Michael Mayer

Advocacy Statement Paper EDF

As the world of education gets more inclusive, the problem of gender equality is still a

growing problem in America, dividing classrooms based on gender. The problem is rooted in

tradition of separate ideas for genders, with some thinking that women should take on a more

traditional role that is outdated. In the argument, there are two sides, one saying that students do

better separated by gender and one saying that students succeed better together in a shared

classroom. The textbook said that “families from all incomes should at least have the option of

one-sex schools,” (Noll, 2014, p. 277) but depending on the socio-economic status of the family,

the choice of a gender-based school may not even be an option. In the side that is advocating for

single-sex schools, the sheer number of schools that are single-sex are low, even if they have

grown “In 1995, there were just 3 single-gender public schools… by 2007 there were 86” (Noll,

2014,p. 281). Although single-sex schools are an option, there are not enough schools to support

everyone. The position that is for single-sex schooling talks a lot about the distractions of the

other sex being a huge issue, but the other side basically says that in a setting of separation, there

is gender discrimination in public schools. Although the side that favors single-sex schools states

there are distractions with both genders, the opposite side states that it “improved instruction and

discipline for boys and girls by merging their different abilities” (Noll, 2014, p. 284). Because it

is less schools to maintain, the advocacy for schools with both genders are more prevalent

because it can deal with social skills that the students will use outside the classroom, it is more

accessible to every student and does not have to go around the law and seem like discrimination.

I believe that because there is little empirical evidence saying single-sex schools are better,

mixed gender schools is the best way to educate the students for success.
 The people who side for the single-sex schools do bring up some good points regarding

distractions in the classroom, but according to the textbook, this data has “few high-quality

[studies] that use comparison groups, control for confounding variables, or use national

databases” (Noll, 2014,p.289). Because the basis that they try to prove is not backed up to any

valuable science, it cannot be that trusted as a source for education. Along with these “tests” that

the advocates for single-sex schools completed, others replicated it and found that there are no

conceivable differences in mathematic achievement from a school with one gender and one with

both. This leads to a potential problem in teaching students how to analyze information and

become critical thinkers, because there seems to be a bias in the educational system. The backing

of information and data saying that there is little to no difference from a coed school to a single-

sex school shows that any improvements that the single-sex schools have are small compared to

the selling points of the coed schools.

Although the institutions that plea for same sex schools say there are less distractions

without the other gender, there are social problems that arise with gender segregation. Although

Title IX is in place, some institutions can go around it and have single-sex classrooms, but it can

turn into a downside when the students need to learn social skills in order to survive. A lot of the

studies that support single-sex classrooms are only focusing on the achievement numbers but

finds that the differences are minimal. According to Wong, single-sex schools “provide

surprisingly little knowledge about the salience of gender, mixed-gender friendships or mixed-

gender anxiety” (Wong, 2018, p.1). The disregard of social interaction is not helping the student

achieve success later in life because they do not interact well in social interaction. Without

socialization with the other gender “was suggested to predispose individuals to experience

mixed-gender anxiety, which may lead to future avoidance of mixed-gender situations, thus
disrupting the process of social skills acquisition and relationship formation” (Wong, 2018, p.3).

The anxiety that comes with a single-sex school system would not be as prevalent in a coed

school system, because the students with mix-gendered peers interact through a longer period of

time, so they are more socially ready for the future, becoming more aware of others, whereas

being anxious like single-sex schools. If the genders mix in a coed school, students would be also

able to collect different people’s perspectives better than their single-sex peers through

discussion, which would lead to greater critical thinking skills. Using statistical analysis of high

school child in both coed and single-sex schools, Wong’s research found that “compared to

coeducational school students, single-sex school students reported higher levels of total mixed-

gender anxiety” (Wong, 2018, p.9). The use of resulting data depicts that students that are

unequipped with social skills do poorly in social interactions with the opposite gender. The

social aspect of growth in a student is very important, but it seems like the single-sex schools are

not really focusing on that in their research. The lack of this social aptitude can lead to a path

where students cannot interact with people and cannot relate to them on a personal level because

they never had different genders in the classroom. Social interaction is very important to

education, because it can spark discussion through learning others’ perspectives and create better

critical thinkers who take everybody’s perspective into account.

