Essay

The benefits of co-ed schools are crucial to the development of children. Being exposed to to the opposite sex is beneficial in numerous ways, whereas being secluded from the opposite sex can spark problems. Co-ed classrooms are the majority of schools across the country, which does not prove to be problematic. It does show that co-ed classrooms are more academically successful and single-sex schools lead to sexism, lower academic achievement, and do not prepare students for the real world.

First, single-sex classes results in sexism among students. Girls who attend all-girl schools were actually “more gendered in outlook, more likely to view boys in superficial and stereotypical terms, and to view dating and relationships the same way (Lamb). In 1996 the Wall Street Journal published an article called "Why Johnny can't empathize: No girls in this class?" which reported that all-boys' schools are breeding grounds for sexism ad gender role stereotyping (Thompson). This sexism separates boys and girls with a barrier of stereotypes, keeping them isolated from each other.

When compared with co-ed classrooms, studies have shown that single sex classrooms have lower achievement and test scores. This lower achievement has been seen specifically in boys. A study was shown that boys in a preschool classroom with more boys fared worse in terms of development (Moller). It has also been proven that female students motivate and encourage unmotivated male students. Without both genders, classrooms also lose important questions, different perspectives, and interests that would have been brought up by the opposite sex (Kirschenbaum). When boy students are isolated with other boys, it can cause much more violence and competition that interferes with academic success. When girls are added to the environment, it was proven that there was more cooperation, less fighting, more relaxed learning environment, and less distractions (Mahan). Therefore, it is proven that co-ed classrooms have higher achievement due to a better learning environment.

Lastly, the environment in single-sex schools do not prepare students for the real world, since the real world is not segregated. The ultimate purpose of education is to teach students skills that will help them succeed after they graduate. Not all the skills and ideas that are learned at school are taught in the classroom, things such as social skills, perceptions of the world, stereotypes, and other abstract concepts are not teachable through conventional means. (Coyle, Razavian) When these ideas are learned in a single-sex school, students get a skewed view of gender roles and the social skills are not fully developed, and when the students go out into the real world they will struggle to succeed. The positive short term skills obtained in a single-sex classroom do not overcome the negative long lasting effects a single-sex school will have on students.

Imagine this, students here at RAHS in a co-ed. Gym class. Where the girls don’t shy away from academic achievement but try to become stronger and better athletic wise than the boys in their class. If we were to have single sex classrooms how would this be possible? If females inspire to be better than boys and try their very hardest to accomplish this than why should we take this away by having single sex classrooms? Also how would sexism decrease by having single sex classrooms? Or if the point of school is to prepare kids for the real world how can single sex classrooms prepare them when the real world consists of competing against the other gender? For these reasons I believe that single sex classrooms would be worse for RAHS, our curriculum, students and our world.