SCP- CoEducational and Single Sex Schools

Editor's Notes

• #2: The debate between co educational schools and single sex schools is an old one. Before the 19th century, single-sex schooling was common. During the 19th century, more and more coeducational schools were set up. Some country's went so far as to ban single sex schools, highly extreme. By the end of the 20th century, coeducational schooling was the norm across the world. By 2003, only a few countries across the globe have greater than one or two percent single sex schools. But there are exceptions where the percent of single sex schools exceeds 10 percent: Belgium, Chile, England, Israel, New Zealand, Australia, Korea, and most Muslim nations. Recently, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in single sex schools across the globe, in both the public and private sectorI’ve found during this assignment it’s that people tend to become passionate when you bring up the debate, coeducational schools or single sex schools. Most are for one or another for various reasons, personal experiences and opinions. Some are for a combination of coeducational schools and single sex classes. Regardless of the situation or setting the question often comes down too;Is there one setting more beneficial to either sex or both?
• #3: Appearing in ‘Gender and Education publishing’ is Janna Jackson’s article “Dangerous presumptions: how single-sex schooling reifies false notions of sex, gender and sexuality”.It’s introduction sets it up for a grand article with it’s use of phrases like “gender is negotiated, constructed and preformed….assumptions of heteronotmativity….. {and} …. Negate the existence of multiple sexes, genders and sexual orientations.” Which while sounds engaging and intriguing, unfortunately don’t amount to all that much in the end.In the introduction we are provided with an account of the debate, current standings of single sex schools and the “unfounded assumption that humans come in two varieties – male and female..”Raising interesting and valid points of the way in which much research skips over the idea assuming that male and female are different rather then delving into these difference and observing if they are a result of biologically, socially or individually constructed or exist at all. Jackson backs up her argument well, bringing culture into the discussion and challenging the idea of “exceptions to the rules” rather questioning what rules and why. Have we formed and maintained gender restraints around ourselves and are there any differences at all!? Why distinguish and try to differentiate between male and female. Why the obsession with fitting everything into a box.Then after much discussion the article moves on to examine single-sex schooling in relation to intersex, transgender, and gender-bending students. Jackson makes the assumption that just because these students don’t fit into the binary construct of gender that they are rendered invisible by single sex schools, which makes me wonder why they are so visible in co-educational schools. Unfortunately an answer isn’t forthcoming.We then are bought to the relation between single sex schools and same-sex affection. Looking at how gendering students is in effect heterosexualising them at the same time. As well as raising the point that most single-sex school boost of less sexual tension and sexual distraction. Going on to say these “dangerous presumptions can blind teachers, researchers, and policy makers to the existence of gay and lesbian students.” Here however Jackson does admit that “ …co-educational schools can also be blind to queer students…”Jackson then goes on to explore the effect of single sex schools on learning. Raising the idea that if gender is just a construct, then do students really learn differently at all. Using the point, that society treats and raises the sex’s differently so it can’t be determine.Moving on to single sex schooling and interests, which raises the point that most articles avoid “…the impact of physical, social, cultural, and familial environments.” Exploring that a females so called nurturing nature was simple of adopting a survival strategy and not an inherit instinct. This, it is presented may impact negatively on the subjects on offer at single-sex schools, at they may assume stereotypical gender roles on students. Jackson then sites other research which suggests that male gender roles are more valued over female values. (Sax 2005)Then proceeding to conclude Jackson sited agreeing ideology in the concept that all “considerations for a valid, reliable, and useful comparative study simply do not exist…because the populations of single-sex schools are voluntary”.Going on to examine the issue of gender labeling and encouraging stereotypes. Jackson finishes with suggesting that “single sex public schools ….. Essentially letting co-educational public schools off the hook for doing the hard work (making schools places where people of all genders can achieve their highest potential)”I can’t even begin to summaries the work which Jackson puts into this article, exploring the assumptions which humanity places on itself, witch focusses on sex, sexuality and gender. Raising topics truly profound and interesting, requiring large volumes of investigation. And it’s truly thought raising, however bogged down with clear anti-single sex schooling ideology.