Another problem with the social aspect of this debate is the legality of it and how many

views it as segregation. According to Wong, “Gender segregation exists in all walks of life and

begins as early as toddlerhood. The most prevalent form of institutionalized gender segregation

currently is perhaps single-sex schooling” (Wong, 2018, p.1-2). The word segregation has

always had a bad connotation in society, because it is not inclusive of everyone, and in education

it is no different. The fact that there are separations seems trivial, because education in theory
should be equal no matter the student’s gender. The use of “gender segregation” can make the

genders seem unequal, and they might be getting unequal education in a single-sex school

system. If there was no sense of segregation based on gender, all students would have the same

ability to learn and maximize their learning and their social skills as development occurs. Along

with the segregation of gender, there is also the problem of teaching in a single-sex school of

income and teachers qualified for it.

According to Noll, the Single-sex Academy in California “was a reconstituted school that

was under extreme pressure to improve the low ranking on the Academic Performance Index…

no staff development related to single-sex education” (289). A problem with single-sex schools

are not only the fact that it is almost segregation, but also the fact that there is just not enough

training for teachers to teach only one gender. Also, with teacher shortages happening often,

getting the number of qualified teachers can become a problem in American education. Even

though the SSA is helping in a lower socioeconomical area, that is only one school out of many

deprived places of education, making it harder for districts to maintain multiple schools for

single-sex programs. There has been a long standing belief that boys and girls should be taught

separate, because they are different. According to Pahlke and Hyde, “These trainings are often

based on gender essentialist beliefs, that is, the belief that gender differences are innate, fixed,

and categorical” (Pahlke & Hyde, 2016, p.82). The mindset that believes that all students of the

same gender act and learn the same way is very confusing, because although they are

biologically different, it does not mean all boys are the same, or all girls learn the same as well.

Based on this gender essentialist belief, every student is a number rather than an individual that

may be different than its category. The article further claims that although there are biological

differences, they are too small to even matter in the educational setting. The use of
discrimination for the people who agree with single-sex schools say that “Coeducational

environments could serve as a situational cue to activate commonly held stereotypes” (Pahlke &

Hyde, 2016). Although this could be the case, these stereotypes can be unlearned in a coed

setting by teaching that everyone in the school is equal to each other, no matter the background,

this can be taught through diversity activities and multicultural activities, but shunning out half

of the potential student body is no way to teach diversity or take away social stigmas, rather may

actually make it worse.

This problem of single-sex schooling is not only contained in the United States, but in

other nations of the world as well. In India there was a questionnaire that researchers used 430

students from different universities to see if there was a significant change from single-sex

schooling to coed (Kaushik et al, 2012, p. 44). The researchers looked at influential factors that

students choose for single-sex education. According to the article, “it can be inferred that now

mostly students would like to study in coeducation environment in their future courses

comparison of single-sex education which helps to remove the gender stereotypes in the society”

(Kaushik et al. 2012). Given the choice of method of school, students would rather study with

both genders because it is more inclusive and can lead to more perspectives for students to learn

and become critical thinkers.

In my own teaching of music, there are choirs only for boys, or only for girls, but the

selection is limited, and the number of vocalists can be a struggling number to get up and get

funding for. In a band program, the numbers would be even lower, because as a social classroom,

a big portion of the students interested in music can be separated. Because music is a social

classroom, I believe that education would be best suited socially with both genders, which can

reduce stereotypes by unlearning them, and gain social skills that the students would need for the
rest of their lives. A lot of the argument for single-sex schooling is based on tradition that has not

really been researched empirically and when it shows differences, they are so small it does not

matter in the grand scheme of education. Education should be inclusive rather than exclusive.
 References

Kaushik, N., Garg, R., & Saxena, P. (2012). Factor Influencing Choice of Single Sex Education

and Coeducational Classes among Students. Globsyn Management Journal, 6(1/2), 41–

48. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=102024875&site=eho

st-live

Pahlke, E., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). The Debate Over Single-Sex Schooling. Child Development

Perspectives, 10(2), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12167

Noll, J. W. (2014). Taking sides (17th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wong, W. I., Shi, S. Y., & Chen, Z. (2018). Students from single-sex schools are more gender-

salient and more anxious in mixed-gender situations: Results from high school and

college samples. PLoS ONE, 13(12), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208707