悉尼大学的作者在对话中写道，关于男孩和女孩之间社会互动的传统和倒退观念仍然是关于男女同校与单性学校教育的讨论的依据。 上周开学第一天，学生们穿过悉尼纽因顿学院的砂岩大门时，遇到了抗议者。 一群家长和以前的学生聚集在这所位于该市中西部的著名学校外，举着标语牌，谴责学校决定在2033年前实现完全男女同校。 抗议者甚至威胁要采取法律行动，捍卫学校160年来的男孩教育传统。 其中一人告诉第九频道，他们担心这一变化是由“觉醒[…]的胡言乱语”推动的，这将对纽因顿的男孩不利。 纽因顿并不是唯一一所向女生开放招生的著名男校。 悉尼东部的克兰布鲁克也将完全合并，这一决定引发了激烈的社区辩论。 这场辩论并不是一场新的辩论。 单一性别与男女同性恋之间的分歧背后有着怎样的历史？为什么它会引发如此多的情绪？这场争论的历史是什么？像纽因顿这样的学校是在上流社会男孩和女孩的课程和社会世界往往截然不同的时候建立的。 男孩和女孩被认为需要不同形式的教育来发展他们的智力和道德。 关于男女分开教育是否是个好主意的问题，在澳大利亚已经争论了至少160年，大约在纽因顿大学成立的时候。 19世纪60年代，维多利亚殖民地对所有公立学校实行男女同校的政策。 尽管社会关注“道德幸福”。 有人担心男孩会对女孩产生“腐蚀性影响”。 因此，学校经常组织起来尽量减少男孩和女孩之间的接触，即使他们共用一间教室。 其他殖民地也纷纷效仿。 澳大利亚政府决定男女同校教育的主要原因是财政问题。 建造一所学校总是比建造两所学校便宜，尤其是在地区和农村地区。 因此，澳大利亚大多数公立学校都是招收女生和男生的。 一个值得注意的例外是新南威尔士州，该州在19世纪80年代建立了少数几所单一性别的公立高中。 这些学校旨在提供一种替代单一性别私立中学的选择。 当时，教育当局不相信家长会同意让孩子进入混合高中。 从历史上看，男女同校对年龄较大的学生来说更具争议性，但对小学学生来说就不那么有争议了。 信贷：adobe股票。 一个不断变化的争论到20世纪50年代，许多教育专家认为男女同校比单性学校更有利于社会发展。 这是在澳大利亚全国扩大中等教育和新的青少年心理理论的时候。 在接下来的几十年里，出现了进一步的争论。 20世纪80年代的一项女权主义重新评估认为，女孩在男女同校的课堂上被边缘化了。 这一观点在20世纪90年代受到了质疑，声称女孩在学业上超过了男孩，男孩在男女同校的环境中被甩在了后面。 哪个系统能提供更好的学术成果？没有确凿的证据表明一种类型的学校教育（男女同校或单一性别）比另一种产生更好的学业成绩。 学校环境复杂多样。 有太多的变量（如资源、组织结构和教学风格）无法对任何一个因素做出明确的声明。 许多关于男女同校的争论也忽视了社会阶层作为学业成绩的关键因素。 信贷：adobe股票。 社会环境如何？关于男女同校与男女同校的社会结果的研究也存在争议。 一些人认为，男女同校教育能更好地让年轻人为他们成长的男女同校世界做好准备。 其他人则认为，男孩在男女同校的环境中可能会表现得更好，而女孩则可以制衡男孩的不守规矩。 但也有人认为，男孩占用了更多的空间和老师的时间，削弱了女孩的学习和信心。 这两种观点都基于性别刻板印象，即女孩顺从、胆小，男孩吵闹、捣乱。 这些争论的关键是一种持续的信念，即女孩和男孩的学习方式不同。 这些说法在教育研究中没有坚实的基础。 为什么会有如此激烈的争论？传统在这场争论中起着重要作用。 通常，父母希望他们的孩子有与自己相似的上学经历。 对其他人来说，这是关于获得特定资源和经验的问题。 精英男子学校花了几代人的时间积累社会和物质资源，以满足他们认为男孩感兴趣的东西和他们认为最符合男孩利益的东西。 这包括体育设施、课程设置、行为管理方法和“老男孩”网络。 这些学校中的许多花了几十年的时间来宣传自己是唯一有资格教育男孩（或某种类型的男孩）的学校。 因此，如果这些学校社区中的一些人抵制变革，也就不足为奇了。 更令人担忧的是纽因顿的抗议者，他们认为这种向包容性和性别多样性的转变将使男孩成为“二等公民”。 这与反女权主义和反跨性别运动中常见的重复语相呼应，这些运动将男性和男孩定位为在性别规范不断变化的世界中易受伤害的群体。 这忽略了他们也可以从学校更大的多样性中受益的方式。 随着学校努力向更多的性别开放，它们很可能也会欢迎更广泛的男孩和年轻男性。 这篇文章是由悉尼大学的helen proctor教授、kellie burns博士和jessica kean博士撰写的。 它最初发表在对话中。 英雄形象：悉尼文法学校通过adobestock。 英雄形象：悉尼文法学校通过adobestock。tradition and retrograde ideas about social interactions between boys and girls still inform discussions around co-educational versus single-sex schooling, write university of sydney authors for the conversation.when students walked through the sandstone gates of sydney’s newington college for the first day of school last week, they were met by protesters.a group of parents and former students had gathered outside this prestigious school in the city’s inner west, holding placards decrying the school’s decision to become fully co-educational by 2033.protesters have even threatened legal action to defend the 160-year-old tradition of boys’ education at the school. one told channel 9 they fear the change is driven by “woke […] palaver” that will disadvantage boys at newington.newington is not the only prestigious boys school to open enrolments to girls. cranbrook in sydney’s east will also go fully co-ed, with the decision sparking a heated community debate.this debate is not a new one. what is the history behind the single-sex vs co-ed divide? and why does it spark so much emotion?what is the history of the debate?schools like newington were set up at a time when the curriculum and social worlds for upper-class boys and girls were often quite different. boys and girls were thought to require different forms of education for their intellectual and moral development.the question of whether it’s a good idea to educate boys and girls separately has been debated in australia for at least 160 years, around the time newington was set up.in the 1860s, the colony of victoria introduced a policy of coeducation for all government-run schools. this was despite community concerns about “moral well-being”. there was a concern that boys would be a “corrupting influence” on the girls. so schools were often organised to minimise contact between boys and girls even when they shared a classroom.other colonies followed suit. the main reason the various australian governments decided to educate boys and girls together was