Introduction
Parents are dissatisfied with the current system of school education because parents argue that girls suffer from the aggressive behavior of children of the opposite sex. Therefore, from the end of the last century, some schools were experiencing the diversion to separate education classes for boys and girls. In this case, they held lessons separately, but extra-curricular activities and the holidays together; however, there is no complete separation, but separation only during lessons. Scale introduction of single sex classroom is striking in many countries around the world, and there are "experimental" classes. The experiments conducted under the supervision of psychologists diagnosed children, provided training for teachers, met with parents, and were individual work with students. According to them, gender training is particularly useful for children who have health problems, education, and progress. The idea of single sex classroom is not new in this principle is all pre-revolutionary education. Boys can learn in grammar schools, high schools, and universities, and for the girls had special educational institutions, offering a kind of set of disciplines mainly in home economics. Inaccessible to women until the end of the 19th century was higher education. Therefore, in many collaborative learning emerged in the wake of the struggle for equality, and since 1918 boys and girls began to learn together returned to the division in 1943, but not for long: after 11 years, students have joined again. Despite all the positive aspects, single sex classroom has many opponents, and their main argument is the difference between the sexes is greatly exaggerated, so there is no need to separate the children.
Analysis
Among the supporters of single sex classroom is doctors, psychologists, geneticists and teachers. Their main argument is that boys and girls develop differently, and they have different interests, games, addiction. Therefore, to teach children better is better for given the physical abilities, puberty and the psychology of perception to teach them in a single sex classroom. Indeed, in the biological and psychological development boys lag behind girls for two years, so in elementary schools there is usually worse learning experience for boys, the performance of girls is always above average, teachers often praise them, and it can suppress for "stronger sex" and class desire to learn well (Belcher 61–75). A simple example is change: girls perseverance, they may continue to work on the break to finish the job and after the bell boys can not hold, it is better to let them go, but they will concentrate and easily catch up for lost time. Some scientists look deeper into the issue and they believe that under the joint education, girls imitate and adopt the inherent qualities as compare as to boys and they have diligence, desire to serve and please, no protest installations. In other words, the value of a male character disappears, boys develop natural inclinations leveled on the female type and assimilating female same standard of social behavior. Whereas in separate classes, they learn to build relationships in the collective, not hiding behind the girls, they brought the typical male characteristics, which courage determination (Younger 353–374).
According to statistics from the Institute of Hygiene of children and adolescents , decades of monitoring the health of students in some schools around developed countries of the world, blended learning adversely affects the health of girls, and 94% of the girls suffers from circulatory, digestive and nervous systems, they are persecuted constant colds , because they often miss lessons. Schools for girls finished in due time, were "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher, the former British Prime Minister; former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; current - Condoleezza Rice; former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir; chairman of the board of directors of Hewlett-Packard CEO Carleton Fiorina. It has been found that the boys and girls have their particular thinking, perception of new information (Younger 353–374). Therefore, we need to use different methods and forms of teaching! Teachers are encouraged, for example, carefully carried out in the "girly" class competition because emotional girls are sometimes very sensitive to failure if lose, and boys, on the contrary, could spur competition, make quick thinking, look for the correct answer. We are not talking about the two training programs. Just the same, discipline children learn at different rates, often differently from constructed a lesson.
Girls need to explain in detail the topic, give examples, and then see how they have learned the material, offering to solve the puzzle. Boys tend to look for new ways to be pioneers. They offer better first cope with the task alone and then later generalized to tell you how and why it was necessary to act (Szewkis 561–575). Teachers have noted a number of advantages of single sex classroom:
- Improved performance: Girls who as a teenager more concerned with not learned and appearance, with single sex classroom easier to focus on the subject
- Increased efficiency can "pass" more advanced topics discussed in detail
- Easier to maintain order and silence, adjust the guys at school
- Improved psychological state of students, they feel more comfortable at school
- Children are not shy wrong answer or ask again if something is not understood
- Girls in physical education classes are not complex in the pool, jump over confident and the boys are not afraid to miss the ring, do fewer pull-ups, push-ups, etc.
- The brains of men and women are different (Younger 353–374). In girls, the right hemisphere is more developed, so they perceive knowledge through emotions. The boys - left, so they need evidence and experiments.
- Puberty is a complex process that takes place in the best homogeneous class. This allows you to avoid ridicule classmates and awkward moments, for example, in physical education classes (Szewkis 561–575).
- Children at a joint training adopt common features, the girls become masculine, and the boys - effeminate.
- Lost romance of sexual relations in the future
- More girls in school longer respect the boys (and vice versa) and are these stereotypes into adulthood (Parker 881–897).
