Single Sex Schools Are Better for Education.

To begin I would like to review a few points from the last few posts that have been made by both MassRebut and I. After that, then I will end with my conclusion. My argument will reiterate and add new and different points to bring to focus when looking at single-sex schools versus co-educational schools. ----- If MassRebut was not implying or assuming that "single-sex schools are better for education," in the first statement of his previous post, I ask myself why he remains in the debate after negating his own line of logic. Looking at MassRebut"s cited debate point (along with the title of our entire debate) MassRebut can realize the forfeit of his argument with the statement of "no where have I implied or assumed or even suggested that single sex schools are better for education". When I stated, "there are no jobs that only hire one sex," this was an example to show that single-sex education is not the best for students because it does not prepare students for the co-ed work world. To reiterate: there is not "one job" that accepts only males or only females. Two main purposes of US education are learning basic knowledge and socialization skills. The working world includes interaction with both sexes. In single-sex schools, the individual is only exposed to and socialized with one group. Students in single-sex schools are therefore prepared to work and cooperate with only one gender. Therefore, single-sex schools do not prepare students for the world of employment. Co-educational schools have the two purposes fulfilled (learning a basis of knowledge and socialization), whereas single-sex schools only include the knowledge base. ----- "Boys and girls are interested in each other and define themselves by it as stated by it as stated by Dragonrule029 but they could try for the football team or for the musical for a million other reasons not just because they are interested. They could also be doing it to impress someone or get the attention or to even become friends with someone, which proves my point correct which stated that students have different driving factors in co-ed schools and they deviate from their true paths just because the other sex is present. Even I agree that "Not everything that is done in schools is meant to "show-off"" but is certainly influenced by the other sex and even that depends on how much interested they are or how much they like and want to impress each other which is not a good learning environment for them." We have agreed that not all actions are done to show off, according to the quoted statement above. Although, I would like to point out that in MassRebut"s first argument he said "every action of the student is because he wants to impress or show off to someone he likes in the school" and in the quotations above MassRebut says: "Even I agree that "Not everything that is done in schools is meant to "show-off""" which is therefore contradicting and negates that part of the argument. Regarding influencing the opposite sex, since I have already negated where that statement began, MassRebut can decide if he would like to pick up that piece of the argument again or not. ----- "When Dragonrule029 talks about homosexuality and how it will cause the same level of distraction as it will in co - education schools and students will be distracted no matter where they are, well this view is completely wrong. Why? Well, because not all students are homosexual and there is a 1% chance that one or two students will be and so how will this make other students distracted, the ones who are not involved and the ones who do not care? In co-ed schools, everyone would be looking at each other and the level of distraction in these schools is incomparable to single sex schools and to homosexual students. And what are the chances that there are not homosexuals in co-ed schools?" This is yet another interpretation that was taken incorrectly, not to mention the fact that more than 1% of the student body could be homosexual or another type of sexual attraction. Studies have shown that 12% of students identify as homosexual or other. The entire point of mentioning the homosexual population was to show that it does not matter where a student attends school, there will always be the "distraction of attraction". ----- Another reason why co-educational schools are better for education: Non-segregation. This can be looked at through the lens of a similar situation where there was an attempt to separate two groups. The Jim Crow laws of "Separate but equal" would ring a bell if MassRebut has had any basic American history. The belief was that because students "look" different their education should be different - but when comparing the African-American and the Caucasian school districts of the time, it was obvious that indeed they were not "equal" but in fact only "separate". Jim Crow laws" reasoning was that the two groups thought differently, had different needs, and needed different educational settings. Examples of the fallacies of "separate but equal" were clearly seen throughout the education programs at that time and are valid concerns even in a modern day setting of "separate but equal" gender-based schools. ----- Developing relationships with the opposite sex: Developing relationships with the opposite sex does not necessarily mean a boyfriend/girlfriend situation; it could mean a mental bond such as friendships. Different kinds of friendships are important in the development of a human being (both boys and girls are both human beings and they deserve to be treated as such). Like previously stated in the section I wrote about the "purposes of education", examples can be seen why girls and boys should work together in classes. Part of that general statement was that they must learn to interact with each other so the idea of working with the other sex is not foreign. To add on to that thought, friendships and social experiences in schools between males and females will help them develop as individuals. ----- Statement from MassRebut: "Firstly, I'll talk about girls. Simple statement: They are better off in single sex schools. Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more in class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose "male" disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers." Even though MassRebut states that in single-sex schools girls chose more male-dominated fields, it remains to be proven if this is due to location in a single-sex environment or due to other contributing factors (teacher skills, parent support, personality traits, etc.). It is a fact that student success is correlated to the way the teacher distributes knowledge to the students. Differentiation in instruction means that the teacher must present the knowledge in a way the students will understand it. This is true in every educational setting. The responsibility lies with educators to design their lessons to reach their students" learning needs, not simply segregate groups by sexes to simplify the teaching role. The teacher must take the responsibility of properly including and differentiating instructional methods, in order to best teach all students in his or her classroom. In addition, Stereotyping is increased when attending single-sex schools because neither gender interacts with the other. The placement of students in single-sex schools influence both groups to adopt more gender-oriented roles while attending their school (example: females choosing to be nurses, teachers or secretaries, with males choosing to be engineers, electricians or administrators). Also, imagine the girls who are put in the single-sex class under the basis that it will be a better learning environment so they can eliminate the distraction of the males in order to be more successful? What will that mean to them? If they are directly or indirectly told that they cannot be successful while studying with males nearby, this will affect how they are able to relate and work with males in their lifetime. It may even cause some young women to believe that if they are with males, their lives become unsuccessful. This (as mentioned before) will also affect their willingness to work, cooperate, and interact with the opposite sex in future environments. To conclude my argument: -Girls and boys must learn to work with one another (can only be offered in co-ed schools) -Distraction of attraction will be everywhere -Single-sex schools are segregated environments -Stereotyping is increased in single-sex schools -The teacher determines the success of the student not the gender makeup of the classroom Therefore, co-ed schools are still better for education than single-sex schools. This concludes my argument.