Advantages or Disadvantages of Co-Educational Settings – Report Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Advantages or Disadvantages of Co-Educational Settings" is a great example of a report on education. Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher believed that co-education creates a strong feeling of comradeship (Smithers & Robinson, 2006). For this reason, he emphasized for male and female students to be taught in the same institutions without any form of discrimination in the way education is imparted. A strong reason why co-education is appealing, according to Gill (2004), is that when children are separated from each other on the basis of sex for several years, they lose the opportunity to learn about each other. There is a lack of advantages of single-sex schools when their usefulness is considered on educational grounds per se (Kenway & Willis, 1986).

Studies from all over the world have not singled out any major differences between coeducational and single-sex educational settings (Smithers & Robinson, 2006). In co-educational schools, friendships always develop in a natural way during learning activities both within the curriculum and through extracurricular activities such as games, clubs, and societies. In the classroom, young boys and girls get the opportunity to express themselves openly and assertively in the presence of members of the opposite sex (Crump, 1990). Co-education is the most realistic way of preparing young people to take their rightful place in the wider community in a natural way.

These interactions are an important basis of future, stable, meaningful relationships in life (Jones, 1990), (Robinson, 1999). In England, the old debate about whether co-educational schooling or single-sex schooling better continues to generate many claimed social and academic advantages and disadvantages of both settings (Alice, 1993). There is enough research evidence to show the myriads of claims that have been made concerning either setting.

Many of these claims are merely caricatures of a very complex reality. The high level of academic performance in single-sex schools as indicated in league tables has more to do with the process of academic selection, the socioeconomic standing of the students, and the standing of the school and no segregation of the sexes (Robinson, 1999). This paper assesses various views expressed by scholars on the advantages and disadvantages of coeducation. Emphasis is put on effects relating to the transition to university, choice of subjects, emotional and behavioral development, and elements of parental preferences.

A comparison is made between coeducational and single-sex settings with the focus being put on scenarios in Australia, U.K, and U. S. in the U. S scenario, a historical approach is adopted while in Australian, a multivariate analysis of coeducation is done, whereby the issue of choice of science subjects is discussed. The conclusion of the paper reveals the intricacies of today’ s co-education research and the uncertainty regarding the future of co-education. Coeducation and transition to university Robinson (1999) notes that whenever comparisons are made regarding academic differences that are perceived between co-educational and single-sex schools, these perceptions are found to be unreal.

Similarly, although pupils from single-sex schools tend to fear that they will automatically have difficulties adapting to a mixed environment at the university, research has shown that the ease of transition largely depends on among other factors, personality (Robinson, 1999). By being considered to be like a real-life situation, a co-educational setting is often viewed to be a good way of preparing students for university life, which is universally co-educational.

When Jones (1990) carried out a study of Australian first-year university students, he found out that those who had attended co-educational schools had a much more natural attitude towards members of the opposite sex. In a study carried out in London in 1997, it was found out that young students tended to have some difficulty while adjusting to university life if they had attended single-sex schools. However, the differences in these difficulties were not very statistically significant (Smithers & Robinson, 2006).


Alice, W. (1993). Co-Education: A Series of Essays by Various Authors. New York:

Kissinger Publishing.

Ainley, J & Daly, P. 2002. Participation in Science Courses in the Final year of High School in

Australia the influences of Co-educational and Single-sex Schools” in Datnow & Lea

Hubbard (Eds) Gender In Policy and Practice: Perspectives on Single-Sex and

Coeducational Schooling. London: Routledge.

Andrea, G. (2008). Women and Coeducation in the American West. London: Sage.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Carpenter, P. (1985). Single-Sex Schooling and Girls' Academic Achievements. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 21, 456-473.

Cerven, K. 2002. Single-Sex Education: Promoting Equality or an Unconstitutional Divide,

Heineonline Law Journal Library, 2(3) 699-765.

Crump, S. (1990). Gender and curriculum: Power and being female. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11, 365-385.

Dale, R. (1974). Mixed or Single-Sex Schools Vol I? London: Routledge & Kegan.

Fontana, A. & Frey J.H. (2000). The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated Text. Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gill, J. (2004). Beyond The Great Divide: Single Sex or Co-Educational. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Difference Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University.

Jones J (1990). The outcome of Girls School: Unravelling Some Differences. Australian Journal of Education 34(2), 12-34.

Kenway, J. & Willis, S. (1986) “Counting Sexism in the Single Way: a flawed proposition” in Porter, P. Gender and Education, Deakin University Australia, Routledge: London.

Lee, V. & Bryk, A. (1986). Effects of single secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 381-395.

Marsh, H., Parker, J. & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional Adolescent Self-Concepts: Their Relationship to Age, Sex and Academic Achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 25, 237-269.

Phillips, S. (1979). Young Australians: The Attitudes of our Children, Sydney: Harper and Row.

Robinson, P. (1999). Should The Sexes Be Separated For Secondary Education? Comparisons

Of Single-Sex And Co-Educational Schools? 14, (1), 23 – 49.

Smithers, A. & Robinson, P. (2006). The Paradox of Single-Sex and Co-Educational Schooling.

Buckingham: Carmichael Press.

Spender, D. (1982). Invisible Women: The schooling scandal. London: Writers and Readers.

Stake, R.E. (2000). Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) pp. 435-454. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steedman, J. (1985). Examination results in mixed and single-sex secondary schools. In D. Reynolds(ed.). Studying School Effectiveness. London: Falmer Press.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tyack, D. & Hansot, E. (1990). Learning Together: A History of Coeducation in American Public Schools. New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press.

Woods, P. (1992). Symbolic Interactionism: Theory and Method. In J.P. Goetz (Ed.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. London: Sage.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us