Same-Sex Schools Education System: Gender Bias and Stereotyping - Article Example

Name: Subject & Code: Tutor: Date: Should the Government Fund Same-Sex Public Schools? Introduction Same-sex school, or single-gender school, refers to school programs where the female and male students attend separate schools. The practice was common in the 19th century, specifically in secondary schools. While the single-education is encouraged in many cultures, based on the traditions and religions, it is uncommon in the United States. A history of same-sex school in the United States goes back to the Title IX amendments of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed in 1972. This came after many feminists advocated for the gender equality. The aim was to ban all forms of sex discrimination in US educational programs (Williams 557-564). However, the major trigger for more public debates on having single-sex schools appears to have been after the reforms were made to the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in 2006. Initially, Title IX permitted separation of female and male students in schools. The new regulations permit the non-vocational public schools to still receive funding if they offer same-sex schools. However, to initiate these programs, they need to have educational and governmental objectives. Indeed, since the new regulations were enacted, the numbers of public schools that offer same-sex programs have been steady, as the new rules are relatively flexible (Williams 557-564). This has been mainly due to the rarity of single-sex elementary, middle and secondary public schools despite change in legislations. This paper promotes the idea that funding of the public schools will put the government at centre-stage in promoting single-sex schools. Indeed, a recent surge of interest in same-sex schools by the public has fuelled extensive debate on whether the government should fund public same-sex schools. Indeed, this forms the lynchpin of this essay. Hence the question should the government fund same-sex public schools? Same-sex schools do not lead to equity of educational opportunity Funding single-sex schools with the aim of promoting academic achievements among the female pupils has largely been in response to the realization that accessing educational experience through mixed-sex schools does not necessarily lead to equity of educational opportunity. Indeed, some studies have provided evidence that support this argument. An early research by Myra and Sadker (2-3) found that boys and girls receive different educational experiences, whether they learn separately or not. Indeed, analysis of the history of same-sex schools shows they were established to exempt girls from particular activities of occupation, based on gender stereotypes of what was considered appropriate or inappropriate for the girls (Salomone 971-974). Mixed-sex schools promote inequality. Over the past five decades, single-sex schools were considered to be an ideal educative aspect of K-12 learning environment. In the early 1970s, boys and girls were separated for some classes routinely. The rationale for this varied. An underlying argument is that they made it easy to prepare boys and girls for the contrasting roles they were bound to assume as adults. This shows the objective of the same-sex schooling was not to promote equity (Williams (557-564). Same-sex schools do not produce positive learning outcomes in students The view that same-sex schools produce positive academic results has been disputed severally with many opponents arguing that it actually does not produce positive outcomes in students (AEI 1). Rather, it is motivation from the teachers and the resources available. Additionally, there is no quality research to support the idea that same-sex schools do promote positive academic results rather than other factors, such as motivation from teachers and the resources available at the school to support the assumption. By having same-sex schools, the students become less prepared to face the real work, where they would have to integrate with members of the opposite gender. Mixed-sex schools collapse sexist attitudes through frequent male-female interaction (Halpern, 1706-1707). Encourage gender prejudice and stereotyping Same-sex schools promote gender prejudice and stereotyping, both of which have negative impacts in promoting social integration in the society. Indeed, since the male and female students have to assume different roles in the society in their adulthood, accommodating such prejudices and biases against the other sex can hinder their abilities to socialize constructively. It is therefore crucial that the girls and boys learn to work together with a school setting as its readies them for healthy adulthood (AEI 1). On the other hand, the issue of same-sex schools has been a bone of public contention. Proponents of this type of education system argue that it is indeed appropriate as it helps in promoting positive student outcomes in graduation rates, test scores and student behaviors. This justifies why the government should fund the public schools. Prevents gender bias and stereotyping On another account, gender bias and stereotyping is a critical factor to be considered in mixed-sex schools. Salomone (975-1001) pointed out that in same-sex school situations, girls tend to be given less attention compared to boys. They also access fewer opportunities for problem-solving and learning. Similarly, girls tend to feel restrained in some mixed-sex classes, hence may become less motivated to take part in school activities. In turn, they are more likely to perform poorly, especially in science, math and computer-related subjects. Promotes positive learning outcomes Proponents of same-sex schools believe that some persistent gender differences exist on the learning behaviors of boys and girls in addition to how they behave within the school, and that these differences should form the basis of separating them. According to Salomone (975-1001) the brains of the male and female students develop differently. Separating them based on gender enables the educators to meet the student needs based on the uniqueness of their development. Additionally, by separating them, the students are protected from unwelcome distractions caused by activities of the other gender type, within the classroom. This therefore enables the students to pay more attention to school work than peer activities (Pollard 1). These perspectives have been supported by some scientific studies. According to a research that was funded by the US Department of Education (85-89) in 2005, there is evidence suggesting that same-sex schooling can be beneficial to ensuring positive learning outcomes for the students of both genders, as well as positive academic aspirations. According to the study, students are three to four times more likely to attain higher academic progress from same-sex schools compared to mixed-sex schools. The same study also found that there is minimal evidence that supports the perspective that same-sex schooling may be harmful (Pollard). Similarly, the US government funded another study in 2008 to list the benefits of same-sex schools and found several benefits including decreased distraction during learning, reduced behavioral problems in students, sense of community in students and the staff, boosted student self-esteem, decreased sex bias and improved student achievement (Riordan et al. 25-37). Higher levels of academic aspirations Same-sex schools also promote higher levels of academic achievement compared to the mixed-sex schools. This is since female students have more opportunity to concentrate on attaining academic goals rather than engaging in activities to compete against the other gender. This argument is supported by recent academic researches by University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), which established that the female students who graduate from same-sex schools are likely to exhibit higher academic orientation compared to their male counterparts in a number of areas, including academic engagement and confidence in computers skills, sciences and math (HERI 1). To this end, funding same-sex schools to promote their existence can be helpful in helping reduce the gender gap between the male and female students. Therefore, these researches on same-sex schools can be viewed as proof that single-sex education programs help struggling students, something that the government should not overlook in its decision to fund them. Cultural Socialization The need to fund public schools is also stemmed on the wider attempt by educational institutions to promote culturally-centered educational models. Within this perspective, same-sex schools have been seen to center more on formal and informal socialization of boys and girls. This perspective can be better understood based on the African-centered educational models intended for public schools in the United States (Salomone 975-1001). The rationale for starting African-centered education is since schools that deliver education to the African-American students need to be linked with the communities where they draw their students to build on the cultural activities of the communities. This shows that the schools should not be restricted to academic focus. Instead, they should also consider the roles that the students are likely to play once they grow into adulthood. At this rate, it should also be argued that the students are expected to apply the knowledge, both formal and informal, they have learned in schools to promote and empower community. A means through which this has been promoted in the African-American communities is via same-sex schools. Religious integration Unlike in the United States, studies in Europe have centered majorly on whether the state is legally obligated to fund the same-sex school programs in independent religiously-affiliated schools. In Spain for instance, Salomone (1021-1022) argued that the single-sex educational programs appear to spin around Catholic schools that select to maintain their autonomy from state regulations. The Muslim population’s worldview has also provided a similar different perspective, where the need to fund the same-sex schools is based on religious perspectives of promoting purity among the male and female students. In view of these conflicting ideals, the issue has been thorny in the French schools, where over 6 million Muslims exist. For instance, while France has been reluctant to fund single-sex schools, the Muslim female students have faced reduced motivation to learn. For instance, the decision by Muslim female students to wear hijab has been met by resistance. Several milder cases have also been noted in the United States (Salomone 1021-1022). It is therefore critical to argue that promoting same-sex schools will enable the female students practice their religious ideals without restraint. . Positive Social behaviors Same-sex schools are a means for offering improved school behavior and participation. Indeed, it can be argued that students who study in mixed-sex schools are more exposed to more antisocial behaviors that characterize a specific gender. Pollard (1) used this perspective by citing Bushweller (20-25) who based his study on the premise that boys tend to engage more in antisocial practices when mixed with the girls, than the girls when mixed with boys, and proposed that a likely intervention would be separating the males in their own school or class. Pollard (1) also cited Evans (52-53), who surveyed the impacts of particular projects that used same-sex groups and reported improved enthusiasm and positive behavioral conducts for both sexes. Therefore, based on these empirical studies, same-sex schools appear to have more potential to promote positive social behaviors among the female and male students particularly during their teenage years. Conclusion To conclude, the government should fund same-sex public schools. To a greater extent, it is beneficial as it promotes positive student outcomes in graduation rates, test scores and student behaviors. This is backed by studies done over the last two decades. These researches on same-sex schools can be viewed as proof that single-sex education programs help struggling students, something that the government should not overlook in its decision to fund them. The issue of same-sex schools has been a bone of public contention. Proponents of this type of education system argue that it is indeed appropriate as it helps in promoting greater positive student outcomes. For instance, by funding same-sex public schools, the government will prevent gender bias and stereotyping. The government will also be able to promote positive learning outcomes for both genders, in addition to gender equity. Higher levels of academic aspirations can also be achieved, particularly to the female student. Through same-sex public schools, the government will also promote cultural socialization, religious integration and positive social behaviors in students. To this end, funding same-sex schools to promote their existence can be helpful in helping reduce the gender gap between the male and female students. Works Cited AEI. "Should single-sex schooling be eliminated?" 28 Aug 2013. 4 Aug 2014, Bushweller, K. "Turning Our Backs on Boys," American School Board Journal 181. 5 (1994): 20-25. Evans, M. D. "A Single Gender Learning Strategy." Principal 73.1 (1993): 52-53. Halpern, Diane F. et al. “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling.” Science 333.6050 (2011):1706 -1707. HERI. "Graduates of all-girls high schools show stronger academic orientations than coed graduates," 2014. 4 Aug 2014, Myra and David Sadker. Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1994) and The AAUW Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls, researched by the Susan Bailey et al., Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. AAUW Educational Foundation: Washington, D.C.,1992. 4 Aug 2014, < http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/how-schools-shortchange-girls-executive-summary.pdf> Pollard, Diane. "Single-Sex Education." Digest, 1999. 4 Aug 2014, Riordan, C., Faddis, B., Beam, M, Seager, A., Tanney, A., DiBiase R., Ruffin M., Valentine, J. “Early Implementation of Public Single-Sex Schools: Perceptions and Characteristics.” U.S. Department of Education: Washington D.C, 2008 Salomone, Rosemary." Rights and Wrongs in the Debate Over SIngle-Sex Schooling." Boston University Law Review 93.971 (2013): 971-1024  U.S. Department of Education. “Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review.” Department of Education:Washington, DC, 2005. Williams, Juliet. "Learning Differences: Sex-Role Stereotyping In Single-Sex Public Education." Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 33.1 (2010): 556-579 Read More

