Single-sex education

I hope he has had a merry Christmas also and would like to wish him a happy new year. This round I'll also form rebuttals and counterarguments. Lets start by SociabilityMy opponent stated on round 1 that "Single-sex education hinders the development of social interaction between juvenile boys and girls", argumenting that:"During the developmental years of the average teenager, intergender interactions are a necessity. Not only for gradual progression into a sociable individual, but also for achieving the happiness that accompanies a healthy relationship. ""As with most abilities, it will be easier to develop knowledge of the other sex at a young age. By segregating the two sexes into opposing institutions, the children are deprived of the opportunity to interact with the other sex on a regular basis. "Well, even if that was true, the main goal of schools is not to develop students socially. The main school purpose is to teach. Yes, it should be also a place where the students can interact with each other and make friends, but this comes in second place. Another common mistake about children going to same-sex schools is that they only have contact with one sex. This is wrong because (a) the student have parents which he lives with and interact with them every day, (b) a boy going to SS school may have a sister or a girl a brother so they would interact with the different sex at home, (c) the student can interact with the other sex doing activities that are not related to the school, like a foreingn language course or a sport and (d) a SS school for boys may have women teachers or a SS school for girls men teachers. Con also states that SS schools are "Emotionally detrimental to young males". A research made by Dr. Emer Smyth shows that boys in SS schools have a lower self-steem due to the academically competitive environment. SS schools are places where children go primarily to study. Although this might diminish the boys self-steem, they are better prepared academically than boys from CE schools. (1)And Con also cited: men educated in single-sex schools are more likely to “face divorce and depression by their early 40s. ” I saw his source and it doesn't show details about the issue. And how SS school has anything to due with the men's divorce? It does not make any sense. Although I showed that Career and Educational aspiration are higher among SS school students than those in CE schools, Con states it`s because they are private schools. Well, the study was made with private CE schools an private SS schools. It put both in equity so the factor that changes the self-esteem is not being private or not, but the presence of the opposite sex. (1)And in round 3 Con shows a report from the American Council for CoEducational Schooling that break some myths about SS schooling. Of course this report will favor CE schooling! They are the American Council for CoEducational Schooling! Therefore, any argument from this report is invalid due to it's lack of neutrality on the issue. And about sex-stereotyping. I proved on round 2 that girls from SS schools have less stereotype gender role attitudes. As there aren't any boys the girls need to do things which in mixed environment would be considered boyish, like dissecting a frog. They also have favoured preference for subjects considered masculine more than girls from CE schools. And with researches about boys stereotyping there where no difference between CE or SS schools. (1)(2)AcademicallyCon tries to diminish the academic superiority from SS schools stating that they have good scores because they are private. Well, there are CE private schools, so why they do not have better scores than SS private schools? Con`s argument doesn't make any sense. As I stated have previously stated, the SS school environment favours a learning environment more than a social environment. Therefore, students from SS schools study more and have best results than students from CE schools. “By far, the advantage most often associated with schooling boys and girls separately is that it eliminates distraction. Freed from the worries of impressing the opposite sex, boys and girls can focus on their books” "Janice Streitmatter studied and compared the results of girls taking physics in a coeducational and single-sex setting. According to Streitmatter (1998) the girls repeatedly asked the teacher questions and used the answers as opportunities for group learning. As a result of the opportunities for increased participation, achievement also improved. In Streitmatter's findings, in the single-sex physics class 87,5% of the girls made an ‘A’ and 12.5% of the girls made a ‘B’; whereas in the coeducational class only 14.3% of the girls made an ‘A’, 14.3% made a ‘B’, and 71.4% made a ‘C’. " "By separating the sexes into different classes or schools, the students would be free of distractions from the opposite sex and would be better able to concentrate on academic pursuits. " (3)Giving the fact that SS schools favours academic, there is no reason why there shouldn't be more SS public schools. This opportunity should be opened for the disadvantaged ones who can't pay for a good private school. I don't think there should be only SS schools, but if students their are better academically and thus have a better chance in life, why not have more SS schools? Sources:1. . http://ife.ens-lyon.fr...2. . http://ecap.crc.illinois.edu...3. . http://files.eric.ed.gov...