Co-ed vs. Single-sex classes

Co-ed vs. Single-Sex Classes

Single-sex and co-ed classes. Many people have not thought about the differences between the two. Sure one class has a single gender and another has both, but is there an even bigger difference? Many people have different opinions on co-ed and single-sex classes, but the facts state that both sides have equal pros and cons. Both of these types of classes have different characteristics that make them unique. For example, co-ed classes increase social skills of the children interacting between other sexes, while single-sex classes usually increase test scores dramatically. Also, co-ed classes don’t stereotype, and single-sex classes usually don’t have as much drama.

Single-sex classes have changed test scores dramatically throughout the years. 95 public single-sex classes in the U.S. are much stricter, and classes are more productive in learning. This sets up the child for having a more productive day instead of having to worry about being judged by the other gender (Novotney).  Kids are less distracted, giving them more time to focus on themselves and what they are doing at the moment.

 Grades in single-sex classes have exceeded co-ed classes at an unbelievable rate. Co-ed boys on national tests received a score of 37% proficient while girls scored 59% proficient. However, boys in single-sex classes took the same test and received a score of 86% proficient and girls scored 75% proficient (Trickett). Throughout sources there is a consistent showing for single-sex classes scoring higher than co-ed classes.

One of the problems with single-sex classes is stereotyping. Stereotyping is a huge issue in these classes. One might think in a single-sex class that girls play with dolls and dress up, while later in life taking required classes such as cooking and sewing, while boys play with bats and monster trucks while later in life required to take classes like wrestling or baseball. Do people think this is stereotyping? Some do and some don’t; it all depends on the person’s own opinion.

Situations in co-ed classes can be easier than those in single-sex. For example, Halpern, a scientist, states “some people find it is not preparing kids for adult life in single-sex classes.” Many find that each child is their own and that they should decide on their own, given it is their educational career and not the parents. Many scientists, along with the American Psychological Association, say that brains of different genders vary. Many girls learn at a faster rate than boys and are held behind in co-ed classes. On the other hand, many kids do well in co-ed classes, giving them certain opportunities that classes of single-sex kids don’t get. For example, Suzie in a co-ed class might learn how boys talk and act, setting her up for the real world while single-sex classes cannot provide.

Many scientists have done research on these types of topics, and they have resulted that it depends on how the child reacts to the environment, people, and how willing they are to learn (Trickett). Six middle and high schools merged into co-ed classes after several years being single-sex students, and the grades rose in the co-ed classes compared to when the genders were separated (Medina).

Positive contributions are that co-ed classes rule out stereotypes and students could have a greater chance of becoming more successful in social skills. Girls and boys are merged together in a learning environment lets them cope with the future where they have to work with the opposite sex. Single-sex does not offer this, and students might be affected in the long run with this choice. Students could be more awkward around the opposite sex, and this could lead to social skill problems. Co-ed classes offer more interacting with the opposite sex, making co-ed classes a better choice when it comes to social abilities.

Overall, it is a person’s choice whether or not to join a single-sex class. These classes are completely free; it’s just an individual decision whether to be in this class or not. Co-ed and single-sex classes both have pros and cons, but it’s up to you on what you’re looking for. If you want higher grades and less drama, it is recommended to be in a single-sex class. On the other hand, if you want to be in a class where you interact with the other sex, then it is recommended that you be in a co-ed class. It depends on your preferences and basically what field you want to go in for work. Different choices have different recommendations, so before you go into a co-ed class or single-sex class, ask someone such as a parent or counselor which choice would be more suited for yourself.

Work Cited

Cruz, Barabra. “Separate Sexes, Separate Schools.” Hot Issues. Print.
Medina, Jennifer. “Boys and Girls Together, Taught Separately in Public School.”

New York Times. New York Times. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.

Novotney, Amy. “Coed versus Single Sex Ed.” APA. APA. Web. 2012. 10 Feb. 2012.

Trickett, Edison. “Single-Sex vs. Coed: The Evidence.” NASSPE. NASSPE. 2011 Web. 13 Feb. 2012.

Co-ed classes and single sex classes

           Audrey

        Have you ever wondered why there are big debate on co-ed classes vs. single sex classes? Or what classroom environments are actually better? In these three sources, you will be introduced to the topic of co-ed classes, along with single sex classes and what makes them special. You will learn about WHY people do or do not want to separate classes, along with the statistics that go along with it. Who knows- maybe you'll change your mind on the whole subject. So take a seat, read below, and start learning!

