March 13

EAP Prompt Due Friday for Periods 1 and 5, Saturday for Period 2

Respond to the following released EAP prompt. You will take a similar writing test this week.

“Some leaders in Washington D.C. want to change the educational policy meant to ensure ‘gender equity’ in education and encourage the expansion of single-sex education, either in separate schools or in classes. This is sure to bring howls of protest from groups dedicated to integrating the sexes, whether or not integrating them makes sense or, in fact, is even fair. But many educators contend that boys and girls both do better when taught separately. Teachers can focus on academics and let kids develop social skills outside of the classroom. Consider that private schools, which are often single-sex institutions, send a higher percentage of their students to college than do public schools. Therefore, making single-sex classrooms an option will go a long way toward improving education and perhaps close the gap that is growing as more women than men go to college.”
-S. Affo
Explain Affo’s argument and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with her analysis and conclusion. Support your position, providing reasons and examples from your own experience, observations or reading.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Posted March 13, 2013 by tashak38 in category Uncategorized

About the Author

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area--Big Up to the East Bay

87 thoughts on “EAP Prompt Due Friday for Periods 1 and 5, Saturday for Period 2

  1. Adria

    Adria Watson
    Per.2

    In the passage, S. Affo argues that boys and girls would be at a greater advantage with their education if placed in separate classes from one another. She uses Private Schools as an example of a successful single-sex education, proving that because of the separation more male students attended college rather than having majority females attending. I agree with Affo because not only will male students benefit from this policy but females as well. It can create better awareness and have a large rate of productive students in the classroom.

    With my personal experience at a public school, I can see the drastic difference between which gender takes part in school. One of the main problems at public schools is that both males and females tend to focus on the opposite sex rather than school. Teen pregnancy is a big controversy with the current generation. They are being more so exposed to the opposite sex in the class rather than having time to focus on what their academics can open their minds to. The focus level with single-sex classrooms can be set towards what is being taught in the class rather than being who it is being taught to.

    Right now there is a larger percentage of females attending college than males. In Affo’s argument she states that the private schools are sending more of their students to college with a closer male and female percentage. I believe public schools can achieve the same thing. The single-sex classes are not separating males and females from each other permanently. There would be time to socialize outside of class with the opposite sex but in class is a time to set your mind on what is being taught to you.

    In conclusion, having a single-sex education can benefit students by creating less distractions for them in class. To expand on more males attending college to where it is equal with the female attendance rate, separating the classrooms by gender is the best way to start that change.

    Reply
  2. Jasmine J.

    S. Affo claims that it would be more beneficial for everybody if schools or classes were separated by gender. Personally, I disagree with her assertion. Gender integration is inevitable and by separating them you’re not contributing to their social skills. In fact, you’re setting them up to struggle to work with people of the opposite sex. Separating education by gender will give you less benefits than intended.

    Both college and the work world include both men and women. If you attend schools and classes where there are only boys or only girls, you will only learn how to work with boys or girls. When you get to college or to work, now you must work with someone of the opposite sex which is a skill you wouldn’t have completely developed yet. Gender separation is an inadequate preparation for the real world. For example, many people vouch against historically black colleges and/ or universities because the real world, the business world, isn’t only black people; it’s diverse. Some argue that by attending an all black school you’re not gaining the skills of working with different people which can be a downfall. Gender separation is the same thing. It may be beneficial while growing up but it can be a downfall later in life.

    Most people who went to a single-sex school have negative things to say about their experience there. For example, my mom attended an all girls private elementary school. She told me she would never send me to a single-sex school and she wished that her mother had never sent her. Another friend of mine also attended an all girls school when she was in elementary school. When she was able to switch to a school with boys and girls she was elated. Socially, a single-sex school is nothing more than torture. Most students find school as a form of punishment already so why increase the misery by making it single-sex?

    S. Affo stated, “Consider that private schools, which are often single-sex institutions, send a higher percentage of their students to college than do public schools.” In which she is correct. Private schools have a higher success rate and based off of that it is easy to conclude that single-sex institutions are more successful. However, that is not the only thing you must take into consideration. Private schools are not free nor cheap. Each student and their family has a tuition to pay. This money is used to improve the education of the school. The money goes to newer technology and better text books that public schools can’t afford. It’s possible that single-sex private schools have a higher success rate because they have access to better learning material than multi-sex public schools not because they’ve separated the two genders. Also, Bishop O Dowd, a private school that is not single-sex, has an extremely high success rate; one that is equivalent to any single-sex institution. I believe that the difference is the money, not the gender.

