Every so often the argument resurfaces, yet it seems as though nothing is ever proven, nothing is ever dismissed, and everything is subject to great grains of salt.
The issue of single-sex education has recently been brought to the forefront of educational theory once again in the
New York Times Magazine. The intential separation of students based on gender revolves around two philosophies:
1. Boys and girls are fundamentally different (meaning they also learn differently)
-and/or-
2. Boys and girls have different social needs and experiences
While there is little evidence to support either side in the single-vs-coeducational debate, it is important to ponder sensitive questions realistically:
1. Does the separation of students based on learning styles/abilites short change students and teachers in the long run? Are we able to effectively prepare students for the interactions they will have as adults?
2. What is the responsibility of the teacher in differentiating lessons for his/her students? What are we not doing to meet the needs of ALL of our students? What expectations does society have and are they realistic?
While the nation is still waiting for definitive information on this topic, there are still strong arguments and opinions for each side. If we can separate girls from boys to empower them in life long success, shouldn't we? But if we need to separate girls to empower them, what message does that send to both the boys and the girls? Are single-sex classrooms the way to negate the hidden sexist curriculum of "regular" schools?
The arguments are obviously cyclical and based largely on the experiences of students, parents, and teachers in single-sex vs. co-educational settings and herald the single sex movement as either progressive or regressive. There doesn't seem to be a clear answer, regardles if you look in the article, to research, or to peers. The argument also hinges on the very fundamental and somewhat personal belief about the purpose of schools: academics, social mobility, citizenship education, and/or educating workers to fill their role in society.
Richard Kahlenberg writes:
Given the myriad ways in which our schools are failing, it may be hard to remember that public schools were intended not only to instruct children in reading and math but also to teach them commonality, tolerance and what it means to be American. “When you segregate, by any means, you lose some of that,” says Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation. “Even if one could prove that sending a kid off to his or her own school based on religion or race or ethnicity or gender did a little bit better job of raising the academic skills for workers in the economy, there’s also the issue of trying to create tolerant citizens in a democracy.”