Single-sex VS Co-ed schools-What do you think?

Ode to a Grasshopper · Mon Jul 22, 2002 4:54 am

What are your opinions on the merits of single-sex schools as opposed to co-ed ones? Are you more in favor of one option than of the other, and if so, why?

Everyone's opinions are welcome, of course, and please keep any spam relevant. I'll post my own views once somebody else has already listed them, so it'll be less effort for me...

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:33 am

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both, and a lot of it depends upon the students in question. I went to a public schools in the United States which is co-ed and I don't think my education has suffered one bit because it had boys and girls in the same classrooms.

At the same time, many people say that girls who go to all-girls school do better than girls who go to co-ed schools because they are not competing with boys for attention. One study I read showed that teachers reward people who are aggressive with attention and praise, while not showing timid people attention. In the US, boys are generally more aggressive than girls and as a result receive more attention (both positive and negative) than girls. Similarly, boys who go to all-boys schools are generally thought to do better because there are fewer "distractions" and they devote less energy to posturing and trying to impress girls.

It is my opinion that neither is necessarily better than the other. I think a lot of it depends on the child in question because each kid has different needs and some may be served better by a single-sex school and others would do better in co-ed schools.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:42 am

Well said, HLD...

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both, and a lot of it depends upon the students in question. I went to a public schools in the United States which is co-ed and I don't think my education has suffered one bit because it had boys and girls in the same classrooms.

At the same time, many people say that girls who go to all-girls school do better than girls who go to co-ed schools because they are not competing with boys for attention. One study I read showed that teachers reward people who are aggressive with attention and praise, while not showing timid people attention. In the US, boys are generally more aggressive than girls and as a result receive more attention (both positive and negative) than girls. Similarly, boys who go to all-boys schools are generally thought to do better because there are fewer "distractions" and they devote less energy to posturing and trying to impress girls.

It is my opinion that neither is necessarily better than the other. I think a lot of it depends on the child in question because each kid has different needs and some may be served better by a single-sex school and others would do better in co-ed schools.

...my thoughts exactly. Although I would like to add that parents have a big role when educating their children when it comes to relating to members of the opposite sex.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:43 am

The Linkmaster strikes again !

No real opinion yet... I just know that all the girls I know who went into single sex schools are either extremly "carefree" in their affections because they THINK they missed something while in school, or on the other extreme (depends on the school they were on) the tend to be overly religious... just my exp. talking here...

But to further the education in SYM - here are some articles on this topic:
The Atlantic Online.
GenTech Survey on Co-Ed Schools.
Murray Research Center.

No worries,

Beldin

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:47 am

Great stuff, Beldin!

BTW, our present President of the Republic, HE Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, is an alumnae of a convent school.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 6:33 am

I really dont have a strong opinion about it, but I feel that co-ed schools are more desirable. If its a high school or a college, then the reason is obvious. School is one of the best way to learn about relationships and possibly a future marriage. My sister got married this past winter to someone who she was close to in High School. While most relationships dont work out for high school, thats where you learn about relationships. And many relationships that occur during college work out for marriage. But then again, I dont really know how high the standards of education are at same-sex schools.

I mean if I didnt go to a co-ed high school, I would have missed out on a lot of friends, and not to mention a couple of dates and the prom.

And the standard of education isnt bad at co-ed schools. I mean look at the Ivy league schools and not to mention the hundreds of other co-ed colleges of high standards-those are all good schools aswell.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:06 am

Single-sex schools are not hidden monastic retreats where complete contact with the outside world is cut off. That is to say that it is very possible to attend a single-sex school and have a normal social (and romantic) life. It is only in an academic setting that students are isolated from members of the opposite sex. I cannot comment on all boys schools, but I'm sure they have proms and dating just as co-ed schools do. Boarding schools may be a little more restrictive, but the bottom line is that with hormone-driven kids, if there's a member of the opposite sex within 100 miles, they'll find a way to see him or her.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:22 am

Single-sex schools are not hidden monastic retreats where complete contact with the outside world is cut off. That is to say that it is very possible to attend a single-sex school and have a normal social (and romantic) life. It is only in an academic setting that students are isolated from members of the opposite sex. I cannot comment on all boys schools, but I'm sure they have proms and dating just as co-ed schools do.

Well I know that! Im just saying (or tried to say) that its a lot easier to meet companions when you go to co-ed schools. I would have never met the girl that I went to the prom with if I didnt go to the co-ed high school. I, honostly, dont think I would have gone out on any dates and maybe I wouldnt even have met any girls if I went to a single-sex school. Im just thankful that I did go to a co-ed high school. All the girls that are my age that I have met have been through school, so I would have never met those girls if I went to single-sex schools.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:22 am

Im always in favour of mixing people. It destroys prejudices and promotes social understanding. If someone were to suggest for example that you should have separate schools for people with low and high income, since they tend to act abit differently im sure the response would generarly be quite negative.

