundits are of the view that it possesses many admirable attributes, which would affect positively, in the wholesome growth of an individual. In current contexts, very few exceptions have student populations under the single-sex gender education system, exceeding the 10% threshold (Pilson and Yvonne 77). However, resurgence is in the offing, as consideration of the single-sex model becomes more appealing in not only the U.S., but also the world over. This is within not only the private sphere, but also the public arena; thereby regressing the 19th century move of promoting both co-education and mass education as a universal measure. Single sex schools have proved to be beneficial in terms of learning, as well as in terms concerning religious and socio-cultural contexts (Collins). This is in addition to enhanced opportunities for future scholarship, with this having influenced the widespread acceptance of such schools. Both forms of education have qualities, which are essentially viewed as being important to the wholesome growth and development of children. However, debate exists because of differing factors, which influence the preference of one form over the other; especially concerning social relations, optimal education environments and wholesome individual nurturing and development (Lewin). Mixed-sex/Co-Education in the U.S.: An Analysis The passage of amendments (1972), to Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was a major event affecting both forms of education in the U.S. Its passage received backing from different quarters such as civil rights and the feminist movements, thereby showing its vital importance in contemporary education contexts. The aim was at banning all manners of racial and gender-based discrimination; through availing complete access to all children; in terms of schooling functions (Datnow and Hubbard 5). Through its policy of universal access to education, especially as represented in the public sector, America enhanced mixed-sex gender schooling, as an avenue of providing equal opportunity and chance for its student populations. This was not only in the lower and middle classes, but also at the college and university levels thereby resulting in greater integration of its hugely diverse society. Pundits were of the ideal that through such measures, children (despite their racial, cultural and religious backgrounds) would become more prepared for the wide-ranging real-world experiences and situations (Lewin). Further still, was the influence of gender separation, which affected how an individual grew up, with proponents of co-education preferring this avenue as it enabled the different individuals experience personal relations and interactions, as would be found in the outside world. This interaction would help the child adapt to the realistic environment found outside schooling, as opposed to those educated through the single-sex gender schooling programs (Patterson and Pahlke 742). Single-sex Education in the U.S.: An Analysis Concerning recent American education contexts, a significant event, which eventually affected the mixed-schooling concept, was the later-day passage of reforms within the Education Amendments Act as aforementioned. In 2006, reforms to the Title IX, which allowed for the separation of single-gender schooling, provided avenues through which various institutions of learning could be able to receive funding. This was especially true, of the non-vocational public centers, which in time either adapted into entire single-sex schools; or availed single-sex class education (Pilson and Yvonne 98). Through reforms on Title IX of the – Education Amendments (1972) – passed in 2006, standardization measures were enacted, tackled the issue of gender separation in specific areas of schooling. Such initiatives, became primarily influenced by the presence of educational or government objectives, which regulated the manner, avenues and capacity, of providing both private and public education within the U.S. A prime example would be classes for physical education; all classes needing to be voluntary in nature. The – United States v. Virginia Supreme Court ruling (1996) – provided an avenue through which single-sex education could be enhanced only in the presence of comparable facilities, services and courses being availed to both genders (Collins). Accordingly, this is augmented by the recent – No Child Left Behind Act [sections: 5131c, and 20 U.S.C, 5131. a.23, as well as 7215(c) and 7215(a)(23)] – which sought to enhance public single-sex gender schooling. Through publication of pertinent federal rules (2006), districts were allowed to create such arenas of schooling; primarily influenced by both the voluntary aspect, as well as the presence of comparable facilities, services and courses, being availed to both genders. Through this initiative, the number of facilities offering such services experienced a remarkable rise, according to statistics gained from the American National Association for Single-Sex Public Education. Public opinion has continued showing favorable focus