Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLS ARE

GOOD FOR EDUCATION


Single-sex schools are schools that only admit those of one specific gender, believing that the educational
environment fostered by a single gender is more conducive to learning than a co-educational school. Studies
conducted have shown that boys gain more academically from studying in co-education schools, but that girls find
segregated schools more conducive to achievement. However academic results are not the only criterion on which
the success of the education system should be judged. In the United States, a long-standing controversy over the
Virginia Military Institute resulted in a landmark Supreme Court ruling, in June 1996, that the institute must admit
women. Nevertheless the Court left room for private (i.e. not state-run) single-sex institutions and other such
schools, where needed, to redress discrimination. Proponents of single-sex schools maintain that, by removing the
distractions of the other sex, students learn more effectively and feel better about their education. Opponents
maintain that co-educational schools in contrast are important in that they prepare students better for the real
world, and do not attempt to segregate students from the realities of adult life. This debate can apply both to
secondary school and college level, but single-sex institutions are found more frequently at the former.
Supporting
Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions

Counter Point

Boys and girls


are an
unwelcome
distraction to
each other

Counter Point

Boys and girls


develop at
different times
and speeds

Explanation
Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate
more in class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely
to choose male disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers.
In the USA Whos Who, graduates of womens colleges outnumber all other women; there are
only approximately 50 womens colleges left in the States today.[1] Elizabeth Tidball, who
conducted the Whos Who research, also later concluded that womens colleges produced more
than their fair share who went on to medical school or received doctorates in the natural or life
sciences, typically male fields.
Other studies have found that women in fact are not any better off in single-sex institutions. A
1998 survey from the American Association of University Women, a long-time advocate of
single-sex education, admitted that girls from such schools did not show any academic
improvement.[1] That they are more inclined towards maths and sciences is of questionable
importance to society as a whole. As the report noted, "boys and girls both thrive when the
elements of good education are there, elements like smaller classes, focused academic
curriculum and gender-fair instruction".[2] These can all be present in co-educational schools.
Tidball in her research made the mistake of not controlling for other characteristics, namely
socio-economic privileges of those at elite womens colleges.
Boys and girls distract each other from their education, especially in adolescence as their
sexual and emotional sides develop. Too much time can be spent attempting to impress or even
sexually harassing each other (particularly boys toward girls). Academic competition between
the sexes is unhealthy and only adds to unhappiness and anxiety among weaker students. As
Tricia Kelleher, a school principal, argues, rather than girls defining themselves by their
interests, they define themselves by what the boys think of them or what other girls think boys
think of them.[1] Furthermore, John Silber, President of Boston University, declared in 2002 that
his university would prioritize male applications in order to even up the student composition
and ensure the male population did not become ungentlemanly towards women due to their
numerical inferiority. A single-sex environment is therefore a space where (children) can learn
without feeling pressurized by the other sex.
In fact boys and girls are a good influence on each other, engendering good behaviour and
maturity particularly as teenage girls usually exhibit greater responsibility than boys of the
same age. Academic competition between the sexes is a spur to better performance at school.
Any negative effects of co-educational schools have been explained away by studies as the
result of other factors, such as classroom size, economic discrepancies and cultural
differences.[1] Furthermore, the separation of boys and girls only serves to embrace sexual
objectification, for they exist for each other only as dates rather than the classmates they
would be in a co-educational environment[2]. Allowing them into the same educational
environment, in part to permit them to distract each other, is a welcome social development as
well as a beneficial learning curve.
Co-educational schools attempt to establish uniformity in the teaching of two groups, boys and
girls, who typically learn and develop at different speeds and using different methods. They do
not develop in the same way or at the same time; boys favour visual processing and do not
have the hand-motor control that girls readily achieve in early grades.[1] It is widely accepted
that boys develop more slowly than girls..thats true at every level of analysis.[2] Furthermore,
they develop physically at different speeds, girls often developing earlier which can lead to

Counter Point

Teachers
favour their
own gender in
co-educational
schools
Counter Point

Opposing
Argument
Children need
to be exposed
to the opposite
sex in
preparation for
later life