There is certainly a point in that boys generarly take more space in the classroom, but that is a problem that is easily solved by providing a more equal cultural upbringing. It is imo very dangerous to try to circumvent these problems by separating genders.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:32 am

@Dottie:
Do you think it's possible to provide a separate academic environment for boys and girls while still maintaining socialisation? For instance, in the United States, many school districts separate boys and girls for sex ed. The curriculum is the same, and the materials are often the same. However, the general feeling is that this subject is better left discussed and taught in a single-sex environment.

To expand on this: how about schools that are attended by both boys and girls, but the academic subjects are segregated by sex while the non-academic subjects (shop class, band, etc.) are mixed. I think there is a very compelling argument that the two sexes are treated differently by teachers and girls especially benefit from learning in a single-sex environment, yet at the same time, the socialisation aspect of co-ed schools I believe to be superior to single-sex schools.

The major prohibition to my proposal would be funding. You would essentially need twice as many classrooms and teachers to have an honours math class for boys and another one for girls.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:37 am

I am in total agreement with Dottie. Socioculture gender sterotypes should IMO not be reinforced by separating boys and girls in school. The difference between boys and girls as groups, is smaller than the difference between individuals, so the problem of people being different cannot IMO be solved by separating genders. If we want to create homogenous groups, much more separation on many factors is needed, and I for one am against construction of homogenity in school classes. I am sure it can make a teachers job easier and perhaps increase school performance, but IMO school in not only for learning factual knowledge, it also has an important role in social learning.

It is also interesting to note that studies in Sweden and the UK actually shows that even though boys tend to get more attention from teachers, girls on average perform better on tests and receive better grades. This had let to a swing in the debate about gender and school, previously the debate focused a lot on boys getting advantages for being more extrovert and thus get more attention, whereas now there is a debate about whether the school system is biased in favour of girls.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:41 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
For instance, in the United States, many school districts separate boys and girls for sex ed. The curriculum is the same, and the materials are often the same. However, the general feeling is that this subject is better left discussed and taught in a single-sex environment.

How strange, why is that the general feeling? I would say that sex ed is a subject where it is very important to have co-ed, since sex, for about 95% of the population, obviously relates a lot to the relationship with the other gender.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:47 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@Dottie:
Do you think it's possible to provide a separate academic environment for boys and girls while still maintaining socialisation? For instance, in the United States, many school districts separate boys and girls for sex ed. The curriculum is the same, and the materials are often the same. However, the general feeling is that this subject is better left discussed and taught in a single-sex environment.

Yes, I think that is possible. But I think that if you educate people together as well, the amount of socialisation and dialogue is alwayse increased. I do not understand the reason for separated sex ed though, Isnt that an instance were it would be even more important to have boys and girls in the same room?

To expand on this: how about schools that are attended by both boys and girls, but the academic subjects are segregated by sex while the non-academic subjects (shop class, band, etc.) are mixed. I think there is a very compelling argument that the two sexes are treated differently by teachers and girls especially benefit from learning in a single-sex environment, yet at the same time, the socialisation aspect of co-ed schools I believe to be superior to single-sex schools.

I guess we proritize different here then. I think that any bias in the school system can be lessened with work, and that this is the path we should take. But i understand your pov.

The major prohibition to my proposal would be funding. You would essentially need twice as many classrooms and teachers to have an honours math class for boys and another one for girls.

Not neccessarily. If education is separate you could increase the class size to double without any loss of teacher/pupil ratio. If I undersand you correct here.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:50 am

@C Elegans:
Americans don't like to talk about sex. There is even controversy about whether sex ed should be taught in schools at all. The people who don't want to teach sex ed or contraception or venereal diseases are generally fundamentalist Christians who think that by not talking about it, kids won't do it. This is, of course, a big crock of hooey reserved for people who don't live in the real world. Plus, these folks don't want people to have abortions, so the kids who are having unprotected sex and are uninformed about its consequences are being left to raise children without any social net and a belief system that wants to teach only abstinence preaching at them.

Sex ed, at least what I can remember about it (it was in 10th grade, which for me was 1992), focuses on the mechanics of sex; there is very little mention of its emotional or relationship aspects. Since sex is such a taboo subject over here, I think the feeling is that a group of seventh or tenth graders cannot sit in a room with members of the opposite sex without either being too embarrassed to ask good questions or being too immature to talk about sex without degenerating into fits of giggling or horseplay.

PosterX · Post by **PosterX** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 10:14 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@C Elegans:
Americans don't like to talk about sex. There is even controversy about whether sex ed should be taught in schools at all. The people who don't want to teach sex ed or contraception or venereal diseases are generally fundamentalist Christians who think that by not talking about it, kids won't do it. This is, of course, a big crock of hooey reserved for people who don't live in the real world. Plus, these folks don't want people to have abortions, so the kids who are having unprotected sex and are uninformed about its consequences are being left to raise children without any social net and a belief system that wants to teach only abstinence preaching at them.

