"They Say, I Say" Blog Post; 11 "He Says (X) Contends"

 For our asynchronous assignment, we were directed to review our essay done in AP Seminar while amaking changes to align with that of They Say, I Say. This, of course, after we furthered our understanding of how applying the changes shown throughout the title can unstain our current righting strategies. As an example, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein used a student example who revised their work utilzing their templates supplied throughout the previous chapters. The article, which argued in favor of Family Guys' innapropriate nature, was written and revised by Antonia Peacocke who once took the politcally correct opposition to Family Guy and it's crudeness. Her lengthy paper was written, reviewed, and then altered in accordance to how the authors of They Say, I Say intended for others to use templates; that is, excessively and with plenty of consideration as to their appropriate utilization. 

Regardless, we were to then perform a similar proccess to that of Antonia Peacocke in respect to our first papers in AP Seminar as she did with her essay arguing in favor of Family Guy. Although I created a seperate word document for this work, I have included a copy of that work below. I kept in mind each citation in chronological order so that I may appropriately introduce my argument in its most effective written form. Following my writting, there is a breif summary of how the changes I made may have bettered my writting and overall argument. My first arhumentative essay written in the AP Seminar course was a breif one thousand word essay advocating for a more liberal stance on singlular sex schooling, both at intermediate and advanced levels. While upon reading my argument was strong, I must especially imporve it since I took a minority stance. In fact, I was the only student to take this apporoach in advocating for single sex schooling systems. Unlike my AP Seminar counterparts who preffered an absolute image of equality, of which I argued may be impossible and only a statist desire. Additionally, I have boldened any direct usage of the templates supplied throughout They Say, I Say. 

Equality Found Through Intentional Division

When it comes to the topic of eduaction, most of us will readily agree that co-educational schooling systems offer the most utility in relation to how they serve both sexes. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether single-sex schooling can better assist from this utlitiy standpoint. While some are convinced that equality can be achieved through means of a co-educational schooling system, others believe that this push for equality serves no basis and will be effectiveley useless in the longrun when the student opts to join the workforce. As a result of their unique environment, single-sex schools are traditionally omitted as many do not perform the extensive due diligence to adequately evaluate a school as it compares to its peers. Above all, single-sex schools have still managed to cater to their students’ needs while continuing to grow in popularity across not only The United States but the academic world itself. Options for single-sex education have long enabled devout academics to further their studies via an environment that limits distractions, enables bold gender-based discussions, and encourages competition in a manner that the traditional co-educational system fails to do sufficiently. Especially important is the recent growth in single-sex education and how it has yielded numerous benefits for their student body; most notably, an increase in enthusiasm and commitment to their academic duties. Nonetheless, this proper aid of students via the single-sex schooling environment is yet to be recognized by the vast majority of those seeking a fundamentally strong education.  

By focusing on the essence of equality, which will never be acheived perfectly, much to the statists' dismay, co-educational adocates overlook the deeper problem of the sustainability of conversations otherwise hardened by the presence of the opposing sex. With nearly unanimous support, members of single-sex schools, including students, teachers, and parents, have supported the premise that while in an environment absent of the opposing sex, a healthier and more productive environment is produced. Complimenting this healthier environment is a newly created atmosphere that is now conducive to learning, contribution, and the immense effort derived from its student body. Michele McNeil of Education Week agrees when she writes, “Boys, especially in elementary school, said they liked being away from the girls because there's "too much drama" when they're around” (McNeil). Contrary to common belief, boys, just like girls, seek an environment that not only supports but furthers their learning while free of external distractions such as the opposing sex.  Subsequently, their grades and aspirations for future tasks will be raised as students will become accustomed to the reality of effort-based results. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the student bodys willingness to work with teachers and other students on matters which they may find monotonous, odd, or even discomforting.

