Reflection 9: Prejudice and Injustice
Over the years, prejudice and injustice in schools have been the main argument with single-sex schools being the most favored than the coeducation. 30 years ago, many educators believed that the most beneficial way to assure equal educational opportunity for both boys and girls would be to concentrate more and insist on educating boys and girls in the same classroom. However, a thoughtful review of the prove collected over the past thirty years propose that coeducation may not essentially work well as expected. The most important prove nowadays suggests that coeducational settings indeed reinforce gender stereotypes, while the single-sex classroom breaks down the gender stereotypes (Talbot 5).
The most extraordinary evidence is the notion that there are differences in the sexes’ learning styles. In one way or another, the prove was not good as the gap between their learning styles has no significance to grant the mandate of separate instruction. Indeed, the intellectual and psychological differences do exist between women and men. However, Meta-analysis of the most significance studies proves the differences to be relatively small. According to Lise Eliot, women and men are more alike than different. A psychologist Diane Halpern concluded that there is no well-designed research. Halpern points out that single-sex education enhances the academic performance of the students, and despite the fact that there are some excellent programs for single-sex education that depicts real benefits; it has frequently been attributed to selection bias not only to motivation but also a sense of mission amongst the staff and teachers (Talbot 2). The evidence of injustice and prejudice is well depicted where pedagogies enthusiastically billed better for girls such as mixing word problems with a more standard equation and hands-on science demonstrations. Ideally, the approach would be most crucial for anybody with no natural bent for science or math.
There are real challenges with the single-sex approach as behind it are the presumptions that are fussy and usually plain silly. Boys are loud voices, bright light, and competition. On the other hand, girls thrive well on collaborations and team projects; girls like doing calm exercise while boys like running. Also, girls like reading while boys do not (Talbot 3). All these differences mentioned above, among others, are likely to benefit all genders. For instance, the differences would help in sharpening one’s mind, and, therefore, essential for all genders. Further, the differences make coeducation most crucial despite the prejudice and injustice that give rise to single-sex education programs. Single-sex education settings show some benefits, for example, girls being more likely to choose classes in science, math, and information technology and boys pursuing interests in music, art, foreign languages and drama. Nevertheless, no professional development has been reached since neither the teachers nor the school heads understand how the boys and girls learn differently. Hence, the different stakeholders in education have no idea on how to determine which teacher is right and best suit which classroom. Such poorly thought out experiments results are not impressive and at times disastrous (Talbot 5).
The arguments for and against the single-sex education have since heated up. As a result, many parents have realized that the options for coeducational schooling and single gender have important implications for the psychological, academics, and social growth for their children. However, the evidence of single-sex education programs proves that there are injustice at schools and are caused by the perceptions on how girls and boys learn, gender stereotypes, socialization, and behavior and so-called girl and boy academic subjects. Perhaps, single sex bonding at all-girl and all-boy schools can in a way generate scorn for the opposite sex.
Talbot, Margaret. The Case against Single-Sex Classrooms. 2012. Print.