Single Gender Classes in Education

Same Sex Classrooms Whether same sex classrooms have positive or negative ramifications for students is a controversial topic because, like most controversial topics, there are good arguments to be made on both sides. The problem with being definitely pro or contra on a subject like this is that it limits one to a narrow acknowledgement of the effects of same sex classrooms. The reality of same sex classroom education is that there are both positives and negatives that have to be considered.

One the one hand, same sex classrooms boast great academic value in that they support better academic achievement. On the other hand, same sex classrooms lack social value in that they do not allow for students to develop friendships across gender lines or to develop an appreciation for the opposite gender (Barton, Cohen).

The argument that this paper will make is that schools should encourage same sex classrooms if they want to promote greater academic achievement, but they should provide mixed-sex opportunities (such as socials, dances or other events) to promote stronger peer relations among different genders. Same sex classroom education was a norm once upon a time. Today, just fewer than 400 public schools in the U.S. offer same sex classroom education, and less than 100 public schools are single gender schools (Pearson).

Still, while this number may seem small, it is actually an increase to what it was decades ago when the shift towards mixed-gender classrooms was in full swing. Back then, the educational climate and attitude was such that whatever was old, traditional or conventional was bad and that integration was the best way to go. Integration of the genders, supposedly, promoted a better sense of equality among the school children and promoted the idea that boys and girls were the same.

Of course, as any social neuroscientist will tell, biological and social differences abound between boys and girls—and what educators have discovered since the integration shift is that, academically speaking, boys and girls do better when they are separated and educated in their own classrooms (Davis).

Even as ideological organizations like the ACLU oppose the idea of same sex classrooms, teachers are more and more in favor of them because they notice first-hand the vast improvement in their students’ behavior and academic accomplishments: there are fewer distractions and it is easier to broach certain subjects when dealing with only one gender of students at a time (Davis). Not only do same sex classrooms promote learning and greater academic achievement according to teachers, but they also promote greater self-esteem among students (Freeman).

Teacher testimony bears this out: Many sixth grade boys “try to impress girls by acting cool, tough and maybe a little rebellious. So why were the boys in Rice's class so eager to join a sing-along? To Rice, the answer was easy. There were no girls in the room” (Freeman 1). In other words, when boys and girls are separated to their own classrooms, the temptation of peer pressure to show off or act in a way that will “please the girls” is eradicated.

The boys feel more comfortable with themselves the way they are as they are not competing for girls’ attention. They are free to be themselves and free to accept themselves as they are—which is especially important at the crucial middle and high school ages, when boys are beginning the biological transition to adulthood and struggle to understand their own impulses, feelings, and conscientiousness.

Mixing the genders in the classroom at such a delicate just adds to the complexity of the transition for boys and girls and can ultimately undermine the students’ positive self-image and sense of self—especially if girl or boy students misinterpret signals that they are being given from their peers. This can have a profound negative psychological effect on them that can in turn impair their self-esteem for a great long while afterwards.

This is not to say that boys and girls should be separated at all times—but that in the classroom it is best, for the sake of their academic goals, to separate them. The one caveat that must be made is that while school is designed to be a place of learning it is also ipso facto a place of socialization—a place where students learn to manner themselves, interact with peers, and develop friendships.

Engaging with peers of the opposite sex is an important part of the development process and students should have the opportunity to do so if it is at all possible (Barton, Cohen). Social growth and peer relations are just as critical to transitioning to adulthood as academic growth and so opportunities for different genders to mix should not be completely abolished.

Some examples of how the genders could be given the opportunity to mix so that students do have some social value would include to have events on campus, such as after-school socials; in-school rallies, science fairs, seminars, or presentations; dances; and sporting activities. Providing a venue for genders to mix and socialize and use manners that educators can teach them is a terrific way for schools to help same sex classroom students to develop those peer relationships that are important.

Rounded development and growth should be the goal of every academic institution—which means that concentrating on only one aspect of development (i.e., academic accomplishment) will cause other aspects to be dropped by the wayside. For the sake of promoting the social aspect of learning, schools should be considerate of the importance of allowing genders to get to know one another outside the classroom in a safe environment where they can mingle, interact and befriend one another. The classroom, however, should be reserved for academic studies.

Traditionally speaking, that is the whole purpose of the classroom. Thus, the academic value of same sex classrooms is evident: students are less distracted, less self-conscious, less likely to act up, and more likely to focus on their school work and achieve their academic goals. There is, therefore, a great deal to be said for the academic value of same sex classrooms, which numerous researchers acknowledge (Barton, Cohen; Booth, Nolen; Davis; Freeman; Johnson, Winterbottom).

On the other hand, same sex classrooms do not provide students with the opportunity to engage in cross-gender peer relationship building and development (Barton, Cohen; Pearson). Thus, same sex classrooms lack social value and the effect is that students do not develop peer relations with other genders. Peer social functioning is something that should be considered by schools: it too is part of a child’s development.

As Barton and Cohen point out, “boys and girls engage in different social behaviors with peers, construe relationships differently, and generally exist in different social cultures based on gender” (38). It is important, therefore, that they be given the.