USA: +1 415 256 4347 
Sign in
Question
This is an independent study does not require research involving interviews, surveys but should be a sustained discussion which addresses issues and literature associated with the topic selected in way with limited theoretical analysis.
This paper is based on a proposal that you have done with the order number 362710,please find proposal in the attachment.
Important points :
– we are not doing a new contribution , we just need to discus critically and analyze.
– It should not have ethical issues.
– The general form of this paper is critical discussion
– I need to see some drafts along the way.
– It is required to have to attach a section containing supplementary materials that is considered necessary to interpret aspects of the main body of work may be attached as appendices. It could be reports, lengthy correspondence,facsimiles,letters etc. relating the conduct of the research.
Answer
Discussion Paper on the Advantages or Disadvantages of Co-Educational Settings
Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course Code:
Date Assignment is due:
Contents
Coeducation and transition to university. 3
Emotional and Behavioraland Development. 7
Comparison between coeducational and single-sex settings. 9
Impact of co-educational settings from a historical perspective: The case of UK and U.S. 9
Importance of co-education in personal and social development. 12
Co-education and Academic achievement. 13
Co-education critics and advocates. 15
Areas of contention in the evolution of co-education. 16
Boys’ sense of belonging in co-educational schools. 18
Examining the sense of belonging in a mixed school: the intricacies involved. 20
Co-education and choice of science subjects: A case of Australia. 23
Co-education and subject participation. 25
Multivariate co-education analyses in Australia. 29
Introduction
Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher believed that co-education creates a strong feeling of comradeship. For this reason, he emphasized for male and female students to be taught in the same institutions without any form of discrimination in the way education is imparted. A strong reason why co-education is appealing is that when children of different are separated from each other for several years, they lose the opportunity to learn about each other.
There is a lack of advantages of single-sex schools when their usefulness is considered on educational grounds per se. Studies from all over the world have not single out any major differences. (Smithers& Robinson, 2006). In co-educational schools, friends always develop in a natural way happens during learning activities both within the curriculum and through extracurricular activities such as games, clubs and societies. In the classroom, young boys and girls get the opportunity to express themselves openly and assertively in the presence of members of the opposite sex.
Co-education is the most realistic way of preparing young people to take their rightful places in the wider community in a natural way. Misconceptions relating to each sex are broken down during cross-sex interactions that take place in coeducational settings. These interactions are an important basis of future, stable, meaningful relationships in life.
Sexist attitudes are best dealt with in a co-education school. In high school, many subjects are available that make it possible for constructive debates about gender and sexist attitudes. In such a setting, both female and male perspectives are explored and they make up for a very important learning experience. When young people engage in such dialogue, they understand that equality cannot necessarily be equated to “sameness”; that women and men have very different perspectives on contemporary issues affecting, each with unique contributions to offer.
In England, the old debate about whether co-educational schooling or single-sex schooling is better continues to generate many claimed social and academic advantages and disadvantages of both settings. There is enough research evidence to show the myriads of claims that have been made concerning either setting. Many of these claims are merely caricatures of a very complex reality. The high level of academic performance in single-sex schools as indicated in league tables has more to do with the process of academic selection, the socioeconomic standing of the students and the standing of the school and not segregation of the sexes (Robinson, 1999).
Coeducation and transition to university
Robinson (1999) notes that whenever comparisons are made regarding the academic differences that are perceived between co-educational and single-sex schools, these perceptions are found out to be unreal. Similarly, although pupils from single-sex schools tend to fear that they will automatically have difficulties adapting to a mixed environment at the university, research has shown that the ease of transition largely depends on among other many other factors, personality (Robinson 1999).
By being considered to be like a real-life situation, a co-educational setting is often viewed to be a good way of preparing students for university life, which is universally co-educational. When Jones (1990) carried out a study of Australian first year university students, he found out that those who had attended co-educational schools had a much more natural attitude towards members of the opposite sex. In a study carried out in London in 1997, it was found out that young students tended to have some difficulty while adjusting to university life if they had attended single-sex schools. However, the differences in these difficulties were not very statistically significant (Smithers and Robinson, 2006).
Neither the claimed ease-of-transition nor the academic advantages really stood up to a detailed scrutiny in Robinson’s (1999) research although it was evident that co-educational enjoyed stronger social support. Moreover, Robinson (1999) notes that during his survey, nearly all of the students who had attended co-educational schools insisted that they would send their children to co-educational schools. Only a third of those who had attended single-sex schools wanted to take their sons and daughters to single schools. Robinson (1999) therefore predicts a future whereby the move away from single-sex education will continue to be experienced.
Cerven (2002) writes that the United States Supreme Court has on two occasions examined the constitutionality of single-sex public schools solely in the context of higher education. In both occasions, the court’s findings were that the institutions concerned had acted in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, which is found in the Fourth Amendment. Gender classifications such as the one involved in single-sex educational settings are classified under “intermediate scrutiny” category meaning that each state has the responsibility of articulating every important federal government directive relating to the achievement of set objectives. Cerven (2002), after assessing the constitutionality of single-sex public secondary and elementary schools, believes that these institutions face an uphill task of striving to survive constitutional challenges that threaten their existence.
The views of young people regarding sex education are very important in the single-sex vs. coeducational settings. Carpenter (1985) surveyed 3355 young people aged between 15 and 16 years in 13 co-educational secondary schools in England. He found out that about a third of all boys and a vast majority of girls, would like some, if not all, of their sex education to be achieved in single-sex groups. The research also explored the manner in which ‘gendering’ of sex education is done by exploring the views of these young people on the manner in which particular aspects of different sex education classes, such as the content, teaching methods, characteristics of teachers and age of students, influenced their level of interaction and nature of responses during lessons (Carpenter,1985). Carpenter (1985) came up with the conclusion that young people are in support of sex education that is delivered in single-sex groups. This research brings to the fore a very important dimension to this debate, that of the importance of incorporating the views of learners on the educational setting with which they are most comfortable.
