Single Sex Education is Better than Co-Education
Debate Rounds (5)
Hello all! My name is Jack and we will be debating educational methods.
Single-Sex Education is better than Co-Education
"single-sex" education-Schools where all students are of one gender.
"co-education"-Schools with both genders
"better than"-Benefits outweigh detriments
Construct(1) Students at single-sex schools perform better than those at co-ed schools.
(2) Males and females have different learning styles which must be treated differently.
(3) Single-sex education can promote gender equality.
(4) Students still have a life outside of class.
If you accept, post all of your points with no expansions as your round 1 argument. We are not allowed to raise any new points after round 1. Refutations and point expansions will begin in round two.
I hope you accept!
I would like to thank my opponent for starting such an interesting debate.
Here are my points in favor of co-education-
(1)Students at co-education schools learn to interact better with the people of opposite gender.
(2)Co-education provides a platform for students of one gender to compete with those of the other gender.
(3)Co-education helps in exchange of views and opinions between the students of opposite genders.
(4)The level of understanding and learning by students depends upon efficiency of teacher and not on specialized methods.
(5)Education doesn't mean only academic performance. Involvement of both boys and girls is necessary in many other activities of school life.
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and posting their construct so punctually. Here are my expansions:
Please post your expansions and refute my points! I look forward to this debate.
Thanks to my opponent for describing the points in such a lucid way.
Here are the expansions of my points:
(1)Students at co-education schools learn to interact better with the people of opposite gender:
Students at co-ed schools meet a variety of people of opposite gender. It is definitely true that children meet many people of opposite gender outside school also. But to understand a gender better one must interact with a variety of people of that gender. Not all students are involved in extracurricular activities. Understanding siblings often backfires in understanding other people of that gender because young children think that all the people of that gender must be like their siblings.
Here are some statements made by students studying in single-sex schools about their understanding of the opposite gender:
"Boys were exotic creatures for us. We only met them inside the pages of books. In college, where they appeared in human form, we had no idea what to say to them." 
(2)Co-education provides a platform for students of one gender to compete with those of the other gender:
Competition is very essential in honing the skills of a child. Children must compete with the students of the opposite gender to realize where they stand. In some subjects, boys perform better than girls whereas in some other,it's the other way round. If children do not realize this at school level, they will face trouble and lag behind in competitive examinations.
(3)Co-education helps in exchange of views and opinions between the students of opposite genders:
It is evident that boys and girls see things with different perspectives. The views of boys about literature and poems can not be the same as girls' and girls' views about subjects like mathematics or physics can not be like boys'. Therefore, presence of both boys and girls in class will make the class more interactive and help in exchange of views among the students of opposite gender.
(4)The level of understanding and learning by students depends upon efficiency of teacher and not on specialized methods:
In some cases it is observed that students at single sex schools perform better than those at co-ed schools. But many other researches have also shown that students at co-ed schools perform better.
"Being with more girls is good for everybody," said Prof. Analia Schlosser, an economist from the Eitan Berglas School of Economics at Tel Aviv University. "We find that both boys and girls do better when there are more girls in the class," she added.
The study found that boys with more female peers in their classes showed higher enrollment rates in both advanced math and science classes, but overall benefits were found in all grades for both sexes. 
Therefore, no sole conclusion can be deduced from the researches conducted by various organizations. I would like to add that the academic performance of the students depends upon the way teachers teach in the class and the amount of effort they put to make the class interactive and interesting.
(5)Education doesn't mean only academic performance. Involvement of both boys and girls is necessary in many other activities of school life:
I believe all will agree that education does not mean only academics. A student, in his/her school life participates in many other extracurricular activities which require participation of students of both the genders. Imagine a school football team without cheerleaders and a prom night with only boys or girls. These things may not seem necessary but are definitely a very important part of a student's school life.
Single sex education may improve discipline or improve academic performance, but it makes a student's school life dull as they lack the companionship of the people of the other gender.
(1) Students at single-sex schools perform better than those at co-ed schools:
As i have already stated, few researches can not deduce a sole conclusion about the performance of students in single sex or co-ed schools. Many other researches have also shown that students perform and behave better due to the presence of students of other gender in a class.
(2) Males and females have different learning styles which must be treated differently:
I believe there is no harm in allowing students to choose subjects which they find interesting. We can not force boys to love painting or girls to love computers. It is a thing which they have to decide on their own. In fact, presence of students of both the genders in a class allows them to share their interests, opinions and views about a thing which is not possible in single-sex schools.
(3)Single-sex education promotes gender equality:
I don't think gender inequality in the professions you mentioned is due to girls not being interested in them. There are many girls who find such professions interesting and choose professions also. But, it is due to the chauvinism of men and our patriarchal society that the women are unable to prove their worth in such professions.
In fact, i believe allowing girls to compete with boys and score better than them will make them more confident and provide them motivation to choose professions which are dominated by men.
(4) Students have a life outside of class:
I agree with your point that some students at single-sex schools have life outside the classroom and are good at interacting with people of the other gender. But, it is not the case with everyone. Many girls and boys at single-sex schools face problems in interacting with people of the other gender confidently. Moreover, siblings do not help in making someone good at interacting with the people of opposite sex as they can not make students understand the whole gender completely. To understand the other gender completely one needs to interact with many persons and experience companionship of various people having different personality traits.