    If a student wants to obtain an education and be serious about it, that’s their decision. It doesn’t matter whether the student is a girl at an all girls school or a boy at a co-ed school. He or she has to want it for his or herself. I see more problems with single-sex schools than I see benefits. We’ve had co-ed schools for decades now and I see no need for change.

    Reply
  3. Tresean Mitchell

    Tresean Mitchell
    AP English 11
    per. 1
    S. Affo argues that students enrolled in single gender schools often tend to do better and making it in to college, and making public schools will make them produce more college grade students. Affo also argues that the education quality will be improved allowing the teacher to focus on the lesson at hand and leave the socializing to the students outside of school.

    I disagree with Affo, although he/she had made some good points, but over all I must disagree. For instance the student will be able to focus on their school work more efficiently due to the lower distraction level. After that there is not to much i can agree with, because ones successes can be determined upon ones environment although it is how much effort they put in to their work is what makes them get to college. Segregating the classroom is a bad idea, helping less than it is helping more, because not letting the genders socialize creates a gap that will be needed for after school, in order to function correctly in society. Having a mixed gender class allows for an exposed environment,letting the genders mingle and get use to each other and creating new a different points of views. I believe it is important for the classes to integrated ,with out each gender may lack certain traits needed for their future.

    Even though Affo’s argument that gender segregated classes might be beneficial towards ones educational growth, it lacks the same for ones social skills which in my opinion are more valuable in the long run. Affo’s argument plays that out exactly so I must disagree with him/her ultimately.

    Reply
  4. Kiala A.

    Kiala Aranas
    Keeble
    AP English 11, 5th

    S. Affo argues that same-sex classrooms are more beneficial based on the larger percentage of students that attend college when compared to coed classes. She asserts that “boys and girls both do better when taught separately” because “teachers can focus on academics.” She mentions single-sex private schools and exemplifies their success in which they “send a higher percentage of their students than do public schools.” Affo questions the legitimacy of integrating the sexes. She predicts that pro gender integrationalists are going to reject her ideals, and then ponders whether integration is “even fair.” The theoretical result of separating the sexes Affo speaks of is to “close the gap” between the male and female enrollment in college. In reality, it is unethical and illogical.
    From my experience, coed classrooms are a more stressful environment due to the male and female expectations (in attire and behavior) that I feel pressured to live up to. In that aspect, same-sex classrooms, in theory, would reduce some of that tension buit up in regular classes. While single-sex education may provide a more focused environment, it is not practical. In the professional world, interaction with both the sexes in a pressured atmosphere is imperative. If students do not develop group social skills, it will be harder to adapt as an adult and may lead to unnecessary difficulties.
    When Affo compares “private…single-sex institutions” to public schools, she does not recognize that private school students are more likely to have an education-oriented family and supportive background. Those private students hold higher goals and are more than likely held to even higher standards. In many public schools, the intention is to merely pass.
    Education is unbiased and blind to gender. How much an individual learns is dependent on the individuals focus. The percentage difference of college enrollment from private versus public schools are due to the quality of education and schools objective. Although school is not a social playground, interaction between the sexes is crucial to a smooth transition to the college, adult, successful life.

    Reply
  5. Maliko P.

    In this passage, S. Affo creates an argument asserting that the segregation of male and females students in schools will significantly improve the rate of students that attend college. Affo also implies that students learn better when separated by their genders. I strongly disagree with Affo’s idea of gender separation in school because I don’t believe it will improve public school’s attendance to colleges compared to that of private schools.

    Affo’s uses single-sex institutions, such as private schools, to distinguish the large increase of students that go to college in comparison to the college rates of schools that have both sexes in the one class. An example is when she states “Consider that private schools, which are often single-sex institutions, send a higher percentage of their students to college than do public schools”, which although true, does not depict the reason why private school’s percentage is higher; the real reason why this occurs is wealth. Affo fails to mention all of the funding that is incorporated into private schools students education from their guardian. Funding not only gives the student more opportunities to a better education than a public school student, but also provides the student with more incentive to do well in school and to strive for college. This shows that wealth does play a role in education.

    I have when to public school since kindergarten. Throughout the years I have noticed that there are some people who make their significant other a very important part of their lives. Yet at the same time I have witnessed a bundle of students who have their priorities straight by putting education first and occasionally relationships after . For example, there is a lot of obvious relationships at Hayward High, but that does not necessarily mean that they have given up on their education. Through my own personal experiences I have come to the conclusion that nothing comes before education besides family. I have the rest of my life to have relationships and what not an only a few years to get a great education.