Reviews done in the USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland, the UK and New Zealand have generated very little consistent evidence of advantages of either co-education or single-sex education (Smithers& Robinson, 2006). However, Smithers& Robinson (2006) add that in the majority of Western countries, all single-sex schools comprise a small special group and they differ in many other ways apart from the gender of the pupils whom they admit into their curricular.
In order to ensure that there is objectivity in discussing the advantages of single-sex and co-educational settings, both the abilities of each pupil and his background need to be taken into consideration. In a few studies where the ability of students has been controlled for, note Smithers& Robinson (2006), apparent advantages to both co-education and single-sex education can emerge, even though they are very small and highly inconsistent. Such comparisons also tend to be confounded by differences in areas such as teacher expertise, school leadership, ethnicity and socioeconomic status of students.
In America, research has shown that single-sex schooling can be beneficial to disadvantaged children. The argument made for this finding is that the benefits do not accrue because of gender mix per se but also because single-sex schooling is a representation of a pro-academic choice for parents and guardians. Additionally, the feminist perspective has greatly shaped this debate.
Choice of subjects
Feminists are on record saying that females are grossly underrepresented in sciences, a clear indication of discrimination. One of the solutions to this problem, feminists believe, is separating the sexes so that girls can be educated separately, such that they can compete among themselves in a completely ‘feminine environment’, where they can master confidence in sciences.
Both educators and laypeople alike seem to have accepted the perception that girls are historically disadvantages in terms of performances in math and science, yet historically and scientifically, these difficulties are questionable. The popular press has jumped into the contemporary debate on sex-segregated math and science classes. Academic education circles have also found a new preoccupation in this topic. This issue is closely related in matters of co-education in that it creates a negative perception of the idea of teaching boys and girls in the same settings.
In sharp contract, a keen look at the historical experiences of women in science serves to dispel any stereotypes about women and difficulties in this subject. What is lacking today is a critical analysis of sociopolitical parameters as they relate to women and their educational experiences. This scholarly shortcoming in terms of analysis perpetuates historical and personal stereotypes instead of militating against the obstacles that the stereotypes create.
The proportion of the girls who were studying physics between 1961 and 1986 rose by 64%. This was happening at a time when girls’ state schools were fast disappearing (Smithers& Robinson, 2006). During this time, many other things were happening such that there may be a likelihood of the relationship not being causal. However, Smithers& Robinson (2006) are of the opinion that using the same reasoning, it cannot be claimed that the differences that were observed in single-sex and co-educational schools were caused by separation or mixing of the sexes.
There is lack of clear evidence that the gap that exists in subject choices can be narrowed through single-sex education although the question of whether this should be the prime aim of putting in place single-sex education remains open. Scholars have suggested that capping performance or not allowing choices is a good way of narrowing subject gender gaps though neither of these options may seem very desirable in themselves.
Emotional and Behavioraland Development
Many proponents of co-education say that it creates an environment that is very realistic and hence conducive to the process of social adjustment. Just as in the case of academic achievement, findings tend to be contradictory. Some studies show that co-education is advantageous in matters of social development while others indicate that girls say they feel better while socially integrating in single-sex schools. Indications have been made to the effect that in co-educational settings, factors such as male dominance, differential treatment and expectations by teachers, and girls being considered as a negative reference category come into play (Smithers& Robinson, 2006). In the case of single-sex classes, some studies indicate that positive results are easily achievable through more targeted teaching although many incidences of resentment and behavior problems seem to shadow these positive results.
Parental Preferences
Many parents choose schools on the basis of exam results and reputation. The issue of whether they are single-sexed does not seem to take a centre stage. However, for some parents, it may be an overriding concern especially on grounds of cultural and religious considerations. Findings of researches on whether co-educated students liked the learning experiences are contradictory. According to (Smithers& Robinson, 2006), over a half of males and a third of females who were candid enough to express a preference and who had attended single-sex schools were opposed to the idea of their children going to co-educational schools. These findings are contradictory to the ones reported by Robinson (1999).
In the research findings reported by Smithers& Robinson (2006), different ranges of ages were viewed separately. The separation existing between ages 11 and 16 were observed to be more popular than those of sixth-form studies or those of younger children. In what seems like a response to studies such as this one, nowadays, some schools are proposing a ‘diamond’ pattern in which case, both sexes are educated together in their early years as well as later years but whereby a separation is made in between these two periods. The reaction of parents to, as well as performance of, these schools has not yet been tested (Robinson, 1999, Woods, 1992).
The issue of transition to university has also been of great relevance in the co-educational settings debate. The conventionally held feeling is that those students who attended single-sex schools are faced with a need to adjust to the co-educational settings of the university, something that puts them at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts who attended co-educational high schools. However, a rather interesting research finding that Tyack &Hansot (1990) report is that both groups are faced with the same problem of having to ‘look after themselves’. There is also the general feeling of having being separated from high school friends at a time when one is undergoing many new university experiences. In this regard, students who were educated in co-educational settings in the immediate lower levels are observed to be highly likely to fall into difficulties just as easily as their counterparts from single-sex settings.
Comparison between coeducational and single-sex settings
Whereas one of the most obvious features that people are interested is whether it is for both sexes or it is for one of the sexes, it is not obvious that this categorization has a direct impact on the success of various schools. There are many other factors that have a very strong bearing the academic success in a school, such as parents’ socioeconomic status, academic ability of pupils, leadership and teaching approaches, size of the school, reputation and income, among many others. None of these factors acts separately on the level of performance in a school; different factors interact in varying combinations to bring about various academic outcomes.
