Kyle Otten

Conversations about Life

4/24/2013
Term Paper: The Pros and Cons of Same Sex Education
One fact that you will rarely hear someone argue is this: one of the most important
aspects of a young childs life is the education that child will receive, from kindergarten, to high
school, to higher education should that be the choice. It is commonly accepted that a decision as
important as a childs education is the responsibility of that childs parents until the child is old
enough to make such a decision for themselves. Schools seem to be broken up into three distinct
categories for a parent to choose from; they could send their child to a state run public school, a
private school, or they could choose to home school the child. However, within the second
option, the private schools, there lies a split. In many cities that contain a large number of private
high schools, you can almost always find a coeducational school as well as a single sex school,
usually one for men and a sister school for the women. When it comes time to choose between
the coeducational and single sex schools, many parents are at a loss as to which is most effective.
All too often parents, or the children themselves, differentiate between these two types of school
only using only the facts they have heard from other parents, peers, or common knowledge.
For example, one reported drawback of a coeducational school is that girls or boys serve as a
distraction for the other sex, effectively hindering potential learning. This type of misinformation
needs to stop.
Misinformation is more harmful to a childs education than any distraction you can place
in a classroom, and in the crusade for and against single sex education, misinformation runs

rampant. One example of this misinformation has already been stated, and will most certainly be
brought up again; it is just too much of a generalization to say that having members of the
opposite sex is a distraction in the classroom. In much the same way, many other arguments
supporting single sex schooling fall short of actually proving or supporting a point. Among these
claims, which will all be discussed at length, are: Boys and girls think differently, so they should
be separated so a teacher can teach directly to that style of learning, the ability for a specific
gender to explore subjects that normally is not associated with their sex (such as art for boys or
mathematics for girls), and the belief that separating the sexes lessens the pressures felt by
students. The problem with these claims is simply that that is all they are, claims. For the most
part these arguments are not backed by empirical data and in some cases the empirical data
actually refutes the claims.
One of the leading studies that proponents for single sex schooling cites is the study
carried out by a group of researchers at the Stetson University in Florida over a three year span.
This study was run at the nearby Woodward Avenue Elementary School in which some students
were placed into single sex classrooms while the rest were placed into coeducational classrooms.
The researchers attempted to regulate as many of the factors in the study as possible, including
the experience of the teachers, class sizes, demographics, and material covered. At the end of the
3 year period, the students took the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). Below are
the reported results of that study:

Table 1: Results of Stetson University Study

Single Sex Classroom

Coeducational Classroom

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

86% scored proficient

75% Scored Proficient

37% Scored Proficient

59% Scored Proficient

Admittedly, the numbers speak for themselves, the children in the single-sex classrooms
turned out to be more likely to be proficient in this particular study. That is the problem, this is
one of the only studies of its kind and comprised of the children in a single grade in just one
elementary school. At this point it is important to note a few things about this particular school.
Woodward Avenue Elementary School is not a large school; therefore the number of students
who were part of this study is not very large. In 2012, 102 fourth grade students took the FCAT
at Woodward Avenue Elementary School; the percent of student who scored proficient on this
test was 73%, slightly lower than the percent of girls in the single sex classroom who scored
proficient during the study. If we are to assume that enrollment has been relatively constant since
the study was carried out, we can assume that the number of children in each classroom (girls
only, boys only, and co-ed) was at or around 34 children. At this point we dont have to assume
any more, taking an average between just 34 children will undoubtedly lead to large variations in
data with very little actual discrepancy between students. This study falls short of proving any
point simply because the number of students tested is so small, this makes it impossible to draw
any solid conclusions.
One fact that is backed up by plenty of research is that men and women simply think
differently than each other, a fact that is prevalent from early ages, through adolescence, and into

adulthood. Many supporters of single sex schooling will cite these studies, along with facts that
seem to indicate that each gender will respond better to different teaching styles as a good reason
to separate the sexes in school. However, this line of reasoning completely disregards the fact
that every student, male or female, will learn in a way that is different from another student.
Therefore, the belief that single-sex schooling allows teachers teach specifically to the way in
which their students think is a generalization that takes only one characteristic of a student into
account. Telling students that all boys think one way, while all girls think a different way is
detrimental to a students education, as well as his or her sense of self, especially if this belief is
instilled in them at a young age, a problem that we can already see in schools today. As a general
example we can imagine a female students approach to math. All her life, this student has been
told that math and science is a boys subject, that girls just dont think in a way that allows them
to grasp the material. This is a claim that has no statistical support. However, this female student
believes what she has been told, so she dismisses math as boring or useless when she has trouble
solving a problem. This isnt just an example; this happens to countless young women during
their middle and high school careers and is reflected in the ratio of men to women in science
related fields. The US Department of Commerce collected data on the percentage of men and
women in STEM related occupations and compared them to the percentage of men and women
in all jobs. This data showed that men comprised just over 50% of the total work force and
women just under 50%. However, men made up over 75% of all workers in a STEM related job
and women made up less than 25% [Figure 1]. The statistics speak for themselves, for whatever
reason, women are not choosing to go into a science or math related occupation, perpetuating a
stereotype that just might be the cause of the gap.

