What's the point of an all-boys and all-girls school?

[Lea101]

But even that would be a choking point for the postmodern feminist society, non?

Isn’t is strange how differences in perception, when they favor females, are recognized and welcomed (we all know that women have stronger noses, and that some can see four primary colors), but differences in perception unique to males must be ignored?

ICXC NIKA

Don’t read too much into it. Majority of people simply have no idea about certain differences. Because people have been saying nonsense and calling it science (so whatever gender difference they hear, they just label is as pseudoscience), the differences are not that important (a slight difference that doesn’t really have any impact) or they were simply not exposed to neuroscience.

 

[SMHW]

In other words, all-girl schools seem by the evidence to be more beneficial to females than all-boy schools are to males. Even the advantage to females is not universal; some females do not have any problem with males in the classroom.

This was my understanding.

 

[Vonsalza]

My son went to an all boys high school and my niece went to an all girls high school, both Catholic. I think my niece gained a lot of confidence from her experience, as did my son, but who can say how they would have turned out if they had gone coed? I did attend a coed Catholic high school and I got very distracted by the opposite sex . I dare say it changed the course of my life, but again, who can really say for better or worse?

Post-pubescent hormone spikes. There’s your answer, sports-fans. It is no more complicated than that.

I found it difficult to pay attention to Mr. Walters when the “luscious ladies” of my high-school days showed up to class in short-shorts and spaghetti-straps.

You could counter it with a dress code, to some degree. But there is, without a doubt, an “increased awareness” of the opposite sex at that time in your life as you are both about as physically pristine as you’ll ever be this side of mortality.

Its was both very inconveniencing and wildly exciting. I obviously went co-ed.

 

[JanetF]

Like others have said, such environments can be beneficial in an academic sense because they minimize distractions that are common to co-ed schools.

However…such distractions are going to be present in college/the “real” world, and I believe that learning how to deal with them is a necessary part of growing up. Following along the same vein, I was homeschooled, so I didn’t go through the same “socialization” process as my peers who went to public/private school. It did minimize distractions, but it also stunted my social development somewhat, and I had to learn to socialize with others as a young adult, which was incredibly hard. Thank God I had brothers, or I would probably have been lost when it came to interacting with guys.

TL;DR - Interacting with the opposite sex can be a distraction, but it’s better to learn how to deal with it when you’re younger.

I agree that such environments can be beneficial in an academic sense. I also agree that the social aspect of co-ed schools is helpful to kids before they go off to college or out into the real world.

 

[Tommy999]

Growing up, I always attended co-ed schools so I was curious about this subject too and have enjoyed reading the replies on this thread.

The closest I ever came to an All-boys school was spending a week one summer at an American Legion ‘Boys State’ event when I was in high school. It was nice, but enjoyed it more when we had a joint event with the girls from ‘Girls State’ near the end of the week.

On a side note, I always thought it was a little unfair when my public high school’s sports teams played an All-boys private Catholic high school. They were a sports powerhouse and would usually beat our team as well as most other teams in the state.

This was due, in part, to the size of the school’s enrollment dictating what classification you played in, and our school of 1000 students was co-ed with presumably 50% boys, whereas the Catholic athletic powerhouse school had 1000 students (all boys) to choose from, which I thought was a little unfair.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed playing against this school because I knew they were always among the best teams in the state and playing them was always a good gauge to see where we stood.

 

[mikeeh]

Single-sex schools do have some benefits. Boys and girls learn differently and the changes during puberty can be difficult when the opposite sex is always around. It’s not just the way they learn. Some teachers unintentionally favor one sex over the other. For example, sometimes teachers call on the boys more than girls. They assume the girls are smarter so they call on them less and praise them less when they give correct answers. This makes the girls feel like the boys are better. The teachers do not do this to make girls feel bad, but they assume they have to make sure the boys are learning. There are plenty of studies that state single-sex classrooms are better, but there are also plenty of studies that state the opposite. From my own observation when I taught Catholic middle school, I noticed the 7th grade boys were very immature. I realized parents are so eager to put their children in school to give them a beneficial head start it has led to a slight disparity in maturity between boys and girls. On average, girls have always started puberty before boys but when the boys enter school too early they end up lagging behind the girls too much. By 6th grade the girls were entering adolescence. And by the 8th grade the girls were more adolescent than child, but it took the boys until the end of 8th grade to really start that transition. I think, however, the real benefit to single-sex schools today is to counter the growing popularity of transgenderism. Catholic schools need to take a stand against the secular society on this issue by encouraging more single-sex classrooms and campuses.

 

[EasterJoy]

The girls I know who went to all girls schools were far more likely to try and impress boys outside of school. For example, going outside the school at lunch and rolling g up the waistband of their skirts to make them shorter and standing where the boys from the all boys school would see them. I went to a mixed school and we all just got along. No dressing up, because when you see boys every day they aren’t exotic.

That being said, it really depends on the group of kids in question.