Counter Point

Single sex
schools are
manifestations
of patriarchal
society

Counter Point

bullying from the opposite sex for those who either over-develop or under-develop. Therefore, it
should come as no surprise that, at least in the United States, elementary school boys are 50%
more likely to repeat a grade than girls and they drop out of high school a third more often.[3]
If they were taught separately and the curriculum and teaching was tailored to their needs,
drop-out rates would not be so high nor as vastly disproportionate.
Everyone develops at slightly different speeds, however few would advocate everyone should
be home-schooled. Ultimately, the curriculum determines the mode of teaching, not the gender
composition of the class, and the curriculum can be moulded to suit both girls and boys, faster
and slower learners and those with under-developed hand-motor control. If elementary school
boys are being forced to repeat grades that is a manifestation of difficulties in learning and as
relevant to their proximity to girls in the classroom as it is to the higher-achieving boys.
Furthermore, the sociologist Cynthia Epstein argues that in fact there is no consensus among
psychologists as to the existence of psychological or cognitive differences between the sexes.
[1] Finally, as Michael Bronski notes, the benefits of same-sex schools cannot be applied across
the educational sphere for the private schools where the tests take place admit either only
high-achieving pupils or self-select by expelling poorly-performing or misbehaving students.

Teachers frequently favour their own gender when teaching co-educational classes; for
example, male teachers can undermine the progress and confidence of girl students by refusing
to choose them to answer questions etc. A recent study by the American Association of
University Women found that gender bias is a major problem at all levels of schooling,
asserting girls are plagued by sexual harassment and neglected by sexist teachers, who pay
more attention to boys.[1] As a result, girls tend to fall behind their male counterparts.
There is little evidence to support this claim. Valerie Lee, a professor at the University of
Michigan, studied a sample of coeducational, all-boys and all-girls independent schools, finding
that the frequency of sexist incidents was similar in the three types of schools. Wendy Kaimer
argues that the restraints of femininity are actually self-imposed at single-sex schools,
whether manifested in feminine dcor orpandering to womens fear of masculinizing
themselves

Explanation
The formative years of children are the best time to expose them to the company of the other
gender, in order that they may learn each others behaviour and be better prepared for adult
life. The number of subjects benefiting from single-sex discussion is so small that this could
easily be organised within a co-educational system. Furthermore, even if girls naturally perform
better in an environment without boys, they need to learn how to perform just as well with
boys. Dr. Alan Smithers, a respected British schools expert, declared in a 2006 report that
distraction by boys was a myth and that half a century of research has not shown any
dramatic or consistent advantages for single-sex education for boys or girls.
Children will gain exposure to the opposite sex when they reach adult life; whilst they are
young, they should be around those who they feel most comfortable with. The inclinations of
children in the formative years, between 7 and 15, are to gravitate towards their own sex. What
is natural should be encouraged, and can most easily be done so in single-sex institutions.
Furthermore, they naturally tend towards behaviour appropriate to their gender. It is therefore
easier to implement an education strategy geared specifically towards one gender. Moreover,
certain subjects are best taught, both in terms of ease and effectiveness, in single-sex
classrooms, such as sex education or gender issues.
Single-sex schools are a throwback to the patriarchal society of the past; in many historical
cultures, only men were allowed an education of any sort. To perpetuate this is to remind
women of their past subservience and to continue to hold them from full social inclusion. In
India, where the colonial yoke of British rule remains, the national average for the difference in
male-female literacy is 16.7%, with some districts as high as 28%.[1] Single-sex schools
discourage female education and make it increasingly difficult for parents to find room for girls
in the limited co-educational schools. A push for single-sex education therefore is predicated on
outdated, moronic, and destructive gender stereotypes.
Single-sex schools for women are a natural extension of the feminist movement; there are coeducational schools, men have had their own schools, why should women not? It would still be
discrimination if there were only male single-sex schools; as long as both genders are catered
for, this discrimination is redressed. The issue in states like India is not there are too many
single-sex schools, but that there are not enough. This is more to do with cultural preferences
for males, and a population heavily overpopulated with males, than the lingering effects of

Single-sex
institutions are
bad for the
emotional
health of males
Counter Point

British colonial rule.