Although fights for absolute equality among sexes have yielded great advancements for mankind, it's vital to recognize that incorporating this matter too severely into our schooling system will, without a doubt, have a harmful effect on the welfare of  both male and female students. The fact of the matter is, males and females differ in distinct ways, which includes the manner in which both genders go about learning. Co-educational advocates are mistaken because they overlook the fact that schools designed with a singular sex are understandly able to create a ciriculum more apposite to the sex they serve. Under those circumstances, single-sex schools are able to properly adjust to the needs of their students, and better yet, adhere to them. This format of learning, which was utilized and widely supported in a North Carolina single-sex school yielded positive results among the students: “Instead of trying to cater to both in a single lesson, like traditional classrooms, Winston-Salem Prep's middle school teachers get to design lessons tailored to boys or girls” (Herron). As Arika Herron argues, schools who only permit one sex are more adequetly suited to create lessons structured on their future instead of worrying of overcompensating for equality. Though this is more work that the teachers are responsible for, the results were phenomenal in that students were now in an environment that was free of an opposing sex conflicting with the manner of the students' work. Conversely, students were free to express their thoughts regarding a topic with no fear of discrimination arising from the opposite gender. Indeed, this did in fact add to the overall willingness for students to comply to matters otherwise seen as redundant. 

As a result of human nature, the two sexes constantly attempt to bring attention and desire to themselves. Here many co-educational advocates would probably object that equality reinforced with an overall better learning environment will make for a better upcoming so that when it comes time to join the workforce, they are more than prepared. However, this aspiration is in reality, difficult, if not impossible to achieve with any respect to normality and sensiblity. Instead, leaving opposing sexes to compete outside of an academic enviroment and go about life in hopes of attracting a mate besides without their behavior in a professional setting is best. In aligning with this premise, males and females of the classroom are at no loss of distractions within the classroom; in fact, there is a surplus of classroom distractions. In eliminating what is likely the largest factor, intergender attraction, single-sex education is able to create a more attentive environment throughout the classroom and school. By extension, the instinct compulsion of humans is to try and impress the opposing sex, though this is likely to take both beings off of the subject at hand in not only the classroom but in their professional life if these habits are not curbed to some degree within their youth. “They [single-sex schools] provide students with the opportunity to focus on academics, while reducing some feelings of competition within their gender as girls and boys are not competing with each other to gain favor among the opposite sex” (Pearson). Nonetheless, single-sex schools are able to teach as they please without the constant rowdy behavior which may arise from acts to impress.

Future academics who seek to further their studies through single-sex schooling are granted innumerable benefits that co-educational schools struggle to offer, considering limited distractions, friendly competition, and audacious discussions free of discrimination. Most of all , as opposed to one sex feeling oppressed while in the classroom, within a single-sex school the opportunities granted are equal though in different environments which are accommodating to our distinct biological differences. Under those circumstances, it can be affirmed that single-sex is directly correlated to an equality movement, in that just like those demanding just treatment of both genders, single-sex schools offer the absolute best to each sex while never leaving one particular contingent unrecognized. Accordingly, any argument with the premise that single-sex schools promote sexism is blatantly false and counterproductive. Although co-educational advocates may seem of concern to only a small group of the world population; that is, younger academics, it should in fact concern anyone who cares about eachieving equality as the current methodology of education surpresses the will both males and females to act as they wish. Accrodingly, the former in a masculine manner and the latter in a femine ordinance.

While I did in fact reinforce the idea behind single-sex schooling and its benefits, I feel as if the base argument held still stands out. This is likely representative of an orignally solid piece; at least, I hope it does. Nontheless, I made numerous edits; all of which in some fashion sustained an idea of the signficance that men act in a masculine nature and vice verse. That said, I feel that upon reading an opposing piece from student counterparts, I may be better equipped to support my AP Seminar argumentative essay with relative understanding of how I should address certain topics which they highlight as vital. 

With that said, I formally conclude my eleventh chapter blog and intend on sharing it with classmate in hopes to not only recieve tips, but civil discourse on where I may be wrong. Take care and thank you for reading.