Impact of co-educational settings from a historical perspective: The case of UK and U.S
Recently, researchers have noticed a change in balance between co-educational and single-sex schools. On a historical note, In England, the very first schools targeted boys alone. Girls’ formal education was not perceived as necessary and for this reason, young ladies would be taught by governesses. In the latter half of the 19th century, the education of the girl child became a major issue, in which time it was assumed that girls’ schools were supposed to be developed along the same lines as the existing ones that were meant for boys. Occasionally, as progressive experiments, co-educational schools would be set up.However, as recently as 1968, there were only 3 co-educational schools out of 273 leading independent schools (Smithers and Robinson, 2006)
In the early years of the 20th century in England the state secondary education system at the national level began to under an evolution, during which time it was assumed that educating girls and boys separately was simply the right thing to do. Although mixed schools were sometimes set in some rural areas where it was not possible to gather enough children in order to sustain two different schools, single-sex settings remained a norm during the 1960s.
Then, with time but without any debate, a shift towards comprehensive education resulted in the ending of selection by ability in the case of children who were aged 11. It was naturally felt that selection by sex should end as well. The result of this was a sweeping move that saw secondary and grammar schools being transformed into co-educational comprehensive schools. The only exception was in the case of schools that were managed under local authorities whereby calls for a shift towards co-educational comprehensive models were not adhered to (Spender, 1982).
In the United, sometimes, students and families choose single-sex schools over coeducational schools mainly for traditional reasons. They may also do this because of the value they attach to these schools in relation to them being opportunity structures. Obviously, girls and boys seem to have different reasons for preferring one form of schooling and not the other. Previous research has shown differential gender effects. Most people who seek private schooling options as well as those relating to religious orientation will most likely choose a single sex option.
Just like in the UK, gender organization of U.S schools has been a subject of increasing scrutiny mainly on analytical perspectives relating to comparative effectiveness, equity, and in recent times, historical evolution of gender practices and policies in public education. Marsh et al (1985) notes that public schooling in the U.S became co-educational after social and economic segregation turned into the normal practice in the workplace. In light of this, co-education seemed to be preparing students for socialization of young women and men who would take their ‘rightful’ places in a society that was already stratified along gender lines (Marsh et al, 1985).
In the U.K’s independent sector education, external forces seem to be driving people towards choosing co-education. The main influence here is the market as opposed to intrinsic benefits. By 2005, out of all 598 independent schools that covered England’s secondary school-range students, 81 boys’ and 215 girls’ were single sex (Smithers&Robinson, 2006). This indicates that single sex education, which many people in this sector took for granted for many years, is being threatened. Girls’ schools particularly feel the greatest sense of threat as more boys’ schools continue to open their doors to girls (Kenway& Willis, 1986).
It is ironical that in the U.K, the first most significant researches relating to this debate centered on the advantages of co-education, mostly in reaction to domination of the education system by single-sex education. Not all these benefits were able to stand the test of time (Kenway& Willis, 1986).
In America, the co-education debate over which education setting is best has continued to spark heated debates, some of them of legal nature (Cerven, 2002). The fight for equality began when all-male colleges were forced to start admitting women. This action was taken in the wake of struggle by civil rights movements, whereby equality of educational opportunity was equated to boys and girls being educated together. During this time, feminists were strongly in support of co-education. This differs remarkably with the case of the UK where feminists were rooting for single-sex schools in order to give girls equal opportunities for excelling in science subjects (Smithers& Robinson, 2006).
Importance of co-education in personal and social development
According to Smithers& Robinson (2006), Crump (1990), the main claims made in support of coeducation relate to issues of personal development. Many people have argued that when both sexes grow up together, there is greater happiness, fuller emotional and emotional development and smoother transition into the mixed university and outside life environment.
Many researches have been carried out in order to determine the effects of co-education on personal and social development. The pioneering research in this area was done by Dale (1969, 1971, 1974) cited by Smithers and Robinson (2006) in English grammar schools and the findings were that the average co-educational grammar school creates a happier environment for both staff and pupils compared to an average single-sex school; a demonstration was also made that this happiness does not necessarily come at the expense of academic progress.
According to the research, boys seemed to be the stronger beneficiaries of co-educational schooling, a finding that Dale summed up by saying that progress for boys is improved without harming that of girls. This gives credit to the claims that U.K feminists were making to the effect that there are many inequalities that arise in co-educational settings in the form of subject-based assessments.
Meanwhile, the drift of almost all researches on co-education benefits is that this environment is socially authentic and more realisticSalomone (2003) cited in Smithers and Robinson (2006) says that this feeling has entered into social consciousness although some sections of the U.K population accuse Dale of trading off the achievement of girls with “a more mature attitude” and “better adjustment” of boys.
Co-education and Academic achievement
The overall conclusion that is derived from recent reviews of co-education and academic achievement indicates that there is no comprehensive answer to this question. Maybe the scholars who predict that the answer is longer than expected are right. In 2005, the U.S department of Education carried out a formal systematic review of co-education. The findings were that just like in previous reviews, the emerging results were very equivocal. In Canada, a similar study indicated that the findings were too tenuous to imply that single-sex schools and classrooms were a good option from the perspective of academic achievement.