financial. it was always cheaper, especially in regional and rural areas, to build one school than two. so most government schools across australia were established to enrol both girls and boys.one notable exception was new south wales, which set up a handful of single-sex public high schools in the 1880s.these were intended to provide an alternative to single-sex private secondary schools. at that time, education authorities did not believe parents would agree to enrol their children in mixed high schools. historically, coeducation has been more controversial for older students, but less so for students in their primary years.credit: adobe stock.a changing debateby the 1950s, many education experts were arguing coeducation was better for social development than single-sex schooling. this was at a time of national expansion of secondary schooling in australia and new psychological theories about adolescents.in following decades, further debates emerged. a feminist reassessment in the 1980s argued girls were sidelined in co-ed classes. this view was in turn challenged during the 1990s, with claims girls were outstripping boys academically and boys were being left behind in co-ed environments.which system delivers better academic results?there is no conclusive evidence that one type of schooling (co-ed or single sex) yields better academic outcomes than the other.schools are complex and diverse settings. there are too many variables (such as resourcing, organisational structures and teaching styles) to make definitive claims about any one factor. many debates about single-sex vs co-ed schooling also neglect social class as a key factor in academic achievement.credit: adobe stock.what about the social environment?research about the social outcomes of co-ed vs single-sex schools is also contested.some argue co-ed schooling better prepares young people for the co-ed world they will grow up in.others have suggested boys may fare better in co-ed settings, with girls acting as a counterbalance to boys’ unruliness. but it has also been argued boys take up more space and teacher time, detracting from girls’ learning and confidence.both of these arguments rely on gender stereotypes about girls being compliant and timid and boys being boisterous and disruptive.key to these debates is a persistent belief that girls and boys learn differently. these claims do not have a strong basis in educational research.why such a heated debate?tradition plays a big part in this debate. often, parents want their children to have a similar schooling experience to themselves.for others it’s about access to specific resources and experiences. elite boys schools have spent generations accumulating social and physical resources tailored to what they believe boys are interested in and what they believe is in boys’ best interests. this includes sports facilities, curriculum offerings, approaches to behaviour management and “old boys” networks.many of these schools have spent decades marketing themselves as uniquely qualified to educate boys (or a certain type of boy). so it’s not surprising if some in these school communities are resisting change.more concerning are the newington protesters who suggest this move toward inclusivity and gender diversity will make boys “second-class citizens”. this echoes a refrain common in anti-feminist and anti-trans backlash movements, which position men and boys as vulnerable in a world of changing gender norms. this overlooks the ways they too can benefit from the embrace of greater diversity at school.as schools do the work to open up to more genders, it is likely they will also become welcoming to a wider range of boys and young men.this article was written by professor helen proctor, dr kellie burns and dr jessica kean from the university of sydney. it was originally published in the conversation. hero image: sydney grammar school via adobe stock. .本文来源： 为什么我们有单性别的学校？
亲，点击此处在线申请留学咨询服务和报名评估！我们将竭诚提供最佳评估服务！