Same-sex schools do not produce positive learning outcomes in students The view that same-sex schools produce positive academic results has been disputed severally with many opponents arguing that it actually does not produce positive outcomes in students (AEI 1). Rather, it is motivation from the teachers and the resources available. Additionally, there is no quality research to support the idea that same-sex schools do promote positive academic results rather than other factors, such as motivation from teachers and the resources available at the school to support the assumption.

By having same-sex schools, the students become less prepared to face the real work, where they would have to integrate with members of the opposite gender. Mixed-sex schools collapse sexist attitudes through frequent male-female interaction (Halpern, 1706-1707). Encourage gender prejudice and stereotyping Same-sex schools promote gender prejudice and stereotyping, both of which have negative impacts in promoting social integration in the society. Indeed, since the male and female students have to assume different roles in the society in their adulthood, accommodating such prejudices and biases against the other sex can hinder their abilities to socialize constructively.

It is therefore crucial that the girls and boys learn to work together with a school setting as its readies them for healthy adulthood (AEI 1). On the other hand, the issue of same-sex schools has been a bone of public contention. Proponents of this type of education system argue that it is indeed appropriate as it helps in promoting positive student outcomes in graduation rates, test scores and student behaviors. This justifies why the government should fund the public schools. Prevents gender bias and stereotyping On another account, gender bias and stereotyping is a critical factor to be considered in mixed-sex schools.

Salomone (975-1001) pointed out that in same-sex school situations, girls tend to be given less attention compared to boys. They also access fewer opportunities for problem-solving and learning. Similarly, girls tend to feel restrained in some mixed-sex classes, hence may become less motivated to take part in school activities. In turn, they are more likely to perform poorly, especially in science, math and computer-related subjects. Promotes positive learning outcomes Proponents of same-sex schools believe that some persistent gender differences exist on the learning behaviors of boys and girls in addition to how they behave within the school, and that these differences should form the basis of separating them.

According to Salomone (975-1001) the brains of the male and female students develop differently. Separating them based on gender enables the educators to meet the student needs based on the uniqueness of their development. Additionally, by separating them, the students are protected from unwelcome distractions caused by activities of the other gender type, within the classroom. This therefore enables the students to pay more attention to school work than peer activities (Pollard 1). These perspectives have been supported by some scientific studies.

According to a research that was funded by the US Department of Education (85-89) in 2005, there is evidence suggesting that same-sex schooling can be beneficial to ensuring positive learning outcomes for the students of both genders, as well as positive academic aspirations. According to the study, students are three to four times more likely to attain higher academic progress from same-sex schools compared to mixed-sex schools. The same study also found that there is minimal evidence that supports the perspective that same-sex schooling may be harmful (Pollard).

Similarly, the US government funded another study in 2008 to list the benefits of same-sex schools and found several benefits including decreased distraction during learning, reduced behavioral problems in students, sense of community in students and the staff, boosted student self-esteem, decreased sex bias and improved student achievement (Riordan et al. 25-37).

Read More