Men always say that they do not understand women, perhaps because they were sent to single
sex schools. Research has proved that boys who went to single sex schools as opposed to
mixed schools are more likely to get divorced and suffer from depression in their 40. This is
proof that we should school our children in mixed schools in order to give them the best bill of
emotional health. Dr. Diana Leonard, who presented the findings, concluded that Boys learn
better when they are with girls and they actually learn to get on better.
The positive health effects of single-sex schools pointed out in the same Dr. Leonard study
outweigh the emotional distress potentially felt by a minority of divorced men. Regarding the
majority, the research found those who stayed together were just as likely to be happy in their
relationship as men educated in mixed schools. As for girls, the findings suggest they seem to
learn what the nature of the beast is without needing to learn alongside boys, whilst a central
finding of the study is that single-sex moderates the effect of gender-stereotyping in terms of
choice of field of study.

THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN HOMEWORK


Homework is a task (often called an assignment) set by teachers for students to do outside normal lessons
usually at home in the evening. Schools have been setting homework in developed countries for over a century,
but until the past few decades usually only older students had to do it. More recently younger students have also
been given homework by their primary or elementary schools. In England the government does not make schools
give homework but it does set guidelines 1. Five year olds are expected to do an hour a week, increasing to three
hours a week at 11 and ten hours or more a week at 16 2. American studies report the amount of homework being
set for younger students doubling over the past twenty-five years or so, although some doubt these findings.
Countries, schools and subjects differ a lot on how much homework is set, and at what age, but almost all high
school students have to do at least some most nights. Most children have never liked homework but from time to
time it is also debated by politicians, parents and teachers. Sometimes there are demands for more homework, as
part of a drive for higher standards. At other times there are calls for less homework to be set, especially in
primary/ elementary schools. This topic looks at whether homework should be banned altogether.
Supporting
Argument
Homework has
little education
worth, thus a
waste of time

Counter Point

Explanation
Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some
schools and some countries don't bother with homework at all, and their results do not seem to
suffer from it. Studies show that homework adds nothing to standardised test scores for
primary/ elementary pupils. As Alfie Kohn notes, no study has ever found a link between
homework and better tests results in elementary school, and there is no reason to believe it is
necessary in high school.1 International comparisons of older students have found no positive
relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores - students in Japan
and Denmark get little homework but score very well on tests.2 If anything, countries with more
homework get worse results!
Homework has a lot of educational value, the reason it has not shown this is because teachers

do not set the right kind of homework or they set the wrong amount of it. Some teachers
believe homework is for reviewing material, others think it is better for learning new concepts.
The result is 'confusion for students'.1 If the homework was consistent however, and related
specifically to what is learnt in the classroom, it would have a great deal of educational value by
helping them remember their lessons and increase students' confidence in how much they are
learning.

Marking
homework
reduces the
amount of time
teachers have
to prepare a
good lesson
Counter Point