In England during the 1980s, a research by the Equal Education Commission indicated that it was not possible to argue about matters of effectiveness along gender lines. They were arguing that separating sexes or putting them together had nothing to do with the way in which academic results are achieved; that many other factors that are of equal significance with sex have to be put into consideration. Social background is one of these factors. Another important factor is the ability of individual students who attend these schools, whether they are boys, girls or a mix of both sexes. From this discussion, Smithers and Robinson (2006) say that they cannot find any striking advantages of either single-sex or co-education.
The assertion that there are no striking benefits of either single-sex education or co-education is frustratingly understandable for staunch support of either learning model. These scholars explain the difficulty as being caused by the complexity is with the schooling system in its entirety and not the choice of learning settings per se.
Smithers and Robinson (2006) say that the best way to clear the air on the issue of co-education is to look at all the views that are expressed by different scholars. The four positions include: (a) there are no differences worth speaking of, (b) there are effects on academic performance, although they are very small compared to other, social development-related effects, (c) there are effects, although they act in interaction with many other factors, each of which shows up in some situations and not in others and (d) the methods used to gather evidence are not adequate to reveal any differences that exist in terms of academic performance.
People who say that there no benefits of co-education in terms of academic performance may be considered to be unrealistic or to be beating the rules of logic or to be reasoning in fallacious manner, considering that co-educational schools seem to trail behind their single-sex educational school counterparts (this is a case of England).
People who there are minor benefits of co-education are those who consider other contributing factors that can as well be attributed to the academic success of either learning approach. If a co-education school tops the national academic performance list, it does not mean that this performance was achieved simply by virtue of these schools being co-educational, they say. Consistent findings continue to emerge from researches indicate that the best indicator of academic performance is the ability of the intake of the school. After that, the other most significant contributing variables are school effectiveness and social background.
Additionally, factors such as leadership, ethos, spend per pupil, the curriculum, class size and teacher quality are of great significance in determining the scale of success in both single-sex and co-educational schools. Alice (1993) did a study on effects of co-education as well as other factors on academic performance and came up with the conclusion that the apparent single-sex education effects seemed to disappear when all other variables under investigation were taken into consideration. On its own, the single-sex setting was found to act as a proxy for type of school in general.
In terms of interactions, co-educational schools seem to show significant advantages for some students and not others. there is need for further studies to be done in order to investigate the social, economic and cultural backgrounds of each category of students in order to determine which other variables should be taken into consideration when studies of benefits of co-educational settings are being carried out. In certain societies, it is the girls who seem to like, as well as benefit from, co-educational settings; while in yet other societies, it is the other way round. However, in cosmopolitan societies, it is difficult to draw clear perceptual-differential lines on the basis of sex. It is in such societies that more research on benefits of co-educational settings is needed.
Co-education critics and advocates
Andrea (2008) says that since the introduction of the concept of co-education, critics and advocates have been rare. He adds that to the eyes of the foreigner who visits America today, co-educational classrooms seem rather strange and disturbing. To most Americans, they seem like a perfectly natural part of the country’s education landscape. However, from time to tome, heated debates have arisen on the issue of gender practices as they relate to education. The debates raged mostly in times of transition from one cultural belief about the place of men and women in society to the other. In the U.S, this happened most notably during the era of civil rights activism in the 1960s. Once civil rights activists started equating single-sex education to gender inequality, the media took up the issue and turned it into the next big debate.
During such debates, stakeholders in the education sector have had a good opportunity to reflect on the benefits of co-education. They also have had the opportunity to review various researches that have been done in the past relating to this issue with an aim of finding out where the truth really is. In other countries, the debate has tended to take slightly different approaches depending on the peculiar social circumstances of entire societies.
Areas of contention in the evolution of co-education
Andrea (2008) believes that the co-education debate deserves more attention that the one it has been receiving in recent times rather than sitting back and imagining that everything is fine with the existing educational setting in which contemporary students are exposed to. An important question to ask would be whether the advantages of co-education that were perceived during its introduction are applicable to contemporary realities of today’s education landscape.
When co-education was introduced as the norm in different schools, this was not the only possibility that existed, therefore, it does not make sense for a society that claims to be in pursuit of knowledge to fail to assess other options that could have been. If this is the case, the, one would have to revisit the events of the 19th century America when today’s co-education culture was nurtured. Americans had the option of teaching their girls using rudimentary approaches at home; they may also have chosen to restrict the education of their young girls to single-sex private schools. Alternatively, they may have chosen to emulate their counterparts in England and the rest of Europe where sexes were segregated in public schools. Where public schools were set up in England, investment in these schools was typically less and there was more curriculum restriction in girls’ schools compared to boys’ schools. For this reason, co-education was perceived as an attractive option with regard to equality as early as in the 19th century Europe.
In public schools, it is not possible to draw a clear evolutionary road in matters of gender policies and practices. This is a worrying trend that has found its way into contemporary public education policies all over the world. For this reason, the status of co-education at the international level can be described as confusing at best.
However, one notes that one good thing with co-education is that it has provided a good opportunity for policymakers to maintain a sense of equality in the way resources are distributed in public schools, at all levels. When this has happened, themes enshrined in the debate have shifted towards the nature of competition that exists between the sexes in co-educational settings. Feminists have complained that co-educational favor boys who come into these schools from a point of view of a patriarchal society that elevates them. Feminists highlight poor performance among girls in co-educational schools as one case in point illustrating their argument.
However, from the point of view of institutional thinking and rational explanation of constancy and change, the practice of co-education in public schools is very advantageous. As times keeps changing, though, some changes here and there become necessary. Whenever policymakers fail to update policies on time, some drawbacks relating to co-education begin to accrue and public sentiments against this educational setting start to become more and more dominant. Whenever temporal changes are accounted for, a switch from co-educational to single-sex schooling systems becomes unnecessary.