• #4: This article, written by University of Pennsylvania staff finally reaches past a major problem with much of the research presented on either front as students and parents choose a co-ed or single sex school, as such all perceptions are shifted, socio-economic differences between schools are present and other factors are also effected by this choice. This study however looks at schools in Seoul, South Korea. Where due to population density, students are randomly assigned a single-sex or coeducational high school, mixing social and economic backgrounds.This random assignment is the greatest pull to this article as unfortunately it only looks at attendance and college entrance exams, which the authors acknowledge is restrictive. Also pointed out by the authors is the large gap in gender equality present in South Korea, which would surely play interestingly into the females results and comparisons. Park, Behrman and Choi provide informative and thorough background and information on previous research and issues effecting this research.Reviewing College Entrance Exams, which are important tests but not for everyone also skews the outcome of this article slightly. The authors then provide a brief look into why single sex schools might be beneficial and in this we can see which side of the debate their views fall, which is still somewhat confusing.Launching into the discussion, we see some mention of the unobserved characteristics which usually effect results, such as family expectations, socio-economic background and social pressures. The randomness of school assignment is proven through the variety of socio-economic statues' and academic achievement. It goes on to summaries that with attendance and college entrance exams being considered, single sex schools outperformed their coeducational counterpart.Intriguingly and not something which I had considered before seeing it in this article was the fact that while students where random, teachers where not. Highlighting different teacher qualification needs and variation in assignment. Due to this the study explored the key chariristics of teacher performance being, students to teacher ratio, average teaching experience and average years of schooling. Which showed that if anything the single sex schools where disadvantaged, but hardly.Going on to discuss the possibility positive effect of gender matching between students and teachers.Concluding the articles “suggests that single sex schools may produce positive outcomes, not attributed to differences in [unobserved] charicteristics…”Continuing on to encourage more research into the casual effects of single sex schools on many other outcomes, such as; social interactions, family formation, risky behaviors, migration and health. The article raises some great points and has interesting ideas, however a bias towards single sex schools is evident.
• #5: Best, Pearson and Webb produced the article “Teachers’ perceptions of the effects of single-sex and coeducational classroom settings on the participation and performance of students in practical physical education” explore the debate regarding utilising single-sex or coeducational settings in Physical Education, from the teachers view point. Questioning 39 PDHPE teachers from a variety of single-sex and coeducational about students participation and performance in practical PE classes. They delve into the idea that many different factors influencing participation and performance where raised such as “ distractions, uneven skill levels, uneven strength levels, harassment, self-consciousness, embarrassment, competitiveness, peer pressure, gaining respect, intimidation”. The article did also highlight the according to the teachers questioned, presence of a decline of student participation in the presence of the opposite sex. Also observed was the need for females to prove themselves, with ability levels being high girls participation was also high as a result. I wonder rather if it’s not the combination of ability and participation rather than one following another?Best, Pearson and Webb conclude that students participation and performance was dependent on “contextual factors pertaining to the school and class, stage of students and activities being taught.”They present a well thought out and interesting article, which provides insight into teacher perceptions during this time and what may still be effecting students in current settings. While lacking depth to stand much on it’s own. I found it useful to at least highlight the difficulties facing teachers during practical PE lessons.
• #6: After 2 seconds;Barbara Watterston has written her doctoral on the research on the impact of single sex classes on teaching and learning. While I was unable to get my hands on her doctoral “The boys in schools bulletin” published a short piece where DrWatterston highlights her research. The article looks at the debate as a whole that the question here is who will benefit most from which setting.As prompt appears/change timings as needed;Questions raised while looking at “the issue” include “How can we unravel the ways in which gender may affect, and interact with, social and academic learning?” AND “What can we do in primary school to improve the learning environment and outcomes for all students in such a way that we address the issues of poor performance, disruptive and violent behavior and critical health issues that are evident in lower secondary youth?”The article then moves on to look at single sex and coed education’s relevance in approaching;gender issues, looking at the need for wholistic support to address gender issues rather then gender separation.the effect of a feminised curriculum, briefly skirting into the domination of female teachers in primary schools and male teachers in secondary, technical and tertiary. Touching on the idea that students values a set of morale and standards from their teachers rather then the gender of said teacher.preparation for the rapidly changing world, focusing wholly on the importance of literacy and communication and how girls are seen to achieve better in this area. Totally skipping ICT, despite the very clear technology boom.the abundance of difference emotional and social literacy types, here it’s assumed that boys are slower in developing social and emotional, areas of assistance are then provided which are ment to help male students develop in these “female areas”.We then move on to the evidence and research which is present on both sides of the debate, summarizing the apparent research and highlighting the claims made by both sides. As well as outcomes from the schools,The article then moves on to look at single sex classes within a coeducational context, how all learning types might benefit from a number of options and a collaboration between these two school types. Then delving deeper by focusing on single sex boys classes in co-ed schools and how this effects behavior and academic outcomes.DrWatterston Concludes by looking at the possibility of a structural precondition,Offering considerations for teachersFinally asking parents to ensure they are choosing schools based on the right reasonsAnd acknowledges that there is “no one best fit” and that “Ultimately, we need to empower our students to make choices based on social, intellectual and emotional integrity where relationships and learning can flourish.”DrWatterston provides a interesting look into the debate and by acknowledging that no one approach is best which is a great advancement from some articles. By offering the idea of a coeducational school with selected single sex classes, Watterston hopes to meet the learning needs of all students. A great goal and one which is presented in a captivating way, if too breif but I’m sure the doctorial covers each section in greater depths.