The point of all-girls school is to reduce the distraction, acting out or hesitation to participate during class. They study academic outcomes. I haven’t seen one that studies how young women who went to all-girls schools act differently around young men outside of school hours.

 

[EasterJoy]

Single-sex schools do have some benefits. Boys and girls learn differently and the changes during puberty can be difficult when the opposite sex is always around. It’s not just the way they learn. Some teachers unintentionally favor one sex over the other. For example, sometimes teachers call on the boys more than girls. They assume the girls are smarter so they call on them less and praise them less when they give correct answers. This makes the girls feel like the boys are better. The teachers do not do this to make girls feel bad, but they assume they have to make sure the boys are learning. There are plenty of studies that state single-sex classrooms are better, but there are also plenty of studies that state the opposite. From my own observation when I taught Catholic middle school, I noticed the 7th grade boys were very immature. I realized parents are so eager to put their children in school to give them a beneficial head start it has led to a slight disparity in maturity between boys and girls. On average, girls have always started puberty before boys but when the boys enter school too early they end up lagging behind the girls too much. By 6th grade the girls were entering adolescence. And by the 8th grade the girls were more adolescent than child, but it took the boys until the end of 8th grade to really start that transition. I think, however, the real benefit to single-sex schools today is to counter the growing popularity of transgenderism. Catholic schools need to take a stand against the secular society on this issue by encouraging more single-sex classrooms and campuses.

I get the sense that an all-physically-active school might be very beneficial during grade school. That would tend to have more males than females, but there are children who would benefit from a different model than sit-in-your-seats-and-learn model that works well for some others.

 

[LittleFlower378]

This is a good talk about Catholic Education.All boys girls is the best way to educate atleast the later grades. The presenter is going over a Treatise from a holy priest. In there he talks about how basically older kids shouldnt be put in a situation where they can have temptations regarding the other sex, especially at that age.

youtube.com/watch?v=1DXQMleKDzw

 

[PRmerger]

It also means fewer distractions. When I went to an all girls’ school, I didn’t focus on my appearance and impressing boys. The temptation just wasn’t there because they weren’t there.

Yes. At my DD’s all girls high school, the principal once announced, “Girls, we are having [A] visit today. Please comb your hair.”

She actually had to make an announcement about this.

Speaks volumes.

 

[SusanneT]

There is I believe quite a lot of evidence that boys and girls do better in single sex schools because there are fewer distractions and the teaching can be tailored to the relevant psychology. Personally I do feel that particularly at secondary level there are also moral advantages in allowing teenagers to grow up in a less sexually charged environment.

 

[LittleWay92]

I could see benefits from a “gear the teaching style toward their gender” perspective, but I think that the “less sexually distracting environment” rationale is faulty.

It seems to me that it could be a disservice to teenagers and young adults to shelter them from the opposite sex and then throw them into a co-ed environment when they enter college or the workforce. Grade schools, and even high schools, are much more supervised environments where children or teens can learn to safely interact with one another while still being supervised. As a student in a co-ed school, I learned to control my thoughts and distractions in order to study. The school had great test scores, so I doubt that there were too many issues with my classmates learning to control theirs as well. We also learned to get along and work with others, regardless of gender.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I think it’s possible for a co-ed school to be just as effective as an all boys or girls one. However, there are benefits to all boys/girls schools. In the younger grades, girls are scientifically proven to be about 2 years ahead of boys in maturity. Often, young boys benefit from a lot more running around and active lesson plans where the girls enjoy sitting still for longer periods of time and are capable of learning heavier material. As the reach Jr High/HS, hormones really kick in and there can be a benefit to not having the opposite sex around when trying to learn as it prevents distraction in the classroom. It also still holds true that you may lesson plan differently for a class of all boys vs all girls. If you have a co-ed room, you have to strike a middle ground for interest levels.

That being said, there are co-ed benefits. The opposite sex is less of a mystery and constant exposure may actually prevent boy/girl “crazy” behavior in the real world. I also think that classroom discussion benefits from varying viewpoints, whcih are more vast in a mixed sex classroom.

 

[edwest2]

I could see benefits from a “gear the teaching style toward their gender” perspective, but I think that the “less sexually distracting environment” rationale is faulty.

It seems to me that it could be a disservice to teenagers and young adults to shelter them from the opposite sex and then throw them into a co-ed environment when they enter college or the workforce. Grade schools, and even high schools, are much more supervised environments where children or teens can learn to safely interact with one another while still being supervised. As a student in a co-ed school, I learned to control my thoughts and distractions in order to study. The school had great test scores, so I doubt that there were too many issues with my classmates learning to control theirs as well. We also learned to get along and work with others, regardless of gender.

No one is throwing anyone into a co-ed environment. It’s a choice. The media is sending out the 24/7 message that self-control doesn’t exist and lots of sex is OK. After years of watching the changes from self-control to modeling no self control, my only conclusion is young people are mostly clueless regardless relationships, but can work together if that’s not an issue.