As a complex social institution, the school is an important place for gender roles to be defines. When these gender roles seem to favor boys at the expense of women, the problem is with the wider society and not with the co-educational schools. This view is often supported by psychologists, especially those who focus on sex-role socialization.
When students who have been brought up in male-dominated or patriarchal societies are taken through single-sex schools, they never get the opportunity to learn about the patriarchal nature of their societies and the resulting shortcoming. Therefore, this problem is postponed rather than confronted. Worse still, children who have been educated in single-sex schools do not understand the patriarchal nature of the society in which they live and therefore, they cannot contribute towards changing it in the future.
Boys’ sense of belonging in co-educational schools
It is often claimed that co-educational schools is good socialization of members o f both sexes. It is therefore not interesting that many researches on the advantages of co-educational settings have explored this issue in great detail. Although some researches fail to find any benefits of co-educational settings in terms of a sense of cohesion among pupils, some researchers have indicated that many pupils, particularly girls, tend to identify more intimately with the social groups that they create in single-sex schools compared to those that are formed in mixed-sex schools.
Apart from these direct examinations that provide very contradictory data, a considerable body of literature implicitly refutes what educationists previously used to call ‘natural atmosphere’. For instance, in terms of the nature of interaction dynamics inside classrooms, a demonstration has been made to show that boys as well as girls tend to prefer to have same-sex peers from the time they enter into pre-school right to the secondary school level. However, these findings do not reflect the fact that the dynamics of choosing peers in co-educational schools are different from those that exist in single-sex schools. In the former setting, children choose the sex of the person to form peers with. In the latter setting, such an opportunity is never provided.
In co-educational settings, students know what it feels like to choose a boy in the place of a girl for a peer. In single-sex schools, children are never given an opportunity to have this kind of an experience. Some researchers have fronted this argument in order to support that single-sex schools are some de-facto form of segregation (Blumer, 1969).
At the same times, several ethnographic studies have devoted attention to social practices that thrive in mixed school settings. Some of these practices include differential treatment and expectations from teachers, gender segregation in extra-curricular activities, gendered subject choice, girls being the negative reference group, disproportionate tendencies in classrooms inclined in favor of boys and male dominance Phillips, (1979), Lee &Bryk, (1986).
Generally, indirect evidence indicates that co-educational schools give boys an undue advantage over girls when it comes to matters relating to a sense of belonging. Social bonding seems to be a more successful venture in a single-sex school compared to a co-educational school. However, the assumptions made in coming up with these indirect outcomes are rather questionable. For this reason, more research is needed in this area. At best, research on bonding in different educational settings is contradictory, mainly because it is difficult to factor in all the other factors that determine causation in the manner in which students form relations in different educational settings.
The contradictions in co-educational setting bonding patterns are also attributable to the nature of researches that are used (most researches of this kind are primarily descriptive). There is lack of proper controls and they also fail to develop a verifiable measure of students’ sense of belonging.
Examining the sense of belonging in a mixed school: the intricacies involved
The effects of mixed educations are not easy to determine without using multivariate model that has to encompass school-level and individual-level variables. This allows for a more accurate level of estimation of what the independent effects of a school type really are. Few researchers have been able to do this because of the complications involved and considering that this is a long process that requires proper planning and a multifaceted approach. This makes one wonder whether the outcomes of those researches that have done before using different approaches should be taken as credible or not.
Among the factors that such a research should take into consideration is the socio-economic status of the parents. Incidentally some schools, especially the prestigious schools tend to adopt unique educational settings. For instance, in a country where mixed schools are the norm, one may find that majority of prestigious private schools are single-sex institutions. Owing to the higher socio-economic status of the parents of these children, they learners have all the learning opportunities that they may want and therefore, these schools are always on top of the performance indices. To date, few researches acknowledge the strength of such a variable.
In terms of a sense of belonging, the social background of the students in school is a major determinant on the extent to which they feel contented with the school. If they come from economically-well off families, admission of peers from similar backgrounds will mean automatic contentment whether everyone in the school is feminine or not.
In particular, it has been noted that pupils who hail from lower social classes tend to feel less well integrated compared to their middle-class counterparts (Gilligan, 1982). The former group is likely to encounter incongruities between parental values and schooling. Additionally, the home environment is an important source of social capital for children from poor backgrounds. The parent-child relationship has far-reaching implications on the child’s school life and it affects the way in which he adapts to the school environment.
Similarly, a socio-psychological variable that pertains to the quality of the relationship between the teacher and the pupil can function as a buffer against all potential school-type school effects. Therefore, a positive attitude towards teachers can moderate a possible relationship between the state of co-education and a strong sense of belonging.
Additionally, factors related to academic achievement need to be included in the analysis of benefits of co-educational settings because both grades and curriculum enrolment have been pointed out as some crucial factors that influence school-related attitudes.
As concerns school level and the benefits of co-education, the socio-economic status debate has to come into the limelight. This is because this indicator of a pupil’s social context naturally varies from one school to the other. Therefore, it is not good for researchers to generalize the experiences of one school, region or country onworldwide scenarios. Additionally, there is always a cultural aspect to the way in which students adapt to school, one the more reason for socio-economic status factor to be surveyed in greater detail.
The implication of this on the ongoing debate on the effects of co-education as far as a sense of belonging is concerned is that a positive or a negative effect can be a result of a high level of concentration among pupils who come from, respectively, middle-class or working class (lower class) backgrounds.
