Single-Sex+Education

Mason Francis  EDC102  Dr. N. Noonan  11/18/2013  Annotated Bibliography

Cable, Kelly E., Spradlin, Terry E, (2008) //Education Policy Belief: Single Sex Education in the 21st Century// Indiana University: School of Education < [] >

 This article is a non-fiction summation of the early and modern views on same sex education. While simple being a summarization, the article yet provides an extensive and detailed overview of single sex education. After introducing the reader and providing a short historical background to the topic, the article then provides two long sections: one discussing the benefits of single sex education along with its related evidence, and the detriments with related evidence. The article concludes with its own small summaries. It also discusses implementation of single-sex education, and provides conclusion and recommendation to professionals.  This article is a great foundation for exploring the topic of single sex education. It covers history, current sides, and a general approach to single-sex education. The researchers at University of Indiana cite their sources and make sure their points are all supported. However, by focusing very heavily on the neutrality of most research studies in single sex education, this specific review does seem to conclude that single-sex education does not offer any special benefits to students. It also fails to speculate very much into either topic, sticking to its evidence and speaking on behalf of the research they are quoting.

Hughes, Teresa A., (2006-2007) //The advantages of single sex education//, National forum of educational administration and supervision journal < [] >

 This article discusses the benefits of single sex education, and why these benefits should be incorporated into our public education system. The article brings up four main points. It begins by insisting that single-sex education is not a form of segregation. Rather, it follows the same logic that we find with voting and alchohol; they are simply too young to be left with the responsibility. The article also says that given the correct single-sex circumstances, boys and girls are more likely to take part in non-typical activities (i.e. fine arts for boys and sciences for women). The article also brings up another common theme, the idea that boys and girls learn differently (which it proves with evidence) and that education standards should be altered depending on your sex. The conclusion ends by claiming that single-sex education provides true equal opportunity for male and female students.  This article does not provide much bias. In all honesty, it seems to follow the same logic from the Cable and Spradlin article. However, this article is clearly in support of single-sex education. Though the article lacks a proper counter-point, it does attempt to dissuade protesters by making a point to separate single-sex education from segregation. A large portion of the historic background section is dedicated to this separation. Though it does not dissuade the reader from the evidence presented in other articles, it does pave the way for its own points, and leaves the reader with little doubt towards the detriments of single-sex education.

Kimmel, Michael, (2013) //Don’t segregate boys and girls in classroom//s CNN [|www.cnn.com]

<[]>

This is a beautiful little piece about the problems in the modern day with single-sex education, and provides an incredibly unsubstantial viewpoint on the points fighting single-sex education. The author provides a few small points about the failures of single-sex education, including its particular success in private schools and its tendency to encourage stereotypes. While this article provides the least to the argument at hand (outside of a few citations that could provide great sources of information), it does provide what it should; a great example of a typical “popular article;” when compared to the other sources cited in the bibliography, it is strikingly obvious how much this article fails to inform its reader, even though its length is comparable even to the Weiss article above. Regardless, it will be useful when compared to the other articles.

U.S. department of education (2005), //Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: a systematic review//, Office of planning, evaluation, and policy development <[]>

 This article is the direct result of the U.S government’s personal investigation of the benefits and detriments of single sex education. While covering many points our other articles already have spoken of, the U.S. government has a large amount of personally acquired data, along with its own team of analysts. The report is separated into two parts. The “Contents” section analyses the data, first providing a review of the methods used to analyze the data, then an in-depth description of the data analysis and its validity, followed by results, the implications of those results, a list of references, and 6 appendices. The second, smaller section, “Tables” lists all tables related to the data collection. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> This article concludes that single-sex education is more beneficial than coeducation. Table 34, the “Summary of Findings,” says that out of all the studies, the studies in question most often concluded that single-sex education was the most effective teaching method. The next best findings were in the control group, once again asserting the opposite end of this overarching argument, the idea that education is 100% situational to each student. However, with 45% of the data in favor of single-sex schools, and 39% without a stance (coeducational only received 10% support from the study’s data), the article is empirically in support of single-sec education.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Weiss, Suzanne, (2007) //Research on education boys and girls separately versus together is abundant but far from conclusive//, The Progress of Education Reform < [] >

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> This is a comparatively short article, written in 2007 in response to the US report mentioned above. The article speaks of the uncertainty present in general when studies are presented about single-sex education, one again mentioning the slightly overwhelming evidence showing that no single-sex method is really more effective than a co-educational system. This article then goes to cite studies done by Alan Smithers and Pamela Rovinson, which supports the common thought that factors besides being single-sex are what make single-sex systems to effective. It also cites contradiction in both sides of the debate, giving examples. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> In all, this is a nice summarized piece that places itself in contrast to the conclusions found by the previous article. In addition to nicely summarizing the points made against single-sex education in the USDE report, it also cites the points made by another, international report and how they support the counter-points stated in the USDE article.