The Instigator
MassRebut
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dragonrule029
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Single Sex Schools Are Better for Education.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 62665
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

MassRebut

Pro

This is the first round and is for acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1
MassRebut

Pro

Thanks you Dragonrule029 for accepting.

This side believes that single sex schools are better for education and the overall experience of a student throughout school. Single-sex schools are schools that only admit those of one specific gender. Go to any parent, including your own and ask them, what is it that they want for their child when he or she grows up. Most parents will say that they want to raise successful and good and learned human beings. The one place other than home which helps you become a better human is your school, college or university. Children go to school for one reason and that is to learn stuff. Not to win, not to lose, not to make friends but to learn which should also be the government's main objective for their youth because they will be the ones leading and making decisions for the country later on in life.
My first line of argument is about attention and different of mindsets with the other gender present in the school.
Just like physics, opposite sides attract each other, the same is the case for human beings. The presence of both genders are counter productive to what the students want to become later in life. Single sex schools are more conducive to learning. Boys and girls are an unwelcome distraction to each other and sometimes at schools both genders pit against each other and boys and girls have the wrong incentive for success.
Both genders attract each other and do not think clearly and every action of the student is because he wants to impress or show off to someone he likes in the school. With wrong motives, the students will be going down the wrong path and ultimately and inevitably the wrong destination which if every student follows, will destroy your nations youth and education sector. Boys and girls distract each other as their emotional and sexual sides develop. Both genders do not compete for what they want or what believe but they rather defend what guys or girls think of them. Girls define themselves by their interests, they define themselves by what the boys think of them or what other girls think boys think of them. So, basically their judgement, self thinking skills and beliefs are blockaded because of something the other gender believes and so this side firmly believes co-educational schools will lead to the development of a backward society which is very harmful if a country wants to stay in the race with other progressive and developing nations. And another issue which does not make co-ed schools a suitable place for learning is that teachers often favor their own gender in schools and it is a true fact as some of you may have experienced.
With their gender present, teachers feel like a vital part of the class and a welcome member who has the same interests at heart and in their minds. Teachers teaching the opposite gender usually are bitter and are often both teachers and students of opposite genders do not understand and learn from each other but there are exceptions. Our job is to provide the best learning environment for our children and to make them better and learned and more sensible people as they grow up
Dragonrule029

Con

You are welcome MassRebut

"Go to any parent, including your own and ask them, what is it that they want for their child when he or she grows up. Most parents will say that they want to raise successful and good and learned human beings."
This statement assumes single-sex schools are the best choice for education. Also, this statement concludes that only single-sex schools will "raise successful and good and learned human beings." The idea of a single-sex school does not prepare one for the real work world. There is no "one job" that only accepts males or one job that only accepts females. Single-sex schools will not help the student learn to deal with the other gender and/or develop healthy relationships with the opposite sex. And this could make them ill prepared for going into the working adult world. Making therefore this statement has not enough information to back this up.

"Just like physics, opposite sides attract each other, the same is the case for human beings."
This statement was very true, but no longer in our changing society. This statement assumes that all females are attracted males and all males are attracted to females. A still-new concept is the appearance of homosexuals. If the homosexuals were to be placed in an environment with the only those of their gender, it would be the same level of distraction(s) as it would be with those who are heterosexual. This would therefore leave the distraction of attraction inevitable no matter where the students attend school.

"Both genders attract each other and do not think clearly and every action of the student is because he wants to impress or show off to someone he likes in the school."
Correction: He and/or she. We are not only talking about single-sex male schools but single-sex female schools as well.
On this argument, not all action done by the students is done to "show-off". There could be multiple reasons why a student raises their hand or wishes to "take a whack at it". Interviews I have done from teachers at our local high school and middle school teachers that have seen girls become more daring in class. Women in general are learning to coexist with men in this world better than what they have in the past. This also leads to the next point I would like to show you:

"Girls define themselves by their interests, they define themselves by what the boys think of them or what other girls think boys think of them."
True statement once again but only partially, boys also define themselves by what their interests are. If they like football, they are most likely going to go out for the football team. If they like theatre, they may as well audition for the school musical or perhaps even fall play. Girls are the same, they identify where their interests are located.

"Teachers teaching the opposite gender usually are bitter and are often both teachers and students of opposite genders do not understand and learn from each other but there are exceptions."
With this statement: it does not make sense. Secondly, you have no proof to back this up.

The points I have made simplified:

- Single-sex schools do not prepare students for the real world.
- Distraction is inevitable not matter what environment the students are in.
- Both boys and girls define themselves by their interests.
- Not everything that is done in schools is meant to "show-off"

This concludes my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
MassRebut

Pro

I will first refute some points and then move on to my positive case.