Thank you for posting punctually and clearly!
I will begin my counter refuting his refutations.
1. Many other studies show performance due to presence of other students.
The study cited no exam results and I am sure they are not as drastic as that which we can see in the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, where boys received a 49% up in their grades without girls.
2. We can not force boys to love painting or girls to love computers.
Of course we can't, but single-sex schools teach students that gender differences are in the mind, and that they can explore any subject previously deemed "boyish" or "girly" without fear of being judged.
3. I believe that girls not choosing professions is due to the chauvinism of men.
First of all, their entire refutation is an opinion with no evidence. Second of all, to entertain my opponent's belief, the chauvinism of men is perpetuated in co education schools! Just the fact that girls are cheerleaders and boys are football players extends the stereotype that somehow boys are more powerful and strong than girls, and that a girl's only purpose is to stand on the sideline and "cheer for the people that actually do the work". We cannot be teaching girls that certain things are off bounds because they are dominated by men.
4. To understand the gender completely one needs to interact with many persons and experience companionship of various people having different personality traits.
School is not the only method of learning people's opinions. My opponent is correct, there are many people with many different values and opinions. What he has not stated is why you can't learn these opinions outside of class. Arguably, students meet more people outside of class then they do inside.
1. Students at co-education schools learn to interact better with the people of opposite gender.
Children will gain sufficient exposure to other genders in their adult life. At school, they need to be around who they feel comfortable with. As to your quote, it seems that the writer of the article adapted well in to the real world and is experiencing no problems now that she is out of college.
2. Co-education provides a platform for students of one gender to compete with those of the other gender.
Children shouldn't be taught that "they are worse than boys" in some subjects. This just perpetuates bad stereotypes. Kids don't need competitiveness with the other gender to thrive.
3. Co-education helps in exchange of views and opinions between the students of opposite genders.
I agree that boys and girls have similar opinions, but teacher's give students the valid opinions they need. Teachers can easily show kids two perspectives and let them learn from the experience.
4. The level of understanding and learning by students depends upon efficiency of teacher and not specialized methods.
This is false. Not only do children need good teachers to thrive and learn, the efficiency of teachers are very reliant on specialized methods. Teachers know what is best for each student and how to teach them. Teachers are incredibly influential to a student's learning (haven't you ever had a good teacher or a bad one?), and giving them specialized methods improves a student's academic life greatly.
5. Education doesn't mean only academic performance. Involvement of both boys and girls is necessary in many other activities of life.
My opponent says "Imagine a school football team without cheerleaders and a prom night with only boys and girls." First of all, single sex schools provide inter school events. Most schools belong to inter school groups where they can interact with other schools for things like prom night. It would be painstaking to mention every single inter school league, and false to say that every single school belongs to one, but I can safely say that many schools do. These schools compete together, have events together, do community service together, etc. Also, do we really need cheerleaders at a football game? Sure, they motivated the players a bit, but cheerleaders perpetuate gender stereotypes. Having girl cheerleaders teaches children that girls should stand on the sidelines while the men do the work.
Thanks to my opponent for countering my points so lucidly and clearly.
Here are my counter refutations:
1. Children will gain sufficient exposure to other genders in their adult life:
I agree with my opponent's point that children will get many more opportunities in their lives to learn to interact with the people of other gender, but now-a-days it is very necessary to learn that at a very early stage. Students need ot interact confidently with the people of other gender, at a very early age, to get a good job or work at a place where both men and women work.
2.Children shouldn't be taught that "they are worse than boys" in some subjects.
My point was not that children should be told that they are worse than boys, but they must realise that there are some students who are better than them at some subjects and they need to improbe themselves to survive in the competition. Just escaping the fact will not yeild any good result.
3.Teachers can easily show kids two perspectives and let them learn from the experience:
I dont understand how a teacher can teach the students perspectives of the two genders. What I meant in my point was, if boys and girls are allowed to learn the same subject in the same class room, they will give different opinions about the same subjects and generate some new ideas. The class will become interactive and the students will also see the subject with different perspectives. No teacher can provide students what they would have gotten by interacting and discussing with one another.
4.The efficiency of teachers are very reliant on specialized methods:
It may be true in some cases. But, it can't be said that all girls will be benefited by learning the way girls should read. We can not say that only teaching boys and girls separately is enough to focus on their needs. Every student has different learning style and capability irrespective of his/her gender. People may say that students of different races,religions or ethnicity should be taught separately as they also have different learning abilities. This doesn't end anywhere. Every child has differennt needs and it is impossible to focus on every child's needs individually.
5.Having girl cheerleaders teaches children that girls should stand on the sidelines while the men do the work.
I don't agree with this point. Cheerleading is a very popular sport and many girls are interested in cheerleading. As a school student, i can say that these things may not be necessary, but they definitely make school life interesting. Interaction with students of other gender is very essential to get out of boredome and dull school life. Academic results are not everything. Everyone feels good while hanging around with a friend circle which has both boys and girls. In fact, making students study in single-sex schools will make them think that boys and girls are different and they should not be friends.
I would like to counter some of the counter-refutations made by my opponent:
1.Single-sex schools teach students that gender differences are in the mind, and that they can explore any subject previously deemed "boyish" or "girly" without fear of being judged:
Will making boys and girls study at different schools make them think that no subject is boyish or girly? Students, today, live in a world which has no restriction on knowledge. They interact with people and learn things over internet. Moreover, if only boys/girls study in a school, then also boyish and girly tag on subjects will exist.
2. the chauvinism of men is perpetuated in co education schools:
First of all, they are just young children. In a school where both boys and girls study, girls learn to compete with boys and prove themselves as better students. And i dont believe that any cheerleader feels herself as inferior to men or that her duty is just to cheer for men. It is fun. Girls enjoy cheerleading and they should be encouraged to do so. I dont think it creates any kind of opinion in the young students' minds.
3. We cannot be teaching girls that certain things are off bounds because they are dominated by men.
As i know, even girls are allowed to play different sports. The point that just allowing them to cheer for boys makes them think that they can not play sports is frivolous. Girls are not forced to cheer for boys, they choose to do so themselves. They cheer for their school team, not boys in particular. All the schools have boys as well as girls sports teams.
Thanks againt to my opponent. I would like to counter his counter refutations and then re-inforce my own points once more. Please do not counter counter counter refute. It gets a bit silly then ;). Fifth round will be short, concluding words with key refutations and summing up the argument.
1. Students need [to] interact with the people of other gender, but now-a-days it is very necessary to learn that at a very early stage.
First of all, my opponent did not provide a source so we can count this as speculative. Second of all, I harken back to your quote of the woman who felt out of place briefly at college. There is no, I repeat no evidence that single-sex schools have done damage to people after their first awkward period of college. I'm sure this woman lives a healthy life interacting with students of both genders.
2. My point was not that children should be told that they are worse than boys, but they must realise that there are some students who are better than them at some subjects and they need to [improve] themselves to survive in the competition.
This very indirectly counter refutes my refutation. It is pretty irrelevant. What I am saying is, by having a football team that only boys join, and a cheerleading team that only girls join, we are perpetuating gender stereotypes. Computer classes that are not required are mostly boys, and home ed classes are mostly girls. Using single-sex schools, we can teach students that it doesn't matter if computer is a "boy" subject. They can do this class free of ridicule.
3. No teacher can provide students what they would have gotten by interacting and discussing with one another.
There is no source cited to this, so we can assume it is just an opinion. According to the NASSPE (National Association of Single-Sex Public Education), single-sex teachers are very trained in targeting gender nuances and expressing ideas to students of all one gender.
4. Every student has a different learning style and capability irrespective of his/her gender.
There are many ways each gender differs. Go to a seven year old boy and a seven year old girl and ask this question: "How long can you stand still and be quiet" and you will find very different answers. They are built into our brains. Teachers that teach at single sex schools are very trained in teaching to these different genders. Why do you think they segregate schools in to different grades? Second grade is for seven year olds and fourth grade is for nine year olds, because there are significant differences in the way that they learn, and what they have learned so far. It is the same for girls and boys. Girls respond to calmness in a teacher and sounds, while boys respond to visual cues and funny and loud teachers. A girl might be intimidated by a singlesex boys teacher and a boy might be bored by a single-sex girls teacher. Source is the NASSPE
5. Cheerleading is a very popular sport and many girls are interested in cheerleading.
This is because girls can't play on the football team and boys can't cheerlead. From a young age at co-ed schools we are taught that football is for boys and cheerleading is for girls. Girls don't cheerlead because it is fun. I mean, they do, but the underlying reason is that they are taught that they don't play football.
1. Students and single-sex schools perform better than those at co-ed schools.
Especially with the amount of flunking students at high schools nowadays, we cannot leave any stone unturned. Any method thatcan up grades significantly needs to be implemented.
2. Males and females have different learning styles which must be treated differently.
By treating aforementioned differences we can raise learning efficiency.
3. Single-sex education promotes gender equality.
I find myself coming back to the football cheerleading example again and again. We can teachs students that they can be whoever they want to be without fear of being judged, or without being told that "they can't join the football team".
4. Students have a life outside of class.
Single-sex students are not locked inside their school. Along with extra-cirricular events, inter school events occur and let students interact.
Your move. Vote con.
subham.sibasish forfeited this round.
Thank you so much for such a lively debate! Too bad you missed the last round, though. It's been a pleasure.
Things to remember when you vote:
1. With the state of out national school system now, we can leave no stone unturned and there is completely conclusive evidence that my opponent has failed to refute that shows how grades are improved in single-sex schools.
2. Single-sex schools teach students that they can try new subjects without being judged because those subjects are "boyish" or "girly"
3. Girls and boys learn differently. It is in the brain! They must be treated differently for maximum learning efficiency.
4. Single sex students can still interact with people outside of class
5. My opponent had no sources for his refutations and counter refutations.
Vote for single-sex schools and vote for teaching our students better!
subham.sibasish forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.