Homework
reduces the
time for
students to do
other activities

Counter Point

Homework put
students off
learning

Counter Point

Homework is
about winning
on tests, not
learning

Furthermore, Professor Cooper of Duke University has shown that by the high schools years,
there is a strong and positive relationship between homework and how well students do at
school. There are two main reasons why this relationship does not appear in elementary school:
1) Elementary school teachers assign homework not so much to enhance learning, but in order
to encourage the development of good study skills and time management;2 2) young children
have less developed cognitive skills to focus and concentrate on their work.3 Thus, they are
more easily distracted from their homework assignments.
Irrespective of homework's educational value, marking it takes up much of teachers' time.
Australian teachers have complained that 'homework marking can result in four extra hours of
work a day and they are rarely rewarded for their effort'.1 This leaves teachers tired and with
little time to prepare effective, inspiring lessons. If the lessons aren't to the standard they
should be, the point of homework is lost as the students have little to practise in the first place.
The heavy workload also puts young graduates off becoming teachers, and so reduces the
talent pool from which schools can recruit.
Teachers accept that marking student work is an important part of their job. Well planned
homework should not take so long to mark that the rest of their job suffers, and it can inform
their understanding of their students, helping them design new activities to engage and stretch
them. As for recruitment, although teachers do often work in the evenings, they are not alone in
this and they get long holidays to compensate.
Homework takes a lot of time up. In America, they encourage the '10 minute rule', 10 minutes
homework for every grade, meaning that high-school students are all doing more than an
hour's worth of homework each night.1 Being young is not just about doing school work every
night. It should also about being physically active, exploring the environment through play,
doing creative things like music and art, and playing a part in the community. It is also
important for young people to build bonds with others, especially family and friends, but
homework often squeezes the time available for all these things.
Homework has not prevented students doing other activities; it takes very little time to
complete. Recent American surveys found that most students in the USA spent no more than an
hour a night on homework. That suggests there does not seem to be a terrible problem with the
amount being set. Furthermore, British studies have shown that 'more children are engaging in
sport or cultural activities' than ever before.1 As such, there is no clear evidence to suggest
that students are stuck at home doing their homework instead of doing other activities. In
addition, concerns over how busy children are suggest that parents need to help their children
set priorities so that homework does not take a back seat to school work.
Homework puts students off learning. Studies have shown that many children find doing
homework very stressful, boring and tiring. Often teachers underestimate how long a task will
take, or set an unrealistic deadline. Sometimes because a teacher has not explained something
new well in class, the homework task is impossible. So children end up paying with their free
time for the failings of their teachers. They also suffer punishments if work is done badly or late.
After years of bad homework experiences, it is no wonder that many children come to dislike
education and switch off, or drop out too early. Teachers in Britain fear that poor children,
because they lack the support to do their homework, will be turned off school
If homework puts students off learning, then it has been badly planned by the teacher. As Linda
Darling-Hammond, a professor of Education notes, 'many teachers lack the skills to design
homework assignments that help kids learn and don't turn them off to learning' .1 The best
homework tasks engage and stretch students, encouraging them to think for themselves and
follow through ideas which interest them. Over time, well planned homework can help students
develop good habits, such as reading for pleasure or creative writing. The research however
suggests that homework is not in fact putting students off learning. Rather studies in Britain
indicate that 'most children are happy (and) most are achieving a higher level than before'.2
Homework cannot be blamed for a problem that does not exist. Poor children may indeed lack
support to do their homework, but this just means that schools need to do more to provide the
help they need.
Many governments make their schools give students a national test (a test taken by all students
of the same age). After the tests, they compare schools and punish the schools and teachers
whose students do badly. Because schools and teachers are therefore scared about their
students doing poorly, they give them more homework, not in the hope they learn more but

Counter Point

The ban on
homework
could be easily
enforced
through school
inspection
Counter Point

simply to do better on the tests.1 As such, homework is not designed to help the student, just
their teachers and schools who want them to 'win' the test and make them look good, not learn
for the students' own benefit.
Setting homework with the intention of encouraging students to do well at tests is beneficial to
students as much as it is to teachers and schools. National tests are a way of assessing whether
students are at the level they should be, if they do well on the tests, that is a good thing.
Therefore, a 'win' for the teachers and schools is also a great deal of learning for the student,
the two need not be separated.
In many countries public schools require regular school inspections to ensure students are
receiving a relatively equal level of education. In Britain for example, Ofsted is a public body
that exists specifically to inspect public schools.1 A ban on homework would thus not require a
level of trust between the state and individual school principals, for state inspectors could very
quickly work out whether homework was being given out by asking the children themselves.
Children, who don't like homework at the best of times, would not lie.
Many states do not in fact have a structured school inspection system that could enforce such a
ban. The United States, for example, has one of the largest student bodies in the world but the
state does not have a formal inspection system that could enforce a ban on homework.
Therefore any ban would only prove a recommendation at best, and could not possibly hope to
be enforced.
Furthermore, even in those states that do have inspection bodies, the regularity of inspections
allows school principals to prepare for their arrival. Students might be forced by their teachers
to lie to inspectors, otherwise they would receive even more homework. Furthermore, the
school inspections are partly so that they can test the ability of students therefore teachers
are encouraged to give their students homework so that they do better on these inspections.