"Go to any parent, including your own and ask them, what is it that they want for their child when he or she grows up. Most parents will say that they want to raise successful and good and learned human beings."
"This statement assumes single-sex schools are the best choice for education"

What I would like to point out is that, no where have I implied or assumed or even suggested that single sex schools are better for education in these two lines and no where have I talked about jobs hiring only one sex. They were just for introduction and getting my argument in the flow. When Dragonrule029 talks about homosexuality and how it will cause the same level of distraction as it will in co - education schools and students will be distracted no matter where they are, well this view is completely wrong. Why? Well, because not all students are homosexual and there is a 1% chance that one or two students will be and so how will this make other students distracted, the ones who are not involved and the ones who do not care? In co-ed schools everyone would be looking at each other and the level of distraction in these schools is incomparable to single sex schools and to homosexual students. And what are the chances that there are not homosexuals in co-ed schools?

Boys and girls are interested in each other and define themselves by it as stated by Dragonrule029 but they could try for the football team or for the musical for a million other reasons not just because they are interested. They could also be doing it to impress someone or get the attention or to even become friends with someone, which proves my point correct which stated that students have different driving factors in co-ed schools and they deviate from their true paths just because the other sex is present. Even I agree that "Not everything that is done in schools is meant to "show-off" but is certainly influenced by the other sex and even that depends on how much interested they are or how much they like and want to impress each other which is not a good learning environment for them.

Moving on to my positive case. My line of argument in this round is how both sexes are different and develop at different rates and thus need to be taught separately. Physically it is obvious we develop at different rates but so do our minds and thinking processes and decision making skills which need to be polished to prepare us for life.

Firstly, I'll talk about girls. Simple statement: They are better off in single sex schools. Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more in class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose "male" disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers. In the USA Who"s Who, graduates of women"s colleges outnumber all other women; there are only approximately 50 women"s colleges left in the States today. Both sexes are in dire need of the proper attention and this can only come if you are in a single sex school and with no distraction and hindrances. This is coming from someone who goes to an all boys school. If boys and girls are taught separately and the curriculum and teaching was tailored to their needs, drop-out rates would not be so high.

Co-educational schools attempt to establish uniformity in the teaching of two groups, boys and girls, who typically learn and develop at different speeds and using different methods. Since both have different growth rates, these needs to be catered to and handled with care and attention which is not possible in a co-ed school where every student of both sexes need attention. As a result some aspects of a student may not developed and cause hindrances in their life and make them lag behind the others.
Dragonrule029

Con

To begin I would like to review a few points from the last few posts that have been made by both MassRebut and I. After that, then I will end with my conclusion. My argument will reiterate and add new and different points to bring to focus when looking at single-sex schools versus co-educational schools.
-----
If MassRebut was not implying or assuming that "single-sex schools are better for education," in the first statement of his previous post, I ask myself why he remains in the debate after negating his own line of logic. Looking at MassRebut"s cited debate point (along with the title of our entire debate) MassRebut can realize the forfeit of his argument with the statement of "no where have I implied or assumed or even suggested that single sex schools are better for education".
When I stated, "there are no jobs that only hire one sex," this was an example to show that single-sex education is not the best for students because it does not prepare students for the co-ed work world. To reiterate: there is not "one job" that accepts only males or only females.
Two main purposes of US education are learning basic knowledge and socialization skills. The working world includes interaction with both sexes. In single-sex schools, the individual is only exposed to and socialized with one group. Students in single-sex schools are therefore prepared to work and cooperate with only one gender. Therefore, single-sex schools do not prepare students for the world of employment. Co-educational schools have the two purposes fulfilled (learning a basis of knowledge and socialization), whereas single-sex schools only include the knowledge base.
-----
"Boys and girls are interested in each other and define themselves by it as stated by it as stated by Dragonrule029 but they could try for the football team or for the musical for a million other reasons not just because they are interested. They could also be doing it to impress someone or get the attention or to even become friends with someone, which proves my point correct which stated that students have different driving factors in co-ed schools and they deviate from their true paths just because the other sex is present. Even I agree that "Not everything that is done in schools is meant to "show-off"" but is certainly influenced by the other sex and even that depends on how much interested they are or how much they like and want to impress each other which is not a good learning environment for them."

We have agreed that not all actions are done to show off, according to the quoted statement above. Although, I would like to point out that in MassRebut"s first argument he said "every action of the student is because he wants to impress or show off to someone he likes in the school" and in the quotations above MassRebut says: "Even I agree that "Not everything that is done in schools is meant to "show-off""" which is therefore contradicting and negates that part of the argument.
Regarding influencing the opposite sex, since I have already negated where that statement began, MassRebut can decide if he would like to pick up that piece of the argument again or not.
-----
"When Dragonrule029 talks about homosexuality and how it will cause the same level of distraction as it will in co - education schools and students will be distracted no matter where they are, well this view is completely wrong. Why? Well, because not all students are homosexual and there is a 1% chance that one or two students will be and so how will this make other students distracted, the ones who are not involved and the ones who do not care? In co-ed schools, everyone would be looking at each other and the level of distraction in these schools is incomparable to single sex schools and to homosexual students. And what are the chances that there are not homosexuals in co-ed schools?"

