Single Sex Schools Should Not Be Banned Essay Example

would prefer math and science which are “boys’ subjects” (Sommers, 2011). Why this is normal? McAuliffe (2011), who is the president of Bryn Mawr, tells people that, “Cultural force [leads] many young women to believe that there are some fields of study that just aren’t for them” (n. p. ). Single sex schools make this kind of “normal” become more normal, which students can learn any subject no matter that they are male or female learn math or languages.

In the article “Know Your Child”, Sax (2011) shows people that German researchers did an experiment, which was that they separated 401 girls into two classrooms, which are one single-sex classroom and one coed classroom. The result after one term was the girls in the single-sex classroom less consider physics as a “boys’ subject”. Furthermore, some reports show that the temperature of the classrooms influences the study differently between male and females (Salomone, 2011).

According to the article “Single-Sex Education: The Pros and Cons”, Stanberry (2011) tells people that female students may get better academic output in a warm classroom; however, a cool classroom is better for male students. If it is true, single sex schools can provide the different temperature classrooms for male and female students for their better study. In a word, single schools should not be banned because they provide the great study environment for students.

Except the beautiful academic environment, another reason for single sex schools should not be banned is that they give parents more option to choose for their children. Most parents want their children to have the best education. Single sex schools are good options for parents, but no one says you

must choose single sex schools. Not everyone matches single sex schools’ education system, but some match. People should not take away parents’ right of choosing schools for their children.

Sommers (2011), claims in the article “A Necessary Option” that we cannot judge single sex schools as good or bad but “the option [of single sex schools] has produced many heartening successes in the public system – especially in poorer districts where parents lack the resources to send their children to private single-sex schools” (n. p. ). It means that single sex schools give poor families the chances to send their children to single sex schools without the high tuition fees of private schools.

Sax (2011) also believe that, “Parents should have the right to choose among single-sex and coed formats, even if they cannot afford to pay private school fees” (n. p. ). Single sex schools can be the liberators for the poor families, if poor families want their children have a professional academic education. People are still doing the research about the benefits and disadvantages of single sex schools. If there is a day that people can say that single sex schools are bad for society affirmatively, single sex schools will be banned.

Otherwise, people should not ban single sex schools because they are providing the good option to many families. In conclusion, single sex schools should not be banned because parents need more options for choosing schools. It is not wrong that many opponents believe single sex schools should be banned because they inflate gender stereotyping. Single sex schools separate males and females to different schools, which may make that each gender cannot understand and know

another (Sommers, 2011). Males and females may be not able to work together to show their respect to each other.

Opponents think single sex schools are the ways to back away the different gender, which “would likely generate and exacerbate stereotyping and sexist attitudes” (Fabes, n. p. ). However, in the article “A Necessary Option” by Sommers (2011), she states that single sex schools are totally different with racial segregation. Racial segregation is “mandatory racial separatism demeans human beings and parents”, which means they are not mandatory (n. p. ). Furthermore, the development of single sex schools is for better education, which is good for society and cannot be compared to racial segregation.

Moreover, the reason to separate males and females is for their better education but not deliberately to break up the coed work. Thus, single sex schools should not be banned because they cannot compare to racial segregation. Not only inflating gender stereotyping, another reason that opponents believe single sex schools should be banned is that single sex schools contribute to make male students more violent. Sommers (2011) points out that, “the men who graduate from single-sex school are more increasingly aggressive because they spend more time with other males” (n. . ). Does the environment which without females around makes males more violence to resolve the matters? It is possible. However, there is no research shows that the boys in boy schools are fight all the time. Moreover, there are many dorms in coeducation. If boys will be more violent when there are other boys around, the boys who live in dorm will be more aggressive. Actually, male students in single sex schools may

be tenderer than the male in coeducation. The male students in single sex schools are learning literature and languages, which makes them more patient.

Sommers (2011) debate that the research in 2011 studied in British shows that their is no evidence tells people that single-sex schools graduated people are more easily to divorce. The result of this research also shows people that the students who are graduated from single sex schools could also easily adapt to the co-sex society. In a word, single sex schools should not be banned because they don’t make male students more aggressive. One more reason that opponents think single-sex schools should be banned is that they claim “single-sex education fails to produce academic benefits” (Fabes, 2011).

In the article “What Our Research Shows”, Fabes (2011) believes that the success of academic output is nothing about the system of single sex schools, but every coeducational school can get the academic success if they can do “controlling for qualities of children at entry (for example, socioeconomic status) and programs (demanding curriculums, for instance)” (n. p. ). Sherwin (2011) also agrees with Fabes that good academic output should not be the reason to consider single sex schools are good because “smaller class sizes, more teacher training and greater attention to curriculum” in coeducation would get good academic benefits as well (n. . ). On the other hand, it is true that coeducation may get excellent academic output as single sex schools do; however, single sex schools are much easier to provide a better environment for study. First, students would more focus on listening the lecture because there is no attraction from the opposite sex (Stanberry,

2011). Second, single sex schools can offer the different temperature classrooms for different gender because different temperature impacts the efficiency of study (Stanberry, 2011).

After all, “[failing] to produce academic benefits” should not be the reason to ban single sex schools because single sex schools do provide an amazing academic environment to students (Stanberry, 2011). Single sex schools should not be banned today because of the great study environment, more option for parents. The good study environment single sex schools provide can let students learn any subject they want. Furthermore, single sex schools give parents more options for choosing good schools for their children, which is especially good for poor families.

The research people did until today could not give a conclusion about the single sex schools. People should focus on how to improve whole education system but not attack single sex schools. According to “A necessary option”, Sommers (2011) says that “American education today needs more option, not fewer” (n. p. ). Find the problem in both coeducation and single sex schools and solve it, which can lead to a better future for our generations. References Fabes, R. (2011, October 30). What our research shows. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. om/ McAuliffe, J. D. (2011, October 28). What we’ve discovered. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. com/ Salomone, R. C. (2011, October 28). More federal oversight. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. com/ Sax, L. (2011, October 17). Know your child. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. com/ Sherwin, G. (2011, October 17). Segregation is not a cure. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. com/

Single-sex schools: separate but equal? (2011, n. d. ). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. om/ Sommers, C. H. (2011, October 28). A necessary option. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. com/ Sommers, C. H. (2011, October 12). Column: fight proposed ban on single sex schools. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www. usatoday. com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-12/single-sex-school-education/50744974/1 Stanberry K. (2011, n. d. ). Single-sex education: the pros and cons. Great Schools. Retrieved from http://www. greatschools. org/ Williams, V. L. (2011, October 28). Don’t be tempted. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. com/