Students from single sex schools fare better than children at mixed sex schools.

I will respond to Pro's arguments by first showing that the sources she has cited do not support a proposition that same-sex education produces better outcomes and then by responding to her arguments more particularly. A. Sources 1. The Pro's main source is an advocacy website that, by nature of its function, cannot be taken as a source that discusses all relevant data. The sources I have cited are, generally, neutral and attempt to be exhaustive in their discussion of the evidence. Researchers doing genuine meta-analysis account for the fact that publication bias is rather severe in certain areas, especially social sciences. Social science null results rarely see the light of day (http://www.nature.com...), so it is not that difficult for an advocacy website to present the appearance that the evidence supports its preferred position. As the more thorough meta-analysis I have cited shows, however, that the evidence does not support a resolution that gender-segregation results in better outcomes. 2. The Pro's main source relies on studies that are unlikely to be relevant to a universal claim that children fare better at same-sex schools. For instance, the study first discussed was done in South Korea, a nation that has a gender hierarchy in favor of men (http://www.izu.edu.tr...) that has not been seriously studied by Koreans, at least not until recent years (http://www.hcs.harvard.edu...). Applying that study universally or in a nation like the U.S., where the gender gap (http://reports.weforum.org...) is much different from that in Korea (http://reports.weforum.org...) is highly questionable. The study the Pro seems to focus on is the Stetson study. Although the advocacy website does not provide a clear link to the study, the other source cited by the Pro is in fact a very incomplete description of that study. A lengthier interview with the individuals carrying out the study show that it was a very small study, that there was likely a selection bias (parents who thought their children might benefit were the ones to choose to have their children in same-sex classrooms), and there was likely a Hawthorne effect (because the students teachers are in fact aware of what they are trying to show and do). In any case, the researchers who undertook the study denied the proposition that same-sex education is universally preferable (http://www.stetson.edu...). In conclusion (regarding the Pro's use of sources), she has failed to meet her burden by failing to show with any specificity which of her claims her sources support, and furthermore, her sources rely heavily on publication bias and misrepresentation of the applicability and inferential power of the studies cited. B. Pro's Arguments In evaluating the Pro's arguments, the reader should not lend any weight to the fact that she has cited a couple of sources. As shown already, those sources do not support her resolution. But in any case, the Pro's sources are not specifically cited, throwing the work of researching which of her claims the sources support onto the reader. We should ignore her sources as a mere assertion that support is out there, somewhere. But, let's move on to an analysis of her assertions. 1. The Pro asserts that same-sex schooling leads to more confidence, but this is purely an assertion without any evidence offered whatsoever. The only way to agree with Pro's claims is to be suggestible or already agree with her--she has established nothing in this section on "confidence." Furthermore, it is unclear what liking one sport or subject or another has to do with "confidence." Perhaps it does, but the Pro hasn't explained why, other than to suggest that removing the experience of the other gender will somehow increase a person's ability to know himself or herself. Why? How do you know "yourself" if you do not know how you interact with others? The most serious flaw is that the Pro proceeds to assert that single sex schools are devoid of gender stereotypes, when at least the fourth point of her argument is based entirely in false stereotypes about the differences between male and female learning (the falsity of the stereotypes is discussed in my first argument) as well as a number of stereotypes about how girls and boys behave around one another, as if those are immutable characteristics of all boys and girls. Another serious serious problem with the "stereotype" argument is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that segregation reduces stereotyping. Logically, limiting experience through segregation should increase stereotyping, and as discussed in my arguments, it does. 2. I'm not sure what to make of the argument about "distractions." Again, the evidence I have cited isn't favorable to the concept that reducing "distractions" is a panacea. But the main problem here is that treating the other gender as a "distraction" during school is simply playing a game of kick-the-can. In gender-integrated societies, people will need to interact with the other sex in a work (and likely school) environment at some point. There is no reason to believe that the result is better if gender interaction is pushed completely into a non-supervised or distant-future aspect. 3. In response to sex (and distractions, to some extent), it's worth pointing out that many studies focus on gender-segregated classrooms, not gender-segregated schools. So the claim that there is support out there for gender segregation in education is somewhat inconsistent with the Pro's assumptions that gender-mixing would not occur at school. Because sexual relations in the book cabinet of a classroom are somewhat unlikely, the slim possibility that some youngsters get it on in the broom closet has not really been eliminated by much of the gender segregated schooling that is discussed. But more importantly, how rational is it to be discussing sex at school? I'm sure it happens, but I'm also sure that it's not what's causing a "glass ceiling" for women. Again, the pro is essentially arguing that by segregating the genders during supervised education, the problems of sex, stds, pregnancy, and so forth will be reduced. She offers zero evidence for the proposition that removing all supervised interaction and forcing gender-interaction into the quasi-forbidden zone is likely to reduce irresponsible experimentation with sex. I think we can all draw reasonable conclusions about what happens when adolescents are presented with such a situation, and those conclusions do not support the pro. Besides, there is evidence from around the world that dual gender solutions are needed in education to address problems like gender stereotyping, sexual harassment, and unwanted pregnancies (http://unesdoc.unesco.org...). Even though a conversation about such issues might be more comfortable in a single-sex environment, it is ultimately a conversation that must happen, at least in part, in a coeducational environment. 4. It's actually not at all proven that single sex education works, as shown in my discussion of the pro's sources and in my initial arguments. There's no reason to repeat that information. C. Conclusion In conclusion, the Pro's sources are weak and their analysis is based on publication bias and misrepresentation. The pro's arguments are simply statements of her own opinions without properly referenced factual support and without any inherently compelling qualities, as I have shown. In fact, it is unlikely that her 2nd and 3rd points are even relevant in most same-sex educational approaches, and there are adequate reasons to doubt that same-sex classrooms are a panacea--they may even exacerbate problems discussed.