This is yet another interpretation that was taken incorrectly, not to mention the fact that more than 1% of the student body could be homosexual or another type of sexual attraction. Studies have shown that 12% of students identify as homosexual or other. The entire point of mentioning the homosexual population was to show that it does not matter where a student attends school, there will always be the "distraction of attraction".
-----
Another reason why co-educational schools are better for education: Non-segregation.
This can be looked at through the lens of a similar situation where there was an attempt to separate two groups. The Jim Crow laws of "Separate but equal" would ring a bell if MassRebut has had any basic American history. The belief was that because students "look" different their education should be different - but when comparing the African-American and the Caucasian school districts of the time, it was obvious that indeed they were not "equal" but in fact only "separate". Jim Crow laws" reasoning was that the two groups thought differently, had different needs, and needed different educational settings. Examples of the fallacies of "separate but equal" were clearly seen throughout the education programs at that time and are valid concerns even in a modern day setting of "separate but equal" gender-based schools.
-----
Developing relationships with the opposite sex:
Developing relationships with the opposite sex does not necessarily mean a boyfriend/girlfriend situation; it could mean a mental bond such as friendships. Different kinds of friendships are important in the development of a human being (both boys and girls are both human beings and they deserve to be treated as such). Like previously stated in the section I wrote about the "purposes of education", examples can be seen why girls and boys should work together in classes. Part of that general statement was that they must learn to interact with each other so the idea of working with the other sex is not foreign. To add on to that thought, friendships and social experiences in schools between males and females will help them develop as individuals.
-----
Statement from MassRebut:
"Firstly, I'll talk about girls. Simple statement: They are better off in single sex schools. Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more in class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose "male" disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers."

Even though MassRebut states that in single-sex schools girls chose more male-dominated fields, it remains to be proven if this is due to location in a single-sex environment or due to other contributing factors (teacher skills, parent support, personality traits, etc.). It is a fact that student success is correlated to the way the teacher distributes knowledge to the students. Differentiation in instruction means that the teacher must present the knowledge in a way the students will understand it. This is true in every educational setting. The responsibility lies with educators to design their lessons to reach their students" learning needs, not simply segregate groups by sexes to simplify the teaching role. The teacher must take the responsibility of properly including and differentiating instructional methods, in order to best teach all students in his or her classroom.
In addition, Stereotyping is increased when attending single-sex schools because neither gender interacts with the other. The placement of students in single-sex schools influence both groups to adopt more gender-oriented roles while attending their school (example: females choosing to be nurses, teachers or secretaries, with males choosing to be engineers, electricians or administrators). Also, imagine the girls who are put in the single-sex class under the basis that it will be a better learning environment so they can eliminate the distraction of the males in order to be more successful? What will that mean to them? If they are directly or indirectly told that they cannot be successful while studying with males nearby, this will affect how they are able to relate and work with males in their lifetime. It may even cause some young women to believe that if they are with males, their lives become unsuccessful. This (as mentioned before) will also affect their willingness to work, cooperate, and interact with the opposite sex in future environments.

To conclude my argument:

-Girls and boys must learn to work with one another (can only be offered in co-ed schools)
-Distraction of attraction will be everywhere
-Single-sex schools are segregated environments
-Stereotyping is increased in single-sex schools
-The teacher determines the success of the student not the gender makeup of the classroom

Therefore, co-ed schools are still better for education than single-sex schools.

This concludes my argument.
Debate Round No. 3
MassRebut

Pro

MassRebut forfeited this round.
Dragonrule029

Con

A forfeit.

The main points in my argument reiterated:

- Single-sex schools do not prepare students for the real world
- Distraction is inevitable not matter what environment the students are in.
- Bothe boys and girls define themselves by their interests.
- Not everything that is done in schools is meant to 'show-off'
- Girls and boys must learn to work with one another.
- Single-sex school are segregated environments.
- Stereotyping is increased in single-sex schools.
- The teacher determines the success of the student not the gender makeup of the classroom.

And, a few online sources I used for my statements above:

(1) http://classroom.synonym.com...
(2) http://www.singlesexschools.org...
(3) http://www.greatschools.org...
(4) http://www.pressherald.com...
(5) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
(6) http://www.sciencemag.org...
(7) http://www.nytimes.com...
(8) http://www.ferris.edu...

Book Sources:
(1) 'What Great Teacher Do Differently' by Todd Whitaker
(2) 'The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto

Thank you MassRebut for this debate. It was quite fun.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dragonrule029 2 years ago
Dragonrule029
Calm your balls MassRebut. Maybe take huong_ly's comment as a help to your side on the debate instead of shooting it down. Because right now, I am not impressed with your arguments.
Good luck in Round 4!
Posted by MassRebut 2 years ago
MassRebut
What the hell are you trying to imply by saying that single sex schools may exist in Islamic states only??
Posted by huong_ly 2 years ago
huong_ly
Same sex school, one kind of school existing in the past of the world and rarely appears in the world. Maybe just appear in some Islamic State. It is raising a question of whether this such kind of school generating benefit for education. I disagree with this idea and I will elaborate my point of view.
Both the scientific evidences and statistics prove that only by having a common enviroment with male students do female one clearly aware of who they are. It is obvious that male students have a gift, they are likely more intelligent than female one. Associating with other gender, girls have opportunity to refer other various views
No votes have been placed for this debate.