Figure 1: Gender Shares of Total and STEM Jobs, 2009

Another argument that supporters of single sex education bring up is that removing the
opposite sex from the classroom allows lessens the pressure felt by students, whether that is the
pressure to appear smart, cool, funny or anything else. This argument makes the assumption that
children and teenagers simply cannot handle being in the same room as the opposite sex without
feeling like they have something to prove. Many people who remember what it was like to be a
teenager knows that this isnt true. When you have a class of teenagers of both sexes, there will
almost always be a hint of sexual tension, but will it ever get to the point that that sexual tension
will disrupt class? The answer is not definitive, but a safe bet is saying that it usually wont reach
that level, so why do we worry about it so much? Part of it stems from the society we live in
today. Society today is incredibly sensitive to our children, so we tend to shield them as much as
possible; even if that means attempting to limit the amount of contact they have with the opposite
sex. This is of course done in the name of furthering a childs education, removing distractions
from the classroom by removing this inherent sexual tension, but that isnt all that is removed.

The fact that boys and girls think differently has already been acknowledged, but only in a
negative light. Removing a certain gender from the classroom effectively removes a unique line
of thinking and reasoning from the classroom.
Learning is defined as: The acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience,
practice, or study, or by being taught. Problem solving is one of the most important skills that a
student, especially a young child, can learn in school, a skill that can be honed by listening to and
understanding another persons line of reasoning. In a coeducational environment, boys and girls
are often put together in groups to work on projects, papers, or classroom activities, eerily similar
to a real work environment. The truth of the matter is this: there will never be a situation during a
persons job where that person only has to interact with members of the same gender, a
coeducational institution mimics this. Separating the sexes at such an impressionable age (often
13, at the onset of puberty) is doing a disservice to students, no matter how much more
comfortable it makes the students feel. There is a saying that goes something like this: If you
are not uncomfortable, you are not growing. This is spot on when it comes to interacting with
members of the opposite sex, if male students are constantly told that girls are nothing but a
distraction, what are they going to grow up believing? Naturally it is important for one to be
comfortable and even forge strong relationships with members of the same sex, but why should
this come at the price of forging those same kinds of relationships with members of the opposite
sex? Ignoring the importance of friendships between the sexes can have a lasting negative effect
on teenagers. A study conducted by the Institute of Education in London has found that men who
attended a single sex high school were more likely to be divorced by the time they reached their
forties and also linked single sex schooling to higher rates of depression in men. These men that
were found to be more at risk to be divorced by their forties are the same young men that we are

segregating from their female peers. Their minds are filled with the belief that women are
distractions, yet we are surprised to learn that they have trouble with their marriages. This isnt
surprising; it is the inevitable consequence of ignoring the importance of boys and girls working
together during their impressionable high school years.
Friendships and simple interaction between the sexes isnt the only thing you lose when
schools are separated by genders. Many supporters of single-sex education claim that a reason
this system works is that it allows boys and girls to explore subjects that are not believed to be
subjects that their gender is proficient at. For boys these include English, Theater, art, or
literature, for girls this would be math or science related subjects. Besides the obvious problem
that using this line of reasoning perpetuates the stereotype, this logic is flawed. Take boys for
example; the argument assumes that because a young male shares a classroom with young
women, he will be unwilling to participate in these women-only classes. Perhaps this is due to
embarrassment that stems from being interested in a stereotypically female subject, or maybe it
is just because the girls are more comfortable exploring these subjects. But if females truly are
better at specific subjects, why on earth would you choose to separate them from those who
arent as strong in the subject. In many classroom activities, teachers will place the stronger
students with those who struggle with the subject in the hopes that those who are struggling can
learn from the stronger students. Whether this technique works or not is still up for debate, but
we know very well the advantages of placing students who are good at a subject in the same
class. It is evident through the honors courses in high schools and even some universities that
having a group of students who are all very good at the subject being covered allows the teacher
to move through the material at a much quicker rate. But what happens when students that are
good at one subject but not as strong in another are grouped together? Reason would tell us that