• #7: There is an abundance of research regarding single sex and coeducational schools. Along with the few present in this slide this debate has been running for so long that it’s had time to grow, form beyond the original argument and expand into a number of different areas.Before delving into the huge amounts of possible subjects, it’s best to ask what you want out of the articles and attempt to stick along a thesis question if you will, otherwise it’s quite easy to get lost.American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (AAUWEF). (1998). Separated by sex. Washington, DC: AAUWEF.Dale, R. R. ( 1969). Mixed or single-sex school? Volume 1: A research study about pupil-teacher relationships. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Dale, R. R. ( 1971). Mixed or single-sex school? Volume II: Some social aspects. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Dale, R. R. ( 1974). Mixed or single-sex school? Volume III: Attainment, attitudes and overview. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Dale, R. R., & Miller, P. M. ( 1972). The academic progress of university students from co-educational and single-sex schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 317– 319.Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (Eds.). (2002). Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling. New York: Routledge.Dee, T. S. (2006). How a teacher’s gender affects boys and girls. Education Next, 6(4), 69–75.Epstein, D., and R. Johnson. 1994. On the straight and narrow: The heterosexual presumption, homophobias, and schools. In Challenging lesbian and gay inequalities in education, ed. D. Epstein, 197–230. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Salomone, R. C. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• #8: In the practical scenes the research surrounding single sex and coeducational schools may effect the way in which we view the classes and how we approach these classes. Raising the predominant issue of do the sexes learning differently, but more importantly, how can we make our learning environments supportive and engaging to all students regardless of sex, gender or the undisclosed influencing factors. In regards to my teaching style and understanding, this has just reaffirmed my belief that there is no one size fits all in education. Students come into our classrooms with different experiences and histories regardless of gender. We have to accommodate and work with individuals, not wide encompassing generalisations. While research presented has made me more aware of gender stereotypes which I may hold and how these might negatively impact my students, it’s a fine line between being true to yourself and unknowingly placing your own prejudice onto students. Sometimes prejudices we didn’t even realise we possessed. I greatly enjoyed delving into this subject and found it thought provoking and interesting. The common downfall for most articles which I read was that they had a very obvious prejudice against one side of the debate. When I look at topics such as this I can’t help but just want the best for my students and maybe it’s because I’ve already accepted the fact that what worked for me, a single sex school which I loved, might not work for everyone. but each piece of literature is slightly muddled by this underlying favouritism, which is a bit of a shame as I then question the research which they have presented and the evidence provided.The final point I found interested during my research was the lack of PRO coeducational papers. There where many anit-single sex, pro single sex and a comparison. But a real lack of presentations which highlight the positives of coeducational schools without being bogged down in the debate. After discussing this with peers we concluded that this might be due to coeducational settings being seen as the ‘norm’ so not needed to, explain itself. It’s important to remember, things change.
• #9: Photos;“Synge Street Boys” National Library of Ireland NLI Ref.: Ke 308 This photo was taken some time in 1941 in Dublin, Dublin, IE. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/7089812507/“School Children in Keene New Hampshire” Whitehouse, Bion, Keene NH.hsykwh121 (5-15). Keene Public Library and the Historical Society of Cheshire County http://www.flickr.com/photos/keenepubliclibrary/5448179033/Articles In order of appearance;“‘Dangerous presumptions’:How single-sex schooling reifies false notions of sex, gender and sexuality”J. Jackson,2009,University of Massachusetts Boston.“Causal Effects of Single-Sex Schools on College Entrance Exams and College Attendance: Random Assignment in Seoul High Schools” H. Park, J. Behrman, J. Choi, 2012,University of Pennsylvania“Teachers' perceptions of the effects of single-sex and coeducational classroom settings on the participation and performance of students in practical physical education” S. Best, P. Pearson, P. Webb. 2010.University of Wollongong“Single Sex Classes Within Co-educational Context” B. Watterston. 2001.Fremantle Education Centre