on the debate, with an increasing majority of parents viewing single-sex schools as viable options for their children’s education (NEA). Single-sex Education or Co-Education: A Debate Education as seen above, is a vital asset to human social interactions, being a basis for a majority of aspects and issues of socialization. Of importance is the fact that the manner, as well as the avenues, of imparting such knowledge, do matter as is proven through existing statistical analysis. This is fundamentally true, to the ongoing debate, as to the better of the two: - a return to single-sex education, or continuation with the universally known and experienced co-education. The debate is founded on the current resurgence in terms of interest, ideals and perspectives, championing for greater preference to single-sex schooling (Streitmatter 76). Socio-cultural legacies, which significantly influenced the association of different subjects with specific groups of individuals, are essential to the understanding of existing beliefs. Beliefs and ideals were held, concerning the benefiting nature of single-sex organizations especially in reference to the inequality aspects that were present. While co-education became the preferred choice of schooling, especially in the public sector, various influences, effects and impacts resulted in debate. This regarded primarily, the equal opportunity and chances of both genders benefiting from such educational facilities (Riordan 97). Adding to these are the influence, impact and effect of gender interaction, especially in the teenage years, when human biological composition affects both group and individual socialization. This may be one of the core reasons why opponents of co-education, perceive it as providing less-than optimal schooling environment. In such cases, pundits are of the view that such distraction, can and does affect class interaction of both genders. This is especially in terms of classroom interactions such as answering questions, reading out aloud and general conduct (Lawrie and Brown 133). In such arenas, the students are able to both learn and work, on the same levels as their peers with the girls having greater chances of improving their confidence, and hence overall contribution in the classroom settings. This is influenced by the removal of the teachers’ stereotypical mentality. As Sullivan, Joshi and Leonard suggest, “The prevailing issue is not about boys doing worse in their academics, as opposed to the girl-child, but rather on the good news of the girl-child fairing even better”(24). Through single-sex educational facilities, the girl-child “has improved significantly, in terms of performance and class-room interaction; in some measures exceedingly gaining greater advances than the boy-child…. This has resulted in the closure of prevailing educational gaps, which previously favored boys, thereby showcasing the improvements gained in such optimal learning environments” (Sullivan, Joshi and Leonard 24). Conversely, the long-standing gaps, which favored the girl-child, have become wider, thereby leading to the view that boys are being left behind. This is some way is true, especially of the boy-child from minority groups such as the Black Americans and Hispanics, as well as the low-income and often disadvantaged homes. To be noted is that in such contexts, the predominant issue is about class and race, as opposed to gender (Patterson and Pahlke 737). Therefore, the gradual closure of the prevailing economic and racial gaps, would go far in aiding minority and poor boys, as opposed to focusing on issues of gender. Girls, who learn in an all-girl environment it is believed, are more comfortable, in terms of responsiveness, as well as the sharing of their opinions, while in class. Therefore, in single-sex gender school settings, the girl-child is more likely to explore the ‘non-traditional’ subjects, mainly associated with the male student i.e. science, technology and mathematics (NEA). This is what informs proponents of single-sex gender schooling, especially the classroom dominance by males. This is in terms of the differential treatment they experience in co-educational settings. This is evident from the prevailing student-teacher interactions, where boys are more active in classroom than the girl-child. In terms of the ‘raise your hand’ rule, boys are usually exempted, while the girl-child is reminded of the proper way of class conduct. In addition, has been the growing trend of teaching staff, valuing boys’ contributions in terms of correction, criticism, aiding and praising them. Unfortunately, the same is not extended to the girl-child, as the boy-child is given more room for individual problem solving, while the girl-child is viewed as weak, and hence requiring frequent assistance (Paton and Matthew). Concern, for proponents of single-sex gender schooling, is on the issue of social relations between students especially those in the teenage bracket. Due to both biological and physiological changes, the teenage phase is rife with various issues i.e. the thoughts of