Despite all the positive aspects, single sex classroom has many opponents, and their main argument is the difference between the sexes is greatly exaggerated, so there is no need to separate the children. Good results can be achieved in joint classes, practicing individual approach. Of course, the sex of the child determines a lot, but it is much more important than his personal characteristics. Not all girls are careful and diligent, as not all the boys on the nature whimsical, hyperactivity, untidy and tend to compete (Parker 881–897).
- Children differ not only by gender, but also psycho. Among boys, there is demure and bullies, girls too. Will comfortably quiet boy, which dominates the right hemisphere, in a class where all the learning is because the main hemisphere - left? Your child will feel just as uncomfortable, and perhaps even worse, as it becomes an unusual, different, that is an outcast (Kessels 273–289).
- Separate education involves a different set of items. However, in our society, there is no clear division of occupations into male and female, so why artificially deprive children in schools?
- Resultsschooleducationmoredependentthepersonalitiessurroundingthechildrenteachers Bad teacher will not give anything good or child under the joint or at single sex classroom (Parker 881–897).
- In our society lost "the institution of the family." Parent’s decades separated from their children, earning money for food, so the school becomes an important "institution of life." In joint training children, develop stereotypes intersexual relations at school, at single sex classroom is almost impossible (Kessels 273–289).
In a joint training, there is much more; however, the main thing - it gives a strong additional incentive for learning and development. It is necessary to meet the needs of children in dialogue rather than fight it. For example, a form of intensive training work in small groups considers this. The focus of the school should be given to the formation of friendships between children in the class, including boys and girls (Gray 285–298). In a correctly formed, cohesive group are the development and the "interchange" positive qualities (Dufur 1092–1106). This is the social role of the school, which is to empower the individual and single sex classroom narrows and impoverishes them. Children from separate classes tipped learning difficulties in universities and in later life because no one outside the school divides people according to gender. This reproach to the single sex classroom and recognize his supporters doing everything for successful socialization of their pupils: boys and girls receive a good education, not limited only "female" or "male" subjects. In addition, some of the lessons (music, dance) carried out jointly. Avoid deficit of communication helps a well-designed system of leisure and extra-curricular activities: together they go on trips, go to the city, spend holidays, to communicate change (Gray 285–298).
It has been over ten years since the resumption of single sex classroom, but the findings do early yet, the more categorical and unambiguous. There are obvious advantages, but there are omissions on which to work. Even supporters of single sex classroom recognize that to extend it to secondary schools will be difficult, and is not necessary (Dufur 1092–1106). Rather, this form of profitable educational institutions with specialized training and special schools - to improve the quality of teaching. Single sex classroom referred to technology allows to adjust the load depending on gender, on the one hand, to achieve good results in their studies, and on the other is to avoid fatigue.
According to teachers, single sex classroom is appropriate to start with first class and then the children are better adapted to the educational process (Dufur 1092–1106). This single sex classroom is experiencing a boom USA: According to Leonard Sachs, director of the National Association for Gender Education, since 1998 more than 50-fold increase in the number of schools with separate instruction and soon to join the pilot program thousands of new schools. In some countries, such as Britain, single sex classroom adopted largely in private elite schools. So, out of the walls Eaton 19 prime ministers, prominent military leaders, parliamentarians, church leaders. However, the most famous "graduate" Eaton - James Bond! According to the creator of the 007 writer Ian Fleming (by the way, a pupil at Eton), a real man and super professional could learn only in this very prestigious school in Britain (Rennie 257–273).
Scientists of London Institute of Education conducted a large-scale case study and concluded that graduates of schools for girls are much more likely to succeed in life. Scientists asked 13 thousand men whose school years occurred in 1970, when the UK the idea of single sex classroom was particularly popular (Brady 127–145). This system was practiced then a quarter of all secondary schools in the country (compared to today's one-eighth). After analyzing respondents' answers on how developed their future life, sociologists have found that graduates of schools for girls earn on average 10% more than their peers who studied in mixed schools most likely because in the absence of "strong" half of the class girls actively explore traditionally male-dominated disciplines: physics, mathematics, and others (Brady 127–145).
Scientists believe that in a single sex classroom for girls have many advantages:
- Skills that are in demand in every field of activity
- Opportunities for career choices
- Freedom from sexual stereotypes
- Developed competitive spirit
- Healthy ambition
As for the men, then, alas, the method of training had no effect on the careers of graduates of schools for boys; however, also a detrimental impact on their family life. The divorce rate among them is much higher than among those who went to a mixed school, presumably, the lack of communication skills with the weaker sex (Rennie 257–273). However, the British Professor Alan Smith, the country's leading expert on education, claims that all the talk about the benefits of single-sex education has no basis (Blaise 450–460). He analyzed statistics from around the world, collected over 50 years, and came to the conclusion that the quality of education does not depend on the kind of school he graduated from the child - mixed or separately. The statement angered scientist in educational circles: in Britain just started a new boom single sex classroom, and the number of "gay" school starts to grow again (Cherney 712–724).
