Ingrid Gross

Advocacy Statement
EDF 4550
Gong

One of the issues regarding education that has a lot of controversy is the idea of same-sex

classrooms and schools versus coeducation. Essentially, the argument consists of whether or not

having same-sex classrooms and schools has more benefits in terms of academics and social

development than coeducation. To begin, it would suffice to first give some background on the

concept of how same-sex education and coeducation came to be.

Originally in education, same-sex classes and schools were the norm, and coeducation

“gradually entered the American educational landscape in the late 1800s” (Anfara and Mertens,

pp. 284). There are a few reasons why coeducation started to emerge, but to be frank,

coeducation was cheaper. This is due to the fact that educating males and females cohesively

was better than having separate schooling, because it would have “required duplicating

expensive facilities, equipment, and personnel” (Anfara and Mertens, pp. 284). By combining

males and females, it would end up saving a lot more money due to these reasons.

The side that argues for same-sex education focuses primarily on ideas like classroom

management and equal education amongst all subjects, especially those where each sex may

statistically pitfall. An example of these pitfalls might be females in the areas of mathematics
and the sciences, since according to PBS.org, in 2010, only about forty-two percent of women

had careers in mathematics, forty percent in the Physical Sciences, and less than twenty percent

in both Computer Sciences and Engineering. The main argument that supports this side of the

debate suggests that since males and females have differently wired brains, “they should receive

differentiated educational experiences to meet their special needs” (Anfara and Mertens, pp.

286). This would ideally help males and females catch up in areas they usually do not perform as

well as a majority. Research done in various studies concluded that in same-sex classes,

“participation was more widespread and students were less self-conscious”, and in mixed

classes, “girls aged 9 to 15 suffered from lower self-esteem, less willingness to stand up for their

views with teachers, and lower interest in science and mathematics than boys” (Anfara and

Mertens, pp. 286). These studies also demonstrated that there were less behavioral issues in

same-sex classes, which is used to argue that mixed classes offer more distraction. The overall

idea of same-sex education is for more equality and less distraction.

On the other side of the debate, there are those who advocate for coeducation. While this

may be for a variety of reasons, the majority of the arguments state that mixing the sexes offers

improved academic and social settings, a step in the right direction for women’s rights, and

promotes equality between the sexes. This side of the argument also claims that a lot of the

research and “definitive evidence” is actually quite inconclusive and not definitive. This is
because there are so many variables other than sex that affect how students perform. These

variables could include anything from the school’s socioeconomic climate to a teacher’s teaching

style.

I personally believe that schools should be oriented with coeducation, rather than same-

sex education. There simply cannot be equality through separation. Taking from the Brown vs.

Board of Education case, “separate is always inherently unequal” (Anfara and Mertens, pp.

286). In this particular case, the original idea was that students should be separated based off of

skin color, but this ended in unequal education and resources. Though the debate between same-

sex and coeducation is not as extreme as this, the same idea is behind it. Notably, “single-sex

education has been ideologically tied to racial segregation” (Anfara and Mertens, pp. 286), and

because of this, it has led to more critiques and demands of it. Separation may have good

intentions, but it will not lead to a desirable endpoint. Same-sex schooling will not necessarily

improve schools, either. A lot of the factors that contribute to a good and efficient education are

seen in same-sex classrooms, but they can also be done in coed classrooms. Factors such as “a

focus on core academics, small class size, qualified teachers, sufficient funding, and parental

involvement” (Anfara and Mertens, pp. 286) can all be accomplished in a coed class.
 Additionally, a lot of the research supporting same-sex settings, as briefly mentioned

earlier, is quite “unclear [and] has not yielded definitive answers” (Anfara and Mertens, pp.

290). The major issue with the evidence and research is that it is contradictory to each other.

While one study may help prove a particular aspect (such as behavioral issues), another study

will disprove it just as effectively. Though this is common for more than just this particular

subject, there are also an incredible amount of variables that would effect this data. This could

include: “school characteristics (e.g., class size, percentage of male and female teachers),

teaching styles and instructional practices, and the curriculum” (Anfara and Mertens, pp. 290).

These factors can have significant effects on the achievement of students in any situation,

including the situations in which this data was taken from. Once these factors are under control

and act as a constant in the data, the results of the differences between same-sex and

coeducational are “neither significant nor conclusive” (Anfara and Mertens, pp. 290).

My position on the matter is related to American Education in that a lot of American

schools are coeducational – same-sex education is generally only for private or Catholic schools.

A lot of the educational problems schools face would only get worse with more separation.

Students would not be able to properly learn how to communicate and work with the opposite

sex, because they would be denied that informal education. Same-sex schools would also create

stigmas between the sexes, because these students would not learn to understand the other sex.
Separation would also not contribute healthily to the achievement gap that exists in America due

to inconclusive evidence and too many variables based on the particular school. While many

argue separation would help with concepts like the achievement gap between males and females,

it would simply be too difficult to claim this idea due to all of the uncertain and undefined

evidence. Teachers in America can help improve American education by continuing to push for

equality in education so that the achievement gap issue, as discussed in the early weeks of this

course, does not widen further.

Overall, same-sex classes and schools do not make enough of a significant difference in

education to consider utilizing this practice. Coeducation can accomplish and replicate what

same-sex classrooms can, and will provide students with a way to learn communication between

sexes. When a specific group of students is segregated from the rest, they are being denied the

informal education of learning how to communicate and interact with those other students. This

is exactly what happens when students are separated – in the end, it does more harm than good,

and can be prevented by having coeducation in school systems.

 REFERENCES

Cummins, Denise. (2015). Column: Why the STEM gender gap is overblown. Retrieved from
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/truth-women-stem-careers

Noll, F. Wm. (2014). Taking Sides – Clashing Views on Educational Issues. New York, NY:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.