They are not being sheltered. They are being trained to focus. It’s not like they don’t have family and contact with others in their day to day lives. It is a good idea.

Ed

 

[Kay_Cee]

It also means fewer distractions. When I went to an all girls’ school, I didn’t focus on my appearance and impressing boys. The temptation just wasn’t there because they weren’t there.

I taught at an all-girls Catholic high school, and the majority of students loved being there for those very reasons.

 

[EasterJoy]

I could see benefits from a “gear the teaching style toward their gender” perspective, but I think that the “less sexually distracting environment” rationale is faulty.

It seems to me that it could be a disservice to teenagers and young adults to shelter them from the opposite sex and then throw them into a co-ed environment when they enter college or the workforce. Grade schools, and even high schools, are much more supervised environments where children or teens can learn to safely interact with one another while still being supervised. As a student in a co-ed school, I learned to control my thoughts and distractions in order to study. The school had great test scores, so I doubt that there were too many issues with my classmates learning to control theirs as well. We also learned to get along and work with others, regardless of gender.

It may seem that way, but the evidence does not show that. Young women who are educated in single-gender classrooms do not fare worse in a college classroom or a work environment than young women who were educated side-by-side with young men. Let us face it: professional men aren’t usually allowed to act like adolescent boys at work, so it isn’t so necessary as it once was for a woman in the workforce to have experience coping with the behaviors typical of immature males.

Instead, evidence shows that some single-gender settings are beneficial for some young women, whereas it shows no benefit for others. Some of the drawbacks of coeducational classroom settings, however, do not come from issues inherent to the setting–such as the distraction of having the opposite sex around–but rather from issues that become possible only in the setting–such as unequal treatment of students of different genders by teachers. For instance, some teachers will make rules that are enforced on the boys, but deemed unreasonable if “even the girls” find them difficult. Other teachers will have a “raise your hand to be called on” rule that is always enforced on the girls but unevenly or not enforced on the boys. Some teachers found a need to recognize the contributions of one gender more than the other, presumably not realizing that barely acknowledging one class of students while praising and engaging the other for similar (name removed by moderator)ut has the effect of telling the barely-acknowledged group that their (name removed by moderator)ut is not really wanted.

 

[EasterJoy]

I taught at an all-girls Catholic high school, and the majority of students loved being there for those very reasons.

I think that healthy people who adjust well to the situation they are in will often find reasons they are pleased with the school they got rather than the one they didn’t. It is certainly true of colleges. The grass isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. Sometimes, there aren’t any forks in the world better than the ones in the kitchen drawer at home.

Having said that, I’ve talked to priests who went to all-boy schools and returned to the same schools as faculty. I have not met one who didn’t think the change to a coeducational situation wasn’t an improvement, on the whole. They certainly did not think, for instance, that young men respect young women more when they are never around any. They did not think that the students couldn’t learn when the object of their affections went to the same school they did instead of a nearby school. If anything, they thought that a typical group of young males are a bit more civilized around young women than when they are in an all-male group.

(PS A man who approves of single-gender restrooms may simply wish that his sex weren’t treated as if no male wants or needs any privacy when seeking certain kinds of relief typical of a restroom. As a rule, restrooms open to all comers are a LOT more private than those intended for the use of one gender only.)

 

[Midwest88]

Excellent discussion. Today my alma mater released an official statement announcing that they have decided to go co-ed next fall semester.

I know a couple here said that going co-ed would help the boys and girls socialize, demystifying the sexes, with them gaining a firmer ground of understanding of one another as they enter college. What utter nonsense. As if those who went to single-sex schools did not flirt, date/court, marry and have children successfully.

What would be interesting is tracking the men who enter religious life after the integration. I know a couple who became priests when it was all-boys, but that was after a few years in the workforce with college degrees.

With that said please continue the discussion. It’s been rather enlightening.

 

[Midwest88]

(PS A man who approves of single-gender restrooms may simply wish that his sex weren’t treated as if no male wants or needs any privacy when seeking certain kinds of relief typical of a restroom. As a rule, restrooms open to all comers are a LOT more private than those intended for the use of one gender only.)

So you’re saying the man’s argument of privacy would be stronger if the restroom was all-gender? The end justifies the means I suppose.

Plus I don’t know what you mean by “a LOT more private.” If anything restrooms, as a single-gender as of right now, are sometimes used as a “meeting place” - gossip, shooting the breeze, beating up scrawny Jim etc. In a way it’s like a barber shop or an all-men’s masonic lodge.

I don’t mind my alma mater going co-ed but your P.S. what just strange when trying to prove your point about a supposed deeper privacy brought by all-gender restrooms.

 

[tafan]

I think a key point in favor of non-coed schools is that the faculty tends to be overwhelmingly the same sex as the students. For boys, having men teaching them is a very good thing. The same applies to girls.