Segregation of Schools on the Basis of Gender - Research Paper Example

Segregation of Schools on the Basis of Gender By looking into the contemporary societies of the world at large, it appears crystal clear that every political and social set up has established various educational institutions at state and community levels in order to involve the people, civilized and well groomed, into adequate and systematic learning and training. Constable (2008) declares the family and school to be the central places for the development of children as they lead the way towards the hopes for the proper socialization of the next generation. Every nation has established unique ways to coach adolescents: some educational institutions introduce co-education and boys and girls study in the same school and classroom sharing the same environment, libraries, science labs and studying rooms. Smyth (47) observes that several countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, continue to have a sizeable number of single-sex schools, where boys and girls receive education at separate classrooms. However, some of the educational centres vehemently turn down any possibility for mixing of genders at schools. Consequently, they recommend and enforce segmentation of the children on the basis of their gender. In few of the most developed countries, such as the UK, USA, Canada and India, the students obtain learning classes under one roof without their segregation on gender basis. The co-educated schooling is actually exercised on the foundation of the Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments as of 1972, which vehemently outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programmes receiving federal funds (Halpern et al.) Thus, the U.S. law absolutely rejects the possibility of segregating the schooling of the children in the light of their gender differences. Theorists maintain different opinions about the co-education and segregated patterns of education for adolescents and young students. Some of the critics declare segregation of educational centres on gender basis as strictly against the norms, values, traditions and customs which have been prevailing in the contemporary world for the last several decades. They also cite the example of the division of society on the basis of race, ethnicity and religion, where people get their children admitted at the schools that belong to their own ethno-racial background. They stick to the opinion that segregation of boys and girls at schools not only paves the way towards the further splitting up of the already divided society but also disables the young generation from comprehending the challenges they are to undergo as professionals in future. The supporters of co-education schooling declare segregation of the students on the basis of gender as strictly against the principles of gender equality. Since the statutes of law condemn the practicing of any ethnic, racial, religious or gender discrimination, depriving the children of getting admission into the schools of their choice is absolutely against the basic rights the Human Rights Charter bestows upon them. Since all boys and girls are free to enjoy their human rights and their potential as individuals in economic, socio-cultural, civil and public life, no law can forbid them to enter into the learning process of their choice altogether. In addition, since boys and girls are to become partners at domestic and career life, they have to be able to enter into decisions making in collaboration with one another so that to secure peace and harmony in their homes, communities and societies. Schools have an important role to play in preparing girls and boys to listen and communicate effectively with each other in order to build this respectful partnership (UNESCO, 2007). Thus, since men and women are to perform all obligations and activities, in political, economic, social and cultural fields, they should learn to behave with each other under a healthy and competitive environment principles in order to handle the future challenges in an effective and forceful manner. Somehow, there has been a growing promotion of single-sex schools, or more usually of single-sex classes, in response to perceived underachievement by boys or to the persistence of gendered patterns of subject take-up (Smyth 47-48). The critics declare coaching boys and girls under one roof as extremely challenging phenomenon. It is partly due to the very fact that boys and girls maintain quite different aptitudes, attitudes, activities and behaviours; and these tendencies are innate and natural to certain extent. It is, therefore, boys and girls act and react differently in the classroom because they contain divergent exposure of the world around them. As a result, the theorists look for the appointment of highly skilled teachers in order to teach the children of both genders in the same classroom. The theorists also believe that boys and girls maintain mental differences and require separate coaching environment for obtaining superior results in exams and assignments. However, no medical studies approve the proposition through some concrete evidence in this regards. As Smithers and Robinson (2006) state that large-scale reviews in Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as analyses of data from the Programme for International Student Assessment, found little overall difference between the sex segregated (SS) and mixed-sex academic outcomes. Consequently, declaring the co-educational institutions as those providing inferior learning environment to the students is not based on any scientific research or empirical proof altogether. Hence, the SS and co-educational institutions are observing almost the same results and performances in the field of education and learning. Dr. Sax (2011) sticks to the view that for the single-sex format to lead to improvements in academic performance teachers must understand the hard-wired differences in how girls and boys learn and incorporate the best practices for all-female classrooms and all-male classrooms. (Quoted in Teaching Tolerance, 2011) Another challenging issue appeared in the opposition of the establishment of the schools offering co-education includes the probabilities of the students’ getting involved into sexual intercourse and physical relationship with one another before reaching the age of maturity even. Ekanem (69) notes that adolescents in contemporary societies grow up in a social environment that is considerably more liberal and permissive in sexual attitudes than