The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Single-sex Education is better than co-education

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/31/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,707 times Debate No: 31946
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Resolution & Burden of the Proof & Definitions
Single-sex education is better than co-education.
I will be taking the "con" side, so you will be arguing that single-sex is better than co-ed.
Burden of the proof is equal. Both sides will have to prove their own argument and disprove their opponent's.
Single-sex-All boys or all girls schools
Co-education-Mixed gender schools.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments (no clash)
Round 3: Clash
Round 4: Clash and Conclusion



I accept the challenge. I admit I am just doing this for fun and do not see any problem with co-ed. I do however see the benefits of single sex and will debate for that.
Debate Round No. 1


Great! Let us begin.


1. Gender differences in learning styles are not universal.

This means that some students that don’t respond to quote unquote boyish learning style will have to be subject to it. gives an example of a sensitive boy that is intimidated by a teacher who “gets in his face” and speaks loudly believing that’s what boys want and need to learn.

2. Very few teachers are trained to use gender-specific learning techniques.

The National Association for Single-Sex Public Education states itself on it’s website ( that some schools that have “plunged into experimentation with this format without a thorough grounding in the complexities of the single-gender format.” They say that this format doesn’t improve grades magically, and that the teachers must be properly trained. This means that in order for single-sex schooling to improve performance, teachers must be educated on teaching kids of only one gender. The fact is, there aren’t many well trained single-sex educators out there. It takes work to train teachers to identify gender differences and teach accordingly. Without proper training, single sex education doesn’t work well.

3. Students need to be prepared for the real world where they will interact with the other gender.

Students will need to interact with people of the opposite gender when they join the workforce. The point of education is to prepare students for working. When students don’t have proper access to interactions with other genders, they can become awkward with others and not know how to be polite and proper around the other gender.

4. Studies have shown that students perform better in co-ed schools.

Studies show that the higher the percentage of girls in a co-ed classroom, the better the academic performance for all students (both male and female). Professor Analia Schlosser, an economist from the Eitan Berglas School of Economics at Tel Aviv, found that elementary school, co-ed classrooms with a majority of female students showed increased academic performance for both boys and girls. In high school, the classrooms with the best academic achievement were consistently those that had a higher percentage of girls. A higher percentage of girls lowers classroom disruption and creates better relationships with the teacher.



I wold like to continue to point out that I am not necessarily for single sex education, I will defend it. It may be helpful to know that I am male.
You said no clashing this round so I will not.
I feel that many arguments against single sex is short sighted and people do not see the long term.
Male teachers generally get along better with male students.
Female teachers generally get along better with female students.

Different genders respond to different analogies.
While a girl may respond better to a shopping analogy, boys may respond better to a hunting analogy. However, a shopping analogy would be lost on a boy and hunting would be lost on girls. (Not trying to be sexist and I understand that this may not be true for all).

The opposite sex poses a distraction.
Imagine a case in which a girl does not want to look like a nerd so she does not answer questions. Imagine a case where a boy does not want to look stupid so he doesn't ask questions. This happens often in school. This is primarily to impress or avoid unimpression.

The last point I will address this round is subject matters.
Boys are better at some things than girls. Girls are better at others. By seperating them, teachers can further develop skills without confusing the other sex, and they can help the sex that needs more help without holding the other sex back.
Debate Round No. 2


1. Teachers get along better with similar sex students
First of all, there is no evidence or source for this. Even if I were to entertain it as a valid point here is my refutation: Valerie Lee, a professor at the University of Michigan says that this claim is false. She did a study which found that incidents occuring where teachers favored students of their own sex or disfavoring students of the opposite sex were equally prevalent in all boys schools, all girls schools, and co-ed schools.
2. Different genders respond to differnt analogies
I understand that my opponent is not trying to be sexist, but the fact remains that if a teacher wants to get to students of both genders, they can just cite both analogies. Besides, teaching isn't always reliant on analogies, and my opponent has poitned out no obvious harm in not understanding one analogy. Tons of analogies go over my head in school regardless of my gender.
3. The opposite sex poses a distraction
My opponent asks you to "imagine" these situations. That's all he is citing here. Imagination. There is no source for this, and leading evidence shows that boys and girls work better with the opposite gender in the room because it gives them motivation to do better. See my fourth point for more expansion.
4. Boys and girls are better at different things.
There is no way to refute this because my opponent has provided no sources, no evidence, and no examples of this happening. If you tell me why this happens, then I can refute it. As it is, we have no way of knowing if this is valid.
Vote for con


