I think one of the most hotly debated education issues facing policymakers in many countries is whether to promote single- or mixed-gender classrooms. Fortunately, I have worked in both types of classrooms and have experienced the pros and cons of each.
For me, there is no doubt that boys and girls learn very differently. Not only that, but I feel that the maturity level of boys and girls of the same age differ widely. When you have separate classes, teachers can prepare lessons that focus on the specific instructional and pedagogical needs of a particular gender. Conversely, I also feel that by simplifying teaching and learning along gender lines, we end up creating and perpetuating stereotypes.
Not all girls like Barbie dolls and poetry, and not all boys like sports and technology. Every child is an individual who has his own likes and dislikes. The common trend is that boys seem to like activities that involve a lot of physical work, whereas girls prefer activities in which they sit in one corner and interact with their peers. But these are general beliefs and do not hold true in all cases. I believe the teacher's outlook on gender issues greatly influences how students interact in mixed-gender classrooms.
Many educators feel that when we have single-gender classrooms, students will be able to pay attention more closely. In my experience of teaching 17- to 18-year-old higher secondary students, the students who have studied together from K–12 see their classmates as their peers, making such distractions rare. I find there's an unsaid decorum maintained when girls are present in the classroom. And the rate of absenteeism is low in mixed-gender classes.
I have always observed during any project-based learning activities that teams with both boys as well as girls perform more efficiently than single-gender teams. Initially the work distribution may take place with the stereotypical gender-specific roles, but very quickly the distribution of work shifts to take advantage of people's individual skills. More than anything else, students learn to coexist with their given differences.
Much research has already been done in this field, and it has established that students in single-gender classrooms get better results academically. But I feel research is still needed to analyze the social growth later in life of pupils who have studied in single- or mixed-gender classrooms.
In my class, the boys and girls who had studied together in mixed-gender classrooms shared very healthy and lasting friendships, even after graduating from university. But I have noticed that students who have studied in single-gender classrooms may find it a little odd interacting with the opposite gender. That may also be due to the fact that there is a rise in single-child families, and so some children do not get a chance to interact with the opposite gender except in a school setting. For these reasons, I think research should look at factors other than academic progress.
Educators and parents also have to ponder whether academic excellence is the only parameter of measuring students' growth. Aren't we interested in young people's growth as whole individuals? Don't we wish to give them life skills to survive in the world beyond the school walls?
We must move toward inclusion of a variety of students in the classroom, instead of creating walls on the basis of caste, creed, color of the skin, or gender. Students can be segregated on the basis of their abilities and interests, not gender.
Many of the future world problems will be taken care of if we teach students to coexist today. We can teach them that we may be very different, but we can all live peacefully and complement the weaknesses of each other to progress together.
Personally speaking, I would readily compromise on academic achievements to inculcate life skills in my students. I would rather live in a world of forbearance than a world of individual intellectuals.