those of past decades, which certainly produces negative consequences due to this situation which have deep impact on the sexual behaviour of adolescents. Since the internet and other technological devices have opened new horizons of information and access to activities related to sexual intercourse and practices, the probabilities of the adolescents’ involvement during the age of maturity also seek tremendous boost. The proximity and close interaction between the young members of opposite genders at the schools offering co-education multiply the danger of their indulgence in sexual intercourse many years before they actually enjoy themselves with the same. Ekanem (69) also suggested the need for young people, especially females, to be equipped with skills which would enable them to resist unwanted sexual activity; and SS educational institutions offer protection to them to a great extent due to the very fact that the probabilities of their interaction with the boys decrease to an imperative extent. Somehow, the critics of sex segregated educational institutions opine that the individuals’ involvement into sexual relationship does not depend on the nature and level of their interaction with the people of opposite gender. On the contrary, the institutions and organisations consisting of one gender give birth to the relationships that come under the definition of deviant behaviour and perversion. For instance, the gender segregated schools, military schools and services, prisons and other public places meant for males only observe homosexual activities and gay cultural traits, which are extremely rejected and turned down by the religious circles and moralists. Thus, if the authorities prohibit male-female interaction by enforcing any policy in society, the individuals will seek towards unnatural practices in order to fulfil their desires. Similarly, if the children are brought up and socialised properly, they would never break the moral values and statutes of law even during their studying in co-education institutions. Labi (4) sticks to the view that the purported religious-minded people condemning the necessary male-female interaction invite homosexual behaviour. Thus, it is an open secret that Vatican, Kuwait, Qatar and Abu Dhabi are particularly notorious for practicing homosexuality during the adult and middle-aged years. The reason behind this all includes an easy access to the male partners in the region where interaction with women is a strict taboo. Thus, keeping the boys and girls far away from one another not only creates difficulties for them in respecting of understanding each other, but also drags them towards the ways that are declared as being unnatural ones in the very sense of the word. Some proponents of SS education claim it is well suited to countering sexism found in co-educational classrooms that may promote gender stereotypes. Teachers may interact less often with girls than boys with low achieving boys who interrupt class (Halpern, 70). Somehow, it is not a big problem to deal with as the children are well aware of the gender differences since their childhood at their homes when their parents call the children and assign different duties to them according to their gender. Moreover, the same problems may also appear in the segregated schools where distinction is frequently made while addressing the boys belonging to different racial groups and ethnicities. It is, therefore, some black and white racists look for segregating the educational institutions according to the racial background and even religion of the students. To conclude, it becomes evident that though boys and girls are different from one another in physical appearance and outlook, and certainly observe different traits and approaches to life, they are not actually the forbidden trees for each other. Additionally, no scientific sociological research has ever proved any gender inferior to the other in respect to mental capabilities or performances altogether. On the contrary, girls frequently exhibit better performance in scores and studies than boys at schools. Furthermore, co-education also creates competitive environment at school, where boys and girls work harder and harder in order to prove them superior and better ones in studies. Thus, seeking education at SS or co-education is not a problem altogether. Rather, the problem is actually the upraising of the standards of quality education. It is the first and foremost obligation of the educationalists to devise and implement comprehensive plans in respect to offering the best possible environment along with superior quality of education rather than getting involved into the endless debate of separating or combining the schools and classrooms for boys and girls. Thus, if they stick to segregation of schools, it must be implemented on concrete foundations by focusing upon the variation in the needs, requirements and activities of the genders on the one hand, and their tendencies and inclinations on the other hand. Mere difference in physical appearance should not be the basis of the segregation of schools for the children. It is, therefore, Sax (2011) argues that the most obvious explanation for the variation is that merely placing girls and boys in separate classrooms accomplishes little. On the other hand, the valuable contributions made by the educationalists pave the way towards extracting best results and outcomes from the students while their entering into practical life as professionals. Works Cited Constable, Robert. “The Role of the School Social Worker”. Social Work in Education, 2011, 7(4), 244–257. Web. . Ekanem, Imo Ben. “The Influence of School Type in Modifying Sexual Behaviour of Secondary School Adolescents.” Department of Educational Foundations, Akwa-Ibom State College of Education, Afaha Nsit, 2011. Print. . Halpern, Diane F., et al. “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling.” Education Forum. Web. . Labi, Nadya. “The Country in the Closet.” The Atlantic. Web. 2007. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/5774/. Kizimi, Mithaq. “Gender Segregation: Separate But Effective?” Tolerance Teachings Organisation. Web. . Smithers, A., and P. Robinson. “The Paradox of Single-Sex and Co-Educational Schooling.” University of Buckingham UK, 2006. Print. Smyth, Emer. “Single-sex Education: What Does Research Tell Us?” Revue française de pédagogie, 171. April-May-June 2010. Web. . UNESCO Bangkok. “Single-Sex Schools for Girls and Gender Equality in Education.” Advocacy Brief Bangkok: UNESCO, 2007. Web. . Read More