The presence of students of the same sex may adversely affect the social environment and relationships among children and teenagers, especially girls, may cause problems with harassment, bullying or mobbing, cronyism, and clicks. (Just want to note that the schools are conducted explanatory discussions about the prevention of bullying among students, and there are strict rules and regulations in the event of an incident.) Lack of experience in dealing sexes during the school day and participate in the educational process: teamwork, the use of logical thinking. Deliberate separation of boys and girls can create discomfort and conflict between the social environment of adolescents and their desire to communicate with the opposite sex, which may result in various excesses in behavior (Cherney 712–724). School for boys and girls do not fit each child (or parent). In addition, perhaps, and never will be a consensus on the question, what kind of school or system is the best, - separate or joint training. We, the parents, it is important to understand that no matter what school your child attended, it is important that he be there wondering and safely to its internal capacity to evolve to his confidence grew, his body grew stronger, and intelligence received regular food for them to grow up happy and successful both boys and girls.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of separate education teachers explains the fact that girls and boys perceive learning material in different ways. In the first, place the boys - the logic, and the girls - the emotional component. It turned out that if slightly change the way the material in separate classes, it is possible to achieve remarkable success. Another undoubted advantage of single sex classroom is to increase the self-esteem of students and increasing self-esteem, increases performance, and self-esteem of students. Children almost do not hesitate to answer at the board, and in some cases, even the failures are perceived not as tragic as in mixed classes. They are easier to discuss problems and collective search for the correct answer. However, psychologists say and cons of single sex classroom. In the mixed team at the institute or at work graduates of such schools, face the problem of social adaptation. Psychologists believe that children enrolled separately, decreased social activity because they simply do not have the skills of communication and collaboration with members of the opposite sex. Cooperative games at recess cannot compensate communication within the educational process. However, and this deficiency is a certain advantage: with decreasing social activity among adolescents increases the value of family, and that in the future a positive effect on their adult lives.
Works Cited
Belcher, Christy, Andy Frey, and Pamela Yankeelov. “The Effects of Single-Sex Classrooms on Classroom Environment, Self-Esteem, and Standardized Test Scores. [References] 1455.” School Social Work Journal 31 (2006): 61–75. Print.
Blaise, Mindy. “‘What a Girl Wants, What a Girl Needs’: Responding to Sex, Gender, and Sexuality in the Early Childhood Classroom.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education 2009: 450–460. Web.
Brady, Kristine L., and Richard M. Eisler. “Sex and Gender in the College Classroom: A Quantitative Analysis of Faculty-student Interactions and Perceptions.” Journal of Educational Psychology 1999: 127–145. Web.
Cherney, Isabelle D., and Kaitlin L. Campbell. “A League of Their Own: Do Single-Sex Schools Increase Girls’ Participation in the Physical Sciences?” Sex Roles 65 (2011): 712–724. Web.
Dufur, Mikaela J. et al. “Sex Differences in Parenting Behaviors in Single-mother and Single-father Households.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (2010): 1092–1106. Web.
Gray, Colette, and Joanne Wilson. “Teachers’ Experiences of a Single‐sex Initiative in a Co‐education School.” Educational Studies 2006: 285–298. Web.
Kessels, Ursula, and Bettina Hannover. “When Being a Girl Matters Less: Accessibility of Gender-related Self-knowledge in Single-sex and Coeducational Classes and Its Impact on Students’ Physics-related Self-concept of Ability.” The British journal of educational psychology 78 (2008): 273–289. Web.
Parker, Lesley H., and Léonie J. Rennie. “Teachers’ Implementation of Gender-inclusive Instructional Strategies in Single-sex and Mixed-sex Science Classrooms.” International Journal of Science Education 2002: 881–897. Web.
Rennie, Léonie J., and Lesley H. Parker. “Students’ and Teachers' Perceptions of Single-sex and Mixed-sex Mathematics Classes.” Mathematics Education Research Journal 9 (1997): 257–273. Web.
Szewkis, Eyal et al. “Collaboration Within Large Groups in the Classroom.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 6 (2011): 561–575. Web.
Younger, Mike, and Molly Warrington. “Single-sex Teaching in a Co-educational Comprehensive School in England: An Evaluation Based Upon Students’ Performance and Classroom Interactions.” British Educational Research Journal 2002: 353–374. Web.