these students would learn a good amount about the subject that they are good at, but they will
need to go slower for the subjects they struggle with. When this happens, there is a discrepancy
between a students arts skills (English, reading, etc.) and their math and science skills.
Therefore, what often happens at single sex schools is the young men come out with a very good
understanding of math and science subjects, but are behind in their reading and writing skills,
simply because their math and science classes were able to move at a faster pace. This same
problem can happen with the girls, however, they will be better at reading and writing, but suffer
in the science fields.
Without a doubt, allowing our children to neglect certain subjects should not be tolerated.
Instead of simply accepting a young man or young womans difficulties with a subject or
concept as an inevitable result of that students gender, we should be fostering the belief that
students can work together to learn a subject. This is one of the premises of a coeducational
institution, the understanding that girls and boys can help each other understand a subject and
think about a subject in radically different ways. While it is true that this mutual learning can
take place between students of the same gender, it can be argued that the effectiveness of the
technique is diminished. As stated previously, girls and boys think in different ways, which
allows them to arrive at a correct answer in different ways. Exposing our students to this
difference in reasoning allows the students to explore new ideas and solidify their own methods,
which leads to the student growing in understanding of both the concept and of their own
reasoning behind arriving at a conclusion.
One of the most important aspects a parent, or anyone for that matter, must consider
when looking at the claims and statistics regarding single-sex schools is where the students that
attend the single-sex schools come from. For the most part, single-sex schools are also private

schools, and are therefore closed to many of the poorer students. Statistically speaking, these
poorer students often do not perform as well in school as those students that come from a
wealthier family. So when a study conducted at a private, single-sex school claims that the
average student learns twice as much as a student from a coeducational school, it is important to
remember that the private school has the ability to decide who attends, while the school that they
are being compared to does not.
While it is important to know the truth about the f acts that many studies claim, it is
also important to take the claims at face value, and determine what they are really saying about
the study at hand. Proponents of single-sex education will claim that studies support the idea that
separating boys from girls reduces classroom distractions by removing a key object of a students
attention: a member of the opposite sex. However, the reality of this situation is quite different.
Professor Analia Schlosser from Tel Aviv University conducted a study to find out just how
much of a distraction women in the classroom proved to be. Schlosser found that boys that had a
higher number of female classmates achieved higher grades, and that these same classrooms
achieved better overall, especially in English and mathematics. The study does not offer any
explanations as to why this happens, but researchers have speculated that the women in the
classroom help to keep the young men in check, whether that is through the fear of
embarrassment, or the fact that the majority of women and girls do not respond favorably to the
typical antics of young men is up for debate. The fact, however, is not. Having students of both
genders in a classroom allows for a healthy mixing of opinions and outlooks, and assists in
curbing distractions in the classrooms.
Single-sex schooling is not without its benefits. These schools often have a very good
reputation that they wish to keep, so the administration will actively look for the best teachers to

run their classrooms. The single-sex atmosphere allows for a student to forge strong friendships
with other members of his or her gender, friendships that will often last through college and into
adulthood. However, when it comes down to the effectiveness of segregating men and women in
the classroom in respect to actual learning, the statistics just arent convincing. There have been
very few studies that focus on the effectiveness of single-sex schooling compared to
coeducational schooling, and those studies that do exist are not nearly comprehensive enough to
draw solid conclusions from. Furthermore, many of the arguments that support single-sex
education do not fully address an issue, or make sweeping generalizations that do not apply to
specific cases, a specific example being that girls and boys think differently and have different
learning styles. The fact is that learning styles differ between individuals so much that it would
be impossible to group students based on this characteristic; you would end up teaching every
student individually. While it is true that girls and boys think differently, there is no reason to
separate them; this difference can actually be put to good use in the classroom. Exposing a
student to new views allows a student to explore new ideas, and to solidify or modify their own
thought process. Furthermore, it has been proven that having girls in class helps to reduce
distractions in the classroom, instead of add to them as supporters of single-sex education claim.
All in all, the arguments supporting single-sex education either do not agree with available
studies and research, or they fall apart when one stops to thoroughly think about and dissect the
argument. The arguments for coeducational schooling, on the other hand, are usually backed by
either research, or sound reasoning.

Works Cited
"American Friends of Tel Aviv University." American Friends of Tel Aviv University. 24 Apr.
2013 <http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle>.

Benefits and Disadvantages of Single Gender Education." Benefits and Disadvantages of

Single Gender Education. 24 Apr. 2013 <http://www.slideshare.net/coralyssantiago117/benefits-and-disadvantages-of-single-gender-education>.
"Executive Summary -- Single-Sex Versus Coeducation Schooling: A Systematic Review
(2005)." Executive Summary -- Single-Sex Versus Coeducation Schooling: A
Systematic Review (2005). 24 Apr. 2013
<http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/index.html>.
"NASSPE: Research Single-Sex vs. Coed: The Evidence." NASSPE: Research Single-Sex vs.
Coed: The Evidence. 24 Apr. 2013 <http://www.singlesexschools.org/researchsinglesexvscoed.html>
"Woodward Avenue Elementary School." GreatSchools. 24 Apr. 2013
<http://www.greatschools.org/florida/deland/2987-Woodward-Avenue-ElementarySchool/?tab=test-scores>.