What needs to be clearly noted here is that with regard to the influence that comes from the socio-economic status of the school, the notion that single-sex settings has never acquired elitist connotations in many European and Asian countries. Therefore, the experience of the U.K and the U.S may not be generalized to scenarios in these countries. In fact, in a country like Belgium, many catholic secondary, an increasing proportion of them, which constitute a major component in the education sector (about 70%) of all schools, have been transformed into co-educational settings because of financial considerations since the mid-eighties.
In countries where co-education research has not been conducted extensively, one of the first aims of researchers is often to describe co-education settings-vis-à-vis single-sex schools. Such a comparison forms a good foundation of further research in that the existing areas of disconnection in research are identified. Once they are identified, they form a good basis of concrete research.
Traditions regarding co-education differ from one country to another. in countries where single-sex schools have had to be transformed into co-educational schools on because of financial constraints, such schools lack elitist connotations; in contrast, they are viewed in pragmatic terms as good breeding places of future professionals especially for pupils from poorer backgrounds who are in a more precarious situation as far as the hunt for opportunities is concerned.
Without comparability of data, it is not possible for co-education research to be considered to be credible. Data comparisons should be made on matters of not only dependent variable A versus independent variable B but also between the disparities in the proportion of students attending co-education school A and single-sex school B. In some countries, it is only prudent to include state schools in the research while in others, it is better to conduct separate researches on different categories of schools. It all depends on the nature of school demographics in a country.
Co-education and choice of science subjects: A case of Australia
The subjects that one studies during senior secondary school years determine greatly the available career and educational options. Choice of these subjects has been at the center of co-educational vs. single-sex settings debate. In this regard, issues of equality have been invoked with the traditionally-expressed feeling that girls have been sidelined in sciences being dominant in Australia as it is in other countries of the world, developed and developing. The issue of science subjects and equity evokes emotional debates since these subjects are very great determiners of majority of the programs professional education that one may choose to pursue after completing secondary education.
The perceived (or otherwise inherent) lower level of engagement by young women in science courses during secondary school years means that they are denied access to some vocational choices. In some Western countries such as the UK, single-sex classrooms or single-sex education schools are put in place as a way of addressing this imbalance, through allowing girls to compete amongst themselves for participation in science subjects.
Ainley& Daly (2002) says that in Australia, as of 1998, 24% of all students going through their final year are in a single-school. Attendance into single-sex schools is higher among girls than among boys. The difference appears to be a reflection of a feeling among many Australian parents that single-sex educational settings are more ideal for girls than they are for boys. Baker et al (cited in Ainley& Daly, 2002) says that the inherent effects of groupings that are based on single-sex educational settings on academic and social development outcomes is far greater in national contexts although at this level, these settings are rare.
Although a minority of Australia’s student population attends single-sex schools, the proportion is not rare, and as far as girls are concerned, they are certainly not rare. In fact, they provide for almost a quarter (24%) of all the students who are in their final year of secondary education. It is also worthy noting that single-sex schools are predominant in sectors that are not government-controlled. This accounts for about 60 per cent of all students who are in their final year of secondary school education.
Baker et al (cited in Ainley& Daly, 2002) understands that there is an important body of research that relates to participation in sciences, of students from both co-educational and single-sex schools in England, Australia and Ireland. All these researches are observed to have far-reaching implications on the prevailing attitudes of policy makers, activists and parents. Sometimes, these the attitudes expressed in these researches find expression even among students.
In all these researches, the role that is played by co-education remains controversial, and more research outcomes are being anticipated on areas that attract contention, particularly in issues of subject choice along gender lines. What is generally agreeable along scholarly lines is that the issue of choice of and participation in science courses in high school is first and foremost a function of interests, abilities, background and opportunities. As students advance through school education, they develop a certain sense of competence in science and mathematics. They also develop interest in investigative activities, mainly through social experiences and influences both from within and from outside the school setting (Ainley& Daly, 2002).
For research on the benefits of co-education as far as science subject choice is concerned to be properly understood the issue of differences in uptake of these subjects between boys and girls must take into consideration the competencies and interests that these pupils have developed in earlier stages of schooling. Situational constraints like the availability of these subjects need to be factors in as well. In this case, it seems as if a research of this kind would have to be preceded by an in-depth background research work on the educational circumstance of the group under study at all levels of learning- from early childhood education to the current level of education (high school).
The co-education factor is easily assessable in terms of its effects only as far as availability of immediate preferences is concerned. The most commonly researched constraints are availability of subjects and opportunities. Ainley& Daly (2002) insists that patterns of uptake of science subjects among high school students is not simply a matter that is determined by the decisions that are taken during the final year of secondary school education.
Co-education and subject participation
Co-education affects the way male and female students participate in different subjects in terms of performance. However, research on this area is not conclusive (Ainley& Daly, 2002). Elwood &Gipps (1999) cited in Ainley& Daly (2002) concludes from his research that subjects such as science and mathematics in single-sex schools are conventionally more popular among girls whereas languages and music tend to be popular among boys, in single sex settings as well.
Research findings in this regard have been largely contradictory. In England, for instance, a dramatic decline has been observed in the provisions made by single-sex schools since the early 1960s. In Australia, the opposite has been the case. In the 1990s, a growing concern relating to a widening gap between the performance of boys and that of girls marked the shift in concerns over imbalances. During this time, boys, rather than girls, were seen to be the losers if international trends were anything to go by. However, the England’s case is an isolated one whereby a very complex situation has occurred relating to uptake of courses.
Predictor variables of interest are often used to determine the relationship between uptakes vs. performance in both co-educational and single-sex school settings. In the context of Australia, this is very important since single-sex schools, apart from constituting a minority, are often characterized by increased cases of earlier school achievement and higher disparities in socio-economic background of students compared to those of co-educational settings.