opposite-sex friendships. Such thoughts, of boyfriends and girlfriends, are destructive to the overall outcome of education, especially in the lower levels. This is due to the various negative influences and effects that may result from such interaction (Sullivan, Joshi and Leonard 24). To be noted, is that it is not the paper’s aim of regarding student social interaction as a bad thing; but rather as not being conducive in certain contexts such as academic scholarship. Studies are of the view that boys and girls, if educated in single-gender facilities, are more likely to achieve success in schooling, as well as in pursuing a wide array of activities and interests, essential for their future growth and development (Datnow and Hubbard 57). Girls, who learn in such contexts it is believed, are more comfortable in their responses to questions, as well as sharing of opinions. This enables them consider the exploration of the more ‘non-traditional’ subjects i.e. technology, science and mathematics. In such educational contexts, both genders are able to attend to their studies with confidence, thereby enabling them participate openly in class; all of which further encourages their pursuit of personal interests. This is towards enabling them achieve their fullest potential in life (Collins). To be noted is that, while education is currently viewed as a universal right, the avenues and manner of teaching are still influenced by various factors in the contemporary arena. This is what informs and further fuels the ideal of single-sex education, with proponents being of the opinion that since it worked in the past, it also applicable now. In addition, due to the nature of equal opportunity being availed to both sexes, it is best achieved if there is gender separation. The presence of subject polarization, where some fields were considered more adequate for a given gender, was influenced by factors such as issues of academic goals or access (Lawrie and Brown 137). This is as opposed to issues of social justice that are given, in support of co-education as the best avenue, due to its authentic experience; which is also representative of life outside school. The limitation of the girl-child, to the more technical subjects of mathematics, technology and science, further influenced the resurgence of single-sex educational systems. To best attain inclusion of the girl-child, single-sex schools became, and continue providing amongst the best avenues inclined on effective pedagogic approaches and strategies (Streitmatter 134). Conclusion The resurgence of debate on which is the better of the two systems of education, between single sex gender school and co-education, emanates from varying factors, as each region is uniquely influenced. However, single sex schools have helped to ensure that this issue does not prevent girls from studying optimally, like their male counterparts. In addition, the negative aspect of social relations, not only between the students, but also between students and the teaching staff, further influence the need for stricter regulations, with respect to scholarly issues and environment. In American contexts, it is only higher education, where individuals are more mature that co-education can, and is able to work most efficiently and effectively. Hence, the view that single-sex gender schooling is better placed at providing optimal learning environments than co-education. Works Cited Collins, Peter. Why teachers should be listened to when it comes to mixed-sex education. WalesOnline [Lifestyle opinion]. 21 Jan 2014. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/lifestyle-opinion/teachers-should-listened-comes-mixed-6529885 Datnow, A. and Hubbard, L. Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling. New York: Routledge and Falmer, 2002, Print. Lawrie, L., and Brown, R. “Sex stereotypes, school subject preferences, and career aspirations as a function of single/mixed-sex schooling and presence/absence of an opposite sibling.” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62 (1992): 132–138. Lewin, Tamar. “Single-Sex Education Is Assailed in Report.” The New York Times [U.S., Education] 22 Sept 2011. NEA. “Research Spotlight on Single-Gender Education [NEA Reviews of the Research on Best Practices in Education]”. National Education Association: Teaching Strategies June 2012. Paton, Graeme and Matthew More. “Girls ‘do better in single-sex schools’: Girls achieve better exam results when they are taught in single-sex schools, research has shown.” The Telegraph 18 Mar 2009. Patterson, Meagan. M., and Pahlke, Erin. Student Characteristics Associated With Girls’ Success in a Single-Sex School. Sex Roles, 65, 2011, 737-750. Publisher’s official version: Pilson, Sylvia and Yvonne Reddick. The Effects of Single-sex Classrooms on Student Outcomes on Mathematics and Reading in an Elementary School. Diss. University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, 2013. Riordan, C. "Early Implementation of Public Single-Sex Schools: Perceptions and Characteristics." US Department of Education (2008). Riordan, C. What Do We Know About the Effects of Single-Sex Schools in the Private Sectors: What are the Implications for Public Schools. 