Source 1

 In the article “Are co-ed or single sex lessons best?” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/dec/02/co-eds-or-single-sex) informs both sides on the topic of single sex and co-ed classes for teachers to see. Dr. Anthony Seldon and Dr. Chris Nicholls state arguing viewpoints to inform students, teachers, and heads of the school boards about co-ed and single sex classes. This article is organized by comparing and contrasting the two ideas. With this, compare and contrast lets you see the statistics and facts of both articles with technically both viewpoints in this article. The conflicting evidence in this article is very obvious. Because this article is split up into two different viewpoints, it states the pros and cons in co-ed and single sex classes; both viewpoints coming from doctors. Connotation is used in this article in the “single sex classes are better,” section by using words such as ‘teachers are more capable,’ and ‘very comfortable with our classes.’ However, the “co-ed classes are better,” part of this article uses much more slanted language in the text, using words such as ‘depressingly,’ ‘misleading,’ and ‘dangerous,’ giving this article much slant. This source is mediocre on reliability. The positive things about this source are it is a .co.uk site, gives doctor opinions on the topic, and gives other people’s opinions on the topic. However, the negative thing about this source are there are quite a few ads, other topics at the top of the page such as ‘apps,’ and ‘media,’ and was last updated December of 2009.

Source 2

            In the article “Single-Sex vs. Co-ed: The Evidence” (http://www.singlesexschools.org/evidence.html) NASSPE tries to persuade to parents and teachers that single sex classrooms are more productive than co-ed classes. The main idea in this article is to get persuade and mutually inform schools that single sex classes are much more productive than co-ed classes. This article is organized by comparing and contrasting, along with some cause and effect. Comparing and contrasting comes into play when you see the statistics being compared to each other, such as ‘boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient. Boys in single sex classes: 86% scored proficient.’ Cause and effect show in this article is when the author is showing boys in co-ed classes switching to single-sex classes. Causing the boys to switch into single-sex classes is effecting how they learn. The viewpoint in this article is favoring single-sex classes. In the article you can see that the article itself is slanting towards single-sex classes by only giving positive statistics on single-sex classes and only negative statistics on co-ed classes. There is no conflicting evidence since this is a persuasive article. They are never giving any negative statistics or opinions on single sex classes and not any positive statistics or opinions on co-ed classes. The author uses connotation in this article to create bias and slant by using words/phrases such as ‘effectiveness,’ and ‘creates opportunities that don't exist in the co-ed classrooms.’ The strategy NASSPE used to persuade us was logos. Giving statistics on the co-ed and single-sex classes makes us look at how these classes are really effective in action. There are both positive and negative things on this website. Positive characteristics are going onto the homepage; you can see that this organization wrote a book with much research going into this topic. This website is also dedicated to this topic with minimum to little ads. This organization is also an .org site, giving it more credibility. The negatives things about this website are that it only gives positive opinions on single-sex classes. I would find this website in the long run pretty reliable.

Source 3

            In the article ‘Louisiana School Board to Halt Single-Sex Classes after ACLU Intervention’ (http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/louisiana-school-board-halt-single-sex-classes-after-aclu-intervention) ACLU tries to persuade teachers that co-ed classes should not be tampered with. The main idea in this article is to inform people that co-ed classes are better than single-sex classes. The viewpoint in this article is that co-ed classes are better and more effective than single-sex classes, and that they also don’t take up to stereotypes. This article is organized by problem and solution. An example of this is when they say ‘…that boys and girls learn so differently that they need to be educated separately.’ Evidence that explains the author’s viewpoint is ‘…and that boys who like to read, avoid sports and have close female friends should be forced to spend time with “normal” boys,’ and ‘in fact, harmed students by making these stereotypes more acceptable.’ There really isn’t any conflicting evidence since this is a persuasive piece. Connotation is used in this piece by saying ‘stereotypes,’ and ‘unlawful sex segregation.’ Because of this, there is a huge slant favoring co-ed classes. The way the author tries to persuade us into believing this is by using logos and ethos. Logos is used by giving statistics ethos is used by giving quotes from doctors. This website’s reliability is pretty good, because it was recently updated, is a well known organization, is an .org organization, and has minimum ads.  The negative things about this website are at the top, there is a 'donate' button, along with different topics to choose from so this website is not a dedicated website to only co-ed- single sex classes. All in all though, this website is decent in credibility.