Opposing
Argument

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point

Supporting
Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions
Counter
Point

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Opposing

Explanation

Argument
Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point

Supporting
Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions
Counter
Point

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Opposing
Argument

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point

Supporting
Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions
Counter
Point
Counter
Point

Explanation

Counter
Point
Opposing
Argument

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Supporting
Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions
Counter
Point

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Opposing
Argument

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point

Supporting
Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions
Counter

Explanation

Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Opposing
Argument

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point

Supporting
Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions
Counter
Point

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Opposing
Argument

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point

Supporting

Explanation

Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions
Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Opposing
Argument

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point

Supporting
Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions
Counter
Point

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Opposing
Argument
Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter

Explanation

Point

Supporting
Argument
Women are
better off in
single sex
institutions
Counter
Point

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Opposing
Argument

Explanation

Counter
Point
Counter
Point
Counter
Point

SKOP PENDIDIKAN
KUALITI IPT DI NEGARA MALAYSIA -UCAPAN TUN ABDULLAH AHMAD BADAWI BERKENAAN

Unit Perancang Ekonomi dalam laporannya bertajuk `Kualiti Hidup Malaysia Tahun 2002' menyatakan bahawa pendidikan adalah
penyumbang yang ketara dalam peningkatan kualiti hidup rakyat Malaysia, dengan peningkatan indeks kualiti hidup sebanyak 18.4
mata di antara tahun 1990 dan tahun 2000. Dengan hasil yang begitu baik ini, kerajaan akan terus menjadikan pendidikan sebagai salah
satu pemacu utama pembangunan negara.
Cita-cita negara untuk menjadikan sekurang-kurangnya 50% dari anak muda kita yang berusia dalam lingkungan 18-25 tahun
mendapat pendidikan tertiari, maka banyak universiti- universiti baru ditubuhkan.
KUKUM merupakan yang terbongsu di antara universiti-universiti awam di negara ini.
Walaupun perbelanjaan penubuhan sesebuah universiti itu bukannya sedikit, kerajaan tetap sanggup mengeluarkan perbelanjaan
tersebut. Ini kerana kita yakin bahawa pendidikan adalah pelaburan yang tidak pernah mendatangkan kerugian.
Dalam kesemua rancangan 5 tahun Malaysia, pendidikan menelan belanja amat besar.
Sungguhpun kerajaan telah memperuntukkan perbelanjaan yang besar bagi membiayai pendidikan tinggi, tetapi IPTA masih tidak
dapat menyediakan infrastruktur, kemudahan dan tempat yang cukup bagi memenuhi permintaan yang terus meningkat.
Setiap tahun lebih kurang 400 ribu pelajar daripada sekolah bantuan kerajaan, swasta mahupun persendirian menduduki peperiksaan
SPM dan rekod pada tahun 2002 adalah seramai 412,577 orang manakala untuk peperiksaan Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia
(STPM) bilangan calon tahun 2002 adalah sejumlah 47,022 orang.
Daripada jumlah ini hanya 30% yang berjaya melanjutkan pengajian mereka ke institusi-institusi pengajian tinggi samada di dalam
mahupun luar negara. Peluang pengajian di IPTA adalah terhad kerana IPTA yang sedia ada hanya dapat menampung 10% daripada
pelajar lepasan SPM dan STPM yang layak pada setiap tahun.
Ketiga-tiga mata pelajaran Sains, Matematik dan Bahasa Inggeris akan terus menjadi lebih penting untuk para pelajar menimba ilmu
pengetahuan yang berasaskan sains dan teknologi.
Kekurangan tahap prestasi pelajar khususnya Bumiputera dalam Matematik dan Sains serta kelemahan mereka menguasai Bahasa
Inggeris dengan baik telah menjejaskan penyertaan mereka di dalam bidang berkaitan di peringkat universiti.
Kedudukan negara ini masih rendah dari segi kemajuan di bidang penyelidikan apabila dibandingkan dengan negara maju. Misalnya,
bilangan ahli sains dan teknologi di bidang penyelidikan dan pembangunan di Malaysia dalam tempoh 1990-1996 hanyalah 2 orang
bagi setiap 10,000 penduduk berbanding dengan 71 orang di Jepun dan 29 orang di Korea Selatan. Sekiranya keadaan ini berterusan,
keupayaan Malaysia untuk menjadi kompetitif pada peringkat antarabangsa akan terjejas.
Sebagai usahawan, pelajar harus menjadi golongan `job-creators' dan bukannya `job-seekers'.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen