Single-sex education

For the final round I will make my rebuttals short, as brevity will be my partner in this last exchange. “Another common mistake about children going to same-sex schools is that they only have contact with one sex. This is wrong because. .. ” I never said they’re entirely secluded, but a healthy dosage of the opposite sex only benefits sociability. A limited amount of contact can be detrimental, and your supporting claims are not sufficient. (a) the student have parents which he lives with and interact with them every day That was not what I was referring to when I mentioned communication with the other sex. .. (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 The sibling is not guaranteed to be of the opposite sex, and, even if it is the opposite sex, they may not be able to cooperate. The possibility also exists that a sibling rivalry may be detrimental, as opposed to beneficial. This point remains insignificant, as only children will not benefit from that form of companionship. (c) the student can interact with the other sex doing activities that are not related to the school, like a foreingn(sic) language course or a sport Sports are usually single-sex. I don’t know of a sport that allows members of both sexes to participate with one another. I can understand extracurricular activities; however, the majority are achieved through the school. If the school is single-sex, then the clubs and activities still remain single-sex. (d) a SS school for boys may have women teachers or a SS school for girls men teachers. ” Kids rarely interact with teachers. Children, especially at the middle school level, at times have difficulties listening to teachers actually teach, much less strike up a conversation. “ And how SS school has anything to due with the men's divorce? It does not make any sense. ” The article does state that men who have been educated at a single-sex possess a higher percentage of divorce. The attributable reason behind this would be the lack of sociability developed from the segregation of sexes. “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. ” The two quotes you are referencing, I apologize I remain unable to locate the exact link, but they are from the organization’s website. Anyway, they were acted as an epitome of my stance on single-sex education, not necessarily to reinforce anything I had previously stated. “Con 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. ’ My personal argument, in a sense, addresses that “supposed” disparity. My school is nationally accredited, as my source explicitly stated. It is not a single-sex school, yet it is private and coeducational. I do not wish to focus the remainder of my rebuttals on this topic, as I have already presented a counterargument in the previous round. “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) Distractions would still exist, with or without the opposite sex. Boys can still be distracted boys, and girls can most definitely still be distracted by girls. With respect to the middle paragraph, other factors are present that distinguish who makes an A and who doesn’t. My previous argument addresses this issue, so I will not rehash old information, as this is the final round and would not wish to instigate any new issues as a result. You also did not mention my own personal argument, therefore it still remains as a valid point.