Now I will refute your claims.
1 Gender differences in learning styles are not universal.
True, but it is about the majority. There is no way to make every student happy unless you put students together after multiple psyche evaluations and iq tests. As far as gender goes, not everyone will be happy. But the majority of both boys and girls would be able to learn better.
2. Very few teachers are trained to use gender-specific learning techniques.
You are right. However, with experience teachers can pick up on learning techniques.
3. Student need to be prepared for the real world where they will interact with other people.
School has two major aspects, social development and mental development. I agree that coed learning is better for the social but mental development is better with single education for reasons I have and will state.
4. I have nothing to say about but the fact that you are saying that boys are basically bad for schools and that all girl classrooms would actually perform better than coed though all boy classes may not.

You asked for sources. I am a student. I see these things every day. This is my credibility. This is why I understand this.
I still do not support converting to single sex, but I have done what I could to defend the positives of this.
Thank you, I had fun with this, which was my purpose.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent, who has cited no sources and no evidence, now defends his points by saying "he is a student". Obviously, we cannot trust a source such as this.
Counter Refutations
1. Gender differences in learning style are not universal
My opponent says this is about the majority, and I agree. I was merely pointing out that single sex education is harmful in this way. This is one example of harm it can do.
2. Very few teachers are trained to use gender specific learning techniques.
My opponent says that with experience teachers can pick up on learning techniques, however
3. Students need to be prepared for the real world where they will interact with other people.
My oppponent says that co-ed is better for social development, so he has given this point to me. As to mental development, he says that single-sex is better, however he has cited no reasoning for this. I am confused.
4. Students perform better in co-ed schools.
My opponent concedes on this point. He says that I am saying that "boys are basically bad for schools and that all girls classes perform better.". The studies that I cited showed that in co-ed schools a higher percentage of girls is better. It doesn't have anything to do with single-sex education.

Vote for con.


My opponent has complained about me not citing sources. However, I am quite credible because I am a student who sees things with gender relations every single day. How is this not credible. My opponent is relying on the opinions of people who think that they may know what is best for students but is never actually bringing in the opinion of a student. I am that student. Personally, I do not want single sex education, however, I believe that it provides a better learning environment, and from what I see, many students need this. At one point, my opponent has stated that teachers could use both analogies or learning styles. However, why would a teacher waste his or her time teaching using both. Furthermore, given what my opponent is saying about girls and boys in the classroom, single sex is needed. Clearly, boys need a more disciplined education system and girls do not. Why waste resources increasing discipline on girls when boys are the problem. My opponent is using the reasoning that classrooms with a higher percentage of girls in the classroom are more productive, so how about 100% girls and no boys. The girl classroom would be more productive and the boy classroom can be more disciplined and strict to help them learn.
Furthermore, my opponent has stated that teachers are not trained for single sex. I responded by saying that teachers will learn from experience. Also, teachers can basically go to google and look up learning styles differences between boys and girls and teach accordingly.
Basically, I do not see why problems are found for either single sex or coed. Both have benefits. Both have faults. For both, the problems can be resolved easily in my opinion. Yes my opinion is a student's opinion.
In response to his refusal of my credibility I will say, would you want someone from another country telling you what to do or someone from your country telling you what to do.
vote pro
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by PoleweA 3 years ago
I would actually go for co-ed schools, too. Teachers and parents say that it would be better to separate genders due to bullying, but the thing is that separating them won't change the intimidation, nor will it change the popularity or social status. I would also go for co-ed because of false stereotypes, and what I mean by that is that teachers will most likely teach boys and girls different topics because of their individual thinking skills. Not only that, but depending on what they learn, one will feel more dominant than the other, just because they're taught that way. It won't make a difference if people create same sex schools, it will just make it more difficult to interact in the future.....Feel free to express your opinion :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.