2002. In Amanda Datnow and Lea Hubbard (eds.) Doing Gender in Policy and Practice: Perspectives on Single-Sex and Coeducational Schooling. New York: Routledge Falmer Press. Streitmatter, J. L. For girls only: Making a case for single-sex schooling. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1999, Print. Sullivan, A., Joshi, H. and Leonard, D. “Single-sex Schooling and Academic Attainment at School and through the Life course”. American Educational Research Journal 47.1 (2010): 6-36. Worell, Judith. Encyclopedia of Women and Gender. : Sex Similarities and Differences and the Impact of Society on Gender, Volume 1. New York: Academic Press. 2001. Print. Urls Datnow, A. and Hubbard, L. Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling. New York: Routledge and Falmer, 2002, Print. http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=Xfa1AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Gender+in+policy+and+practice:+Perspectives+on+single-sex+and+coeducational+schooling.&source=bl&ots=lchSUBiYbv&sig=t0uu1_KHqVXFbu0NuT_EHw99Agg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=49dtU7qICcWd7QbllYD4Dw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Gender%20in%20policy%20and%20practice%3A%20Perspectives%20on%20single-sex%20and%20coeducational%20schooling.&f=false Lawrie, L., and Brown, R. “Sex stereotypes, school subject preferences, and career aspirations as a function of single/mixed-sex schooling and presence/absence of an opposite sibling.” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62 (1992): 132–138. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01006.x Lewin, Tamar. “Single-Sex Education Is Assailed in Report.” The New York Times [U.S., Education] 22 Sept 2011. http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2011%2F09%2F23%2Feducation%2F23single.html&ei=ONdtU6aZCOfR7Ab-84GACw&usg=AFQjCNEgSgkYn8Kyb7ZhIofFxifLiF5lBQ&sig2=KH0AjTI1ZLmx3LoUuzNlNg&bvm=bv.66330100,d.ZGU NEA. “Research Spotlight on Single-Gender Education [NEA Reviews of the Research on Best Practices in Education]”. National Education Association: Teaching Strategies June 2012. http://www.nea.org/tools/17061.htm Paton, Graeme and Matthew More. “Girls ‘do better in single-sex schools’: Girls achieve better exam results when they are taught in single-sex schools, research has shown.” The Telegraph 18 Mar 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5008712/Girls-do-better-in-single-sex-schools.html Patterson, Meagan. M., and Pahlke, Erin. Student Characteristics Associated With Girls’ Success in a Single-Sex School. Sex Roles, 65, 2011, 737-750. Publisher’s official version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9904-1. Open Access version: http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/. Pilson, Sylvia and Yvonne Reddick. The Effects of Single-sex Classrooms on Student Outcomes on Mathematics and Reading in an Elementary School. Diss. University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, 2013. http://acumen.lib.ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0001162/u0015_0000001_0001162.pdf Riordan, C. "Early Implementation of Public Single-Sex Schools: Perceptions and Characteristics." US Department of Education (2008). files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504174.pdf Riordan, C. What Do We Know About the Effects of Single-Sex Schools in the Private Sectors: What are the Implications for Public Schools. 2002. In Amanda Datnow and Lea Hubbard (eds.) Doing Gender in Policy and Practice: Perspectives on Single-Sex and Coeducational Schooling. New York: Routledge Falmer Press. http://www.neiu.edu/~circill/castro/soc332/whatdowe.pdf Streitmatter, J. L. For girls only: Making a case for single-sex schooling. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1999, Print. http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=iz_Jkwp3lF8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=For+girls+only:+Making+a+case+for+single-sex+schooling.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vb5tU9qaB8WOO7TNgeAO&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=For%20girls%20only%3A%20Making%20a%20case%20for%20single-sex%20schooling.&f=false Sullivan, A., Joshi, H. and Leonard, D. “Single-sex Schooling and Academic Attainment at School and through the Life course”. American Educational Research Journal 47.1 (2010): 6-36. http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cls.ioe.ac.uk%2Fshared%2Fget-file.ashx%3Fitemtype%3Ddocument%26id%3D493&ei=y7ttU_mvJIaCPeO_gPgL&usg=AFQjCNHlneAlqL8_uWSarp86dk6ADwcNrw&sig2=O0YjwsXdAr2y-Pzb_7ORYQ&bvm=bv.66330100,d.bGE Worell, Judith. Encyclopedia of Women and Gender. : Sex Similarities and Differences and the Impact of Society on Gender, Volume 1. New York: Academic Press. 2001. Print. http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=7SXhBdqejgYC&dq=Sex+Segregation+in+Education.+Encyclopedia+of+Women+and+Gender.&source=gbs_navlinks_s Read More