The influence of gender composition, according to research findings reported by Strauss & Corbin (1998) is very predominant. “Boys-only” schools are reported to participate at the highest level in science courses while “girls-only” schools perform the lowest. However, Strauss & Corbin (1998) are quick to note that the disparities in these patterns could be as a result of course-taking patterns rather than influences of educational setting and gender composition. It is possible for a similar explanation to apply in the case of biological courses, where “girls-only” schools do best while “boys-only” schools are the worst in terms of participation.
Although such researches are enlightening in the general sense of the word, they suffer from a fundamental weakness of not being able to take into account the characteristics of various schools and the students who attend them. One variable that is often omitted from such research is the socio-economic differences and the nature of grounding and competencies that the students have nurtured earlier levels of schooling.
From the ongoing discussion, it becomes unclear whether differences between co-educational and single-sex schools results from gender composition in these schools or it is mainly associated with inherent differences in the way the schools are governed as well as socio-economic backgrounds of students.
It is not possible for one to discuss issues of interests in different subjects without invoking the issue of vocational interests. In school, there are many social influences that determine the choices that males and females make in life. Curriculum tracking seems to limit opportunities to the study foundations that one has formed early on in life. The ability by students to overcome subject stereotyping determine the choices that they make. In co-educational schools, it is easier for students to overcome these stereotypes than in single-sex schools.
Subject participation arguments that tend to be in favor of single schools often focus on the level of participation in girls when it comes to physical sciences. Other subjects that are considered to be traditionally meant for girls are left out of the picture. For this reason, many students in single-sex schools tend to ignore these subjects. These students are not to blame for their attitudes; their counterparts from co-educational schools are always on their necks demanding to know why they cannot make use of the “opportunities” that they already have by virtue of getting an opportunity to attend single-sex schools.
On the other hand, single-sex environments seem to be the places where such ideas thrive most. This is especially in small schools where stereotypical ideas are most rampant. Additionally, there are many complex issues of management that are involved in single-sex classes (Dale, 1974). Generally, in such circumstances, it is better to have co-educational settings since sexist and feminine attitudes cannot easily thrive. In most cases, it is not the girls in single-sex schools who choose to have feminine attitudes; they are imposed on them by the prevailing educational circumstances. Furthermore, the events of the outside world end up finding their way into the classroom and finally, into the school’s curriculum.
Although the managements of single-sex schools may put constraints on the attitudes that students exhibit towards the prevailing feminist attitudes, it is difficult to defeat feminist attitudes completely out of the society. The pressures are often too overt to ignore. In other words, they become a part of the reality that all students in these schools have to contend with. Otherwise, teachers have look for the reasons why they have to be separated from boys.
The only time when a conclusion in favor of single-sex schools seems plausible is when alternatives to co-educational school are being sought, according to Fontana & Frey (2000). However, when the issue is looked at from the perspective of educational policy, this does not seem like the best thing to do. Without a theoretical basis to warrant such a move, no one can warrant the success of such a decision. Therefore one can validly say that the decision is not credible and therefore it should not be supported. In fact, Gill, (2004) considers such a decision to be neither desirable nor practicable. However, Gill, (2004) says that there are more flexible versions of single-sex schools that are worth giving a second look.
For girls, a research done by Gill, (2004) showed very positive effects in terms of self-efficacy, ability to achieve the set goals and to achieve profitability from own space. On the other hand, the same thing could be said regarding linguistic subjects and the level of performance of boys in these areas. This is an important research area that should not be ignored.
Gill, (2004) seems to have no problem with a situation where single-sex classes are created for specific subjects. He also seems to have no problem with the creation of what he refers to as single-sex academies with girls being educated in different classrooms from boys. This practice is becoming increasingly popular in the contemporary England educational landscape. It is also becoming very popular in the United States (Stake, 2000).
Steedman (1985) observes that the question of whether or not single-sex academies can be established in Germany is subject to debate and deserves critical examination. There are specific historical influences that are easy to transfer from one country to the other. However, there are others that cannot be easily transferred. In this case, Steedman (1985) roots for a test-trial in order for a conceivable alternative to be objectively determined.
Multivariate co-education analyses in Australia
To begin with, single-sex schools are easily found in Catholic and private settings in Australia. These schools are likely to enroll students who come from higher social backgrounds compared to co-educational schools. For this reason, they are less famous. They are also more likely to admit students who have already achieved high levels of achievement. For this reason, there are major inequalities whenever attempts are made to compare co-educational schools with single-sex schools. However, on the face value, co-educational schools seem to provide the right setting for students who want to achieve higher educational goals but have limited means of doing so.
Back to the issue of physical sciences, it seems that there are correlations between longitudinal studies carried out in Australia as well as those that have been carried out in England. In both cases, co-educational seem like the best option for the majority of the population in these countries. They are a better reflection of the society compared to single-sex schools. In this regard, single-sex schools are viewed in negative light, and the students who graduate from these schools are perceived to be ill-prepared to meet the realities of life outside school.
However, comparative research involving England and Australia indicates that the co-educational research is far from conclusive; there are many areas of policy that still need to be approached with absolute caution, especially the issue of subject uptake. In this case, emphasis should be put on the need for increased public funding of co-education to be increased since it forms thee backbone of many educational systems in different countries all over the world.
Steedman (1985) notes that there are many similarities in the findings of co-educational and single-sex researches in terms of achievement although there is need for follow-ups to be done relating to how different students adapt to the external environments around them. not all students end up in colleges and universities. A significant number of them end up in the corporate world straight from high school. Steedman (1985) says that no research has been done to target this group and therefore, according to him, this is where future co-educational research should be directed.
The superiority that is always noted with regard to raw data as far as single sex schools are concerned is not always evident. There are always gaps in research that need to be investigated further. When statistical allowances are made, the data no longer seems to indicate the strength of single-sex schools.O n the contrary the data seems to illuminate clearly the differences that exist between single sex schools and co-educational schools. Such findings constitute very good sources of recommendations in matters of policy and further research.
In many cases, single-sex schools admit students from better-off communities in terms of financial wellbeing whose level of ability is relatively high. for this reason, which keeps recurring in this research, researchers should always be mindful of altering the existing systems in order to respond to the needs of only the advantaged groups that wants to heap even more benefits upon what they already have up on their sleeves as a result of the educational opportunities that their financial statuses have bought them.
In German schools, Steedman (1985) notes that it is possible for single-sex learning environments to run counter to co-educational classrooms, particularly in physics. This is an outcome of international research studies that were carried out in different German speaking countries.However, Steedman (1985) notes that the results of this research are contradictory to those of other researches carried out previously. Meanwhile, as far as students in these countries are concerned, the results are a reflection of the reality as they experience it everyday in these settings.
Although every overview of international researches indicates advantages of single-classes, the results of these researches are always found to be unclear. The main sources of contention are in the assumptions made (Steedman (1985). Even in the limited cases whereby empirical studies highlighting the advantages of single-sex classes are available, their explanatory power is always suspected to be limited in terms of the available frames of references. The most important frame of reference in this case is previous studies, which, in themselves have historically been strongly questioned.
Conclusion
In some cases, co-educational settings are advantageous to students. In other cases, they are disadvantageous. The socio-economic status of individuals as well as societies is very important in determining the perceptions that people have towards different educational settings. From the face of it, co-educational settings seem like the best option for students who anticipate joining university such that they want to be familiar with the co-educational settings that exist in this environment.
Research on co-educational settings has been shaped greatly by the need to address that feminists refer to as imbalances in opportunities given to girls to enable them o access different educational opportunities that correspond to choice of science subjects. Feminists are worried that such opportunities are not available in co-educational settings. This claim is yet to be proven through research (Robinson, 1999).
Traditionally, co-education has been hailed as the best realistic setting for students who want exposure to an environment that is as identical to the world outside school as possible. Majority of researches are in support of this idea. Parental preferences have been greatly shaped by this way of thinking. Such outcomes have formed the basis of further research, especially one that compared co-educational schools to single-sex schools.
This research has found very many congruities in co-education benefits in the U.K, U.S and Australia. Co-education has been seen to win the favor of many educationists in terms of inherent benefits. However, whereas civil rights movements equated single-education in the U.S to denial of inalienable rights of cross-sexual relations, in the U.K, feminists saw single-sex education as the best way of giving girls an opportunity of trying out their luck on science subjects.
The main areas of contention as far as the issue of advantages and disadvantages of co-education are concerned revolve on the issues of future evolution of co-education, sense of belonging among students in either educational setting, the intricacies involved in co-education research, co-education and subject participation and the importance of multivariate co-education analyses. These are the main areas that focus should be put in the future.
References
Alice, W. (1993). Co-Education: A Series of Essays by Various Authors. New York:
Kissinger Publishing.
Andrea, G. (2008). Women and Coeducation in the American West. London: Sage.
Ainley, J & Daly, P. 2002. Participation in Science Courses in the Final year of High School in Australia the influences of Co-educational and Single-sex Schools” in Datnow& Lea Hubbard (Eds) Gender In Policy and Practice: Perspectives on Single-Sex and Coeducational Schooling, Routledge: London.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Carpenter, P. (1985). Single-Sex Schooling and Girls’ Academic Achievements. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 21, 456-473.
Cerven, K. 2002. Single-Sex Education: Promoting Equality or an Unconstitutional Divide, Heineonline Law Journal Library, 2(3) 699-765.
Crump, S. (1990). Gender and curriculum: Power and being female. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11, 365-385.
Dale, R. (1974) Mixed or Single Sex Schools Vol I? Routledge & Kegan: London
Fontana, A. & Frey J.H. (2000). The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated Text. Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gill, J. (2004). Beyond The Great Divide: Single Sex or Co-Educational. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Difference Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University
Jones J (1990). Outcome of Girls School: Unravelling Some Differences – Australian, Journal of Education 34(2), 12-34.
Kenway, J. & Willis, S. (1986) “Counting Sexism in the Single Way: a flawed proposition” in Porter, P. Gender and Education, Deakin University Australia, Routledge: London.
Lee, V. and Bryk, A. (1986). Effects of single secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 381-395.
Marsh, H., Parker, J. & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional Adolescent Self-Concepts: Their
Phillips, S. (1979). Young Australians: The Attitudes of our Children, Sydney: Harper and Row.
Relationship to Age, Sex and Academic Achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 25, 237-269.
Robinson, P. 1999. Should The Sexes Be Separated For Secondary Education — Comparisons Of Single-Sex And Co-Educational Schools? 14, (1), 23 – 49.
Smithers, A. & Robinson, P. 2006. The Paradox of Single-Sex and Co-Educational Schooling, Buckingham: Carmichael Press
Spender, D. (1982). Invisible Women: The schooling scandal. London: Writers and Readers.
Stake, R.E. (2000). Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin& Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) pp. 435-454. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steedman, J. (1985). Examination results in mixed and single-sex secondary schools. In D. Reynolds(ed.) Studying School Effectiveness. London: Falmer Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tyack, D. &Hansot, E. (1990). Learning Together: A History of Coeducation in American Public Schools. New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press.
Woods, P. (1992). Symbolic Interactionism: Theory and Method. In J.P. Goetz (Ed.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. London: Sage.