I think it's mainly that these people object to the state-run school system "educating" their children with values that are contradictory to their own. Parents should be the ones who ultimately determine these things for their children and the state has no business deciding the correctness of their values.

Vivien · Post by **Vivien** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 10:27 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@C Elegans:
Americans don't like to talk about sex. There is even controversy about whether sex ed should be taught in schools at all. The people who don't want to teach sex ed or contraception or venereal diseases are generally fundamentalist Christians who think that by not talking about it, kids won't do it.

It is commonly known that Sex Ed. is part of the Homosexual plot to corrupt our young.

I myself feel that there needs to be SOME discussion for safety and awareness. Many parents seem to feel that Sex Ed. exists to promote a liberal sexual aggressiveness over abstinence. Horror stories of teachers mocking students who profess abstinence are prominent, yet there never seens to be any proof that this is in fact happening....*shrugs*

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 10:42 am

Originally posted by PosterX
Parents should be the ones who ultimately determine these things for their children and the state has no business deciding the correctness of their values.

. . . which would be fine if parents were taking an active part in the education of their children with regards to sex. However, the fact of the matter is that many parents are not involved in any aspect of their children's education, much less with the sexual aspects. When you add on top of that the fact that many parents themselves are ignorant or misinformed about a number of issues regarding sex, specifically regarding contraception and venereal diseases, having schools ignore sex education is irresponsible and exacerbates an already high teen pregnancy rate and widespread STDs.

I'm not saying that schools should condone sex. I don't think that schools should distribute condoms or contraceptives. Nor am I saying that schools should teach the Kama Sutra or require high school students to read The Joy of Sex. However, by not giving students information about things like birth control and venereal diseases, we are leaving them vulnerable to old wives tales (you can't get pregnant the first time you have intercourse), misinformation (you can contract HIV by shaking hands with someone who carries the virus) and just plain ignorance (masturbation will cause hair to sprout from the palms of your hands).

By not teaching the basics about the social issues which surround sex and by believing that kids will be abstinent because they're told not to have sex is simply naive. While some parents do talk to their children about sex, a large number do not. Similarly, many parents are ignorant (or in denial) of their children's behaviour. Add on to that the fact that many teenagers do not listen to their parents anyway, and the door is wide open for a bevy of problems which we see every day and are only going to get worse if we fail to acknowledge the root cause of teenage pregnancy and STD infections: ignorance. And the best way to combat ignorance is through education.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 10:46 am

Originally posted by Vivien
Many parents seem to feel that Sex Ed. exists to promote a liberal sexual aggressiveness over abstinence. Horror stories of teachers mocking students who profess abstinence are prominent, yet there never seens to be any proof that this is in fact happening....*shrugs*

This was not my experience many years ago. In fact, after STD day, I think many people were willing to swear off sex for life. If there's one way to make people not want to be sexually active, it's to pass around pictures of genital warts.

I think kids are more apt to mock other kids who proclaim abstinence than teachers.

PosterX · Post by **PosterX** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 11:04 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave

. . . which would be fine if parents were taking an active part in the education of their children with regards to sex. However, the fact of the matter is that many parents are not involved in any aspect of their children's education, much less with the sexual aspects. When you add on top of that the fact that many parents themselves are ignorant or misinformed about a number of issues regarding sex, specifically regarding contraception and venereal diseases, having schools ignore sex education is irresponsible and exacerbates an already high teen pregnancy rate and widespread STDs.

I'm not saying that schools should condone sex. I don't think that schools should distribute condoms or contraceptives. Nor am I saying that schools should teach the Kama Sutra or require high school students to read The Joy of Sex. However, by not giving students information about things like birth control and venereal diseases, we are leaving them vulnerable to old wives tales (you can't get pregnant the first time you have intercourse), misinformation (you can contract HIV by shaking hands with someone who carries the virus) and just plain ignorance (masturbation will cause hair to sprout from the palms of your hands).

By not teaching the basics about the social issues which surround sex and by believing that kids will be abstinent because they're told not to have sex is simply naive. While some parents do talk to their children about sex, a large number do not. Similarly, many parents are ignorant (or in denial) of their children's behaviour. Add on to that the fact that many teenagers do not listen to their parents anyway, and the door is wide open for a bevy of problems which we see every day and are only going to get worse if we fail to acknowledge the root cause of teenage pregnancy and STD infections: ignorance. And the best way to combat ignorance is through education.

My problem is not with sex education but with it being taught by an educational system far removed from parental control. I don't think the state can require students to attend sex education classaes. Parental control can mean many things. In its simplest form it could just be that sex ed classes are voluntary and require parental approval.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 11:15 am

Originally posted by PosterX
Parental control can mean many things. In its simplest form it could just be that sex ed classes are voluntary and require parental approval.

In many states, this is the case. For instance, in the Leon County (Florida) schools, parents are required to sign a form which says that they acknowledge that sex education will be taught in school on certain days. There is then a line for parents to sign acknowledging that they know they are sending their child to these classes, and another line which states that they do not want their child in class for those days and they attend an alternative study program.