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

Single sex schools are good 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,454 times Debate No: 46371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




This is off my debate challenge in which my profile glitched and posted 3 rounds instead of 4 messing up the debate

We are going to do this formally with the resolution that it landed it

Resolution - Single sex schools are good for education

for the purpose of this debate the definitions are as follows to avoid Semantics.

Education - The process of teaching someone knowledge and information (in a school)

Good - Beneficial in regards to education and learning



(1) Rules
(2) Contentions
(3) Rebuttals, Re building Contentions, Closing statements


(1) Contentions
(2) Rebuttals, Rebuilding Contentions, Closing statements
(3) Shall type "no round as agreed upon"


(1) Failure to type "no round as agreed upon" by adversary in the final round shall result in a full 7 point drop due to him having an extra round
(2) FFS shall result in the loss of a conduct point, with multiple FFS resulting in a possibly full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges
(3) No semantics or trolling. This is a serious debate.


I believe that single-sex schools are not an ideal environment to teach children in Western society. The fundamental flaw in single-sex education is that its premise is reliant on every child being homogeneous; all boys fit their stereotype and all girls fit theirs. I can say immediately, from personal experience, that this is not true. I am gay and often found it difficult to socialise with other boys when growing up -- all my best friends were girls. If I were to be separated into an all-boy's class, I would have found it difficult to be happy and consequently to learn.

Education does not consist of just core subjects and extracurricular activities; schools offer their pupils valuable life skills, which includes socialisation. Single-sex schools limit socialisation by gender and enforce a "them and us" mindset. Apart from the obvious disadvantage that this will have on the pupil when they find themselves in the workplace, it may also prove confusing when every other part of society encourages equality. I would much rather children to grow up in an environment with various different kinds of people -- different ethnicities, faiths and indeed gender. Teaching tolerance is just as important as core subjects.

But do children learn better when taught without the opposite gender? The research is inconclusive; most research in favour of single-sex schools cite an increase in test scores by female pupils, but the boys seem to be getting the rough end of the deal because their test scores are often said to decrease. Other research claims that both genders perform better when taught together; I found this article thorough and interesting:
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Con for taking this debate. This will be fun

Higher Grades

This is the most obvious contention for this and possibly the only one I need for this debate. We are debating about the positive results on grades and scores. Social factors such as how they interact with other children are not a part of this debate. This is strictly about the effect it has on education. Let us start by looking at some studies

The University of Pennsylvania recently conducted two studies on this topic. Due to federal law and restrictions, they traveled over seas to start the first study. It took place in Korea.

" In the first study, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania traveled to Seoul South Korea, because in Seoul, students are RANDOMLY assigned either to single-gender or to coed high schools. The assignment is truly random, and compulsory. Students cannot "opt out" of either the single-gender format or the coed format. This policy of random assignment was instituted in 1974 specifically to prevent clustering of students from particular backgrounds at particular schools. In recent decades, many Korean school districts have loosened the policy and they now allow parents to express preferences or to "opt out" of particular schools. But not in Seoul. In Seoul, it's still a true random assignment with no opt-out. "[1]

The results were impressive.

What were the results? Girls attending girls' schools were significantly more likely to attend a 4-year college compared with girls attending coed schools (Cohen's d = 0.5, p < 0.01). Likewise, boys who graduated from boys' schools were significantly more likely to attend a 4-year college compared with boys who graduated from coed schools (Cohen's d = 0.8, p < 0.01). " [1]

All the students that attended non co ed classes show higher grades and were more likely to graduate college. Let's also look at F-Cat proficiency

boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient
girls in coed classes: 59% scored proficient
girls in single-sex classes: 75% scored proficient
boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient.[1]

Researchers at Cambridge also compiled similar studies and found the same results to be true. Students are not distracted as much by the other gender and can focus more , almost all the time yielding higher test scores.

We can even look at some shocking cases in where single sex schools have proved to increase scores. Take a look at this case

" Chicago’s Urban Prep Academy boasts of some remarkable statistics: In 2006, only 4 percent of the inaugural freshman class at the school — a public all-male, predominantly black high school located in one of the city’s most beleaguered neighborhoods — could read at grade level. Yet in May, 100 percent of the school’s seniors had been accepted to four-year colleges or universities, many on full academic scholarships. " [2]

Basically at freshman year almost no one could read properly, and by the time they graduated they broke state levels and 100 percent of the senior class was accepted into a four year college.


My adversary has a very hard stance to take up. I could cite hundreds of studies to show how well single sex schools do in comparison and studies vs co ed schools. Almost always the results lean in favor of single sex education. This is almost an empirical fact.



This will be brief; I applaud my adversary for their bulletproof argument.

I concede that the evidence is there in favour of single-sex schooling when it comes to grade scores, but I reject the view that education stops at facts and figures. I would like to reinstate everything I said in my previous post and contest my adversary's claim that it doesn't apply under the rules of this debate. "Education - The process of teaching someone knowledge and information (in a school)"; knowledge and information goes above and beyond core subjects, as described in my first post. Students need to learn how to apply the information they learn to a mixed society.

The layman terms "book smart" and "street smart" are good comparison -- single sex schools offer know knowledge of how men and women function TOGETHER in society, or on the 'streets'. Pupils taught without the opposite gender would find it a lot more difficult to cope in the workplace, and in a male dominated working society, women may feel threatened and men may be more prone to sexual harrassment, having no previous experience working with each other.

That is all I have to add on this topic.


Single-sex schools have been shown to be beneficial in teaching facts and figures (despite other research claiming the opposite), but does not educate the students about society as a whole. Education is not limited to academic work.
Debate Round No. 2


So there are two ways to look at this

What is the primary purpose of education?

is it

(1) to teach and prepare students for social conditions such as interaction with other students
(2) to teach and pass on knowledge to students about studies and topics they can use to advance in life

The first point i would like to bring up is that social factors can be taught outside of school as well. While my adversary is right when he states, they can be taught in school and it could help students. Students are just as likely to interact with each other outside of school. The primary focus in education is "grades and books" as he puts it.

In addition to this it is not hindering social interaction entirely, just interaction with co ed members. Again this can be done outside of school as well. If students can still learn how to interact with each other away from school, such as dating and other things and still have their grades high in school this would be the best choice

Single Sex schools offer that. It is a way to stop students from being distracted and have them focus on their studies. Again this is about reviewing what is a priority. When you are going to school are you going to learn about books and make good grades, or are you going to be socially active.

The issue at hand is co ed schools do both, but drastically limit test scores. Single sex schools sky rocket test scores while still giving the children to engage in co ed behavior after school or off school time. Single sex schools are still the most viable choice.


This is sadly a somewhat semantic debate. My adversary has conceded the point that single sex schools offer better grades but contests the meaning of education and says co ed schools are more viable

I mean even the core of most definitions behind education are similar to this

Education - a field of study that deals with the methods and problems of teaching.[1]

Other definitions include teaching and imparting knowledge. While you could play semantics about what is being taught and imparted, the prime reason behind school is graduation. If you were to go to school for purely social factors, it would be obsolete. So even if we are forced to prioritize what is more important, grades will always outweigh social factors.




No round as agreed upon.

Adversary is just too good at debating.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes the debate.
Vote Placed by RowanM 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved her point with facts and numbers, con conceded.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While I have no opinion towards Single/Co-ed schools, Mikal made a firm argument about grades. Although, I'd like to see the numbers for Advanced scores. Pro wins sources, while Conduct and Spelling is even.