    Although Affo provides us with statistics of single-sex schools higher percentage rates I still strongly disagree. Segregation of sexes is not the only factor that differentiates private (single-sex) and public schools.

    Reply
  6. Amacalli Duran

    Amacalli Duran
    Ap English-Period 1
    Ms. Keeble

    Society advanced in such a way that opposite genders are now allowed to interact freely and obtain equal education. The collaboration of sexes is apparent if not necessary, in school, work, and business. Affo asserts that to ensure ‘gender equity’ there is a need for the expansion of single sex education. She supports her claim through factual evidence. She states that single-sex education in private schools sends more students to college in pursuit of a career than public schools, as well as stating that; boys and girls taught separately are more focused on their studies. Affo’s argument is flawed and illogical, and the only consequence of single-sex education is society’s regression into old-fashion customs.

    Comparing private schools to public schools is an extremely controversial topic. Affo manipulates this topic to support her position. She explains, “Consider that private schools, which are often single-sex institutions, send a higher percentage of their students to college than do public schools.” Although seemingly logical, Affo deliberately ignores the multitude of factors that cause the comparison of these two schools to be absurd: funds, resources, ethnic background of students and social classes of students. Budget cuts do not directly impact private schools. On the other hand, budge cuts do not enable public school to provide efficient materials and resources for their students. Furthermore, the ethnic background and social class of students from private schools far exceeds those of public. Public schools are home to students of lower, middle class with diverse ethnic background. The goals and guidance of these students is minuscule compared to that of private. This thus proves that single-sex education plays no part in private school’s ability to send more students in search of higher education.

    Affo suggests that schools should only focus on educating students and not their development of social skills. She asserts that, “Teachers can focus on academics and let kids develop social skills outside of the classroom.” The question, which remains, is where will they develop their social skills? Co-ed schools and classes provide students with the opportunity to gain experience socializing with the opposite sex and form the necessary skills of communication. Single-sex schools or classes deprive students of these essential skills needed in the “real world”.” In her novel, Cinderella Ate My Daughter, Orenstein researches children during their elementary years and how their interaction of the opposite sex develops the foundation for their social skills in the future. She explains how students who are omitted in co-ed groups or students who do no socialize with the opposite sex have unhealthy career and personal relationships in the future. In addition, I witness how my cousin carries herself or converses with males. She is awkward, timid, and overwhelmed when approached by a male. If leaders in Washington D.C wish to separate education, will they also fight to separate business? It is futile to separate students in school but expect them to attain the qualities to work with the opposite sex once they graduate.

    Co-ed or single sex education does not define or determine the quality of the education guaranteed to the student. Co-ed education insures not only social skills, but it also removes the barriers and misconceptions sexes have about one another. While single sex education encloses students inside a protective box, stripping them of the possibility of refining their communication skills. Affo’s comparison of private to public schools is also faulty due to the many factors, which allow private schools to better prepare, gear, and send students to college. The combination of sexes inside a classroom is one of the best policies created to bring forth new perspectives into a classroom. Co-ed education allows for women to prove their equality to men and also for men to further respect the perspectives of women. To remove co-ed education will only thicken the line between women’s inferiority and men’s superiority.

    Reply
  7. Yarelli Lopez

    Yarelli Lopez
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English Language & Composition
    Friday, March 15, 2013

    S. Affo argues that having single-sex classrooms would make both genders equally successful, instead of just women. He supports his argument by using private schools as an example, yet he does not mention the exact percentage. Affo loses credibility as he does not mention the reason why private schools get more students to college. The reason behind that is money; parents that have their children in private schools have to give monthly payments, unlike public schools, that there are no costly payments due. Also in my own opinion, it is in the student’s hand to go to college or not. Not on being with the same gender all throughout their years in school. In today’s society, we must have very diverse campuses in order to get ready for the outside world, which bring both genders together.
    I strongly disagree with his argument because having single-sex classes would make a strong competition among both genders, which would create a lot of unnecessary chaos. Separating both genders would create a dramatic change in our society making it more difficult for us to get along. We don’t need more problems in between men and women. We have overcome many inequalities and starting single-sex classrooms would just create segregation among both genders. We must not be treated differently; otherwise, our views will be very distinct.
    I come from a culture where some men think that they are superior to women. Therefore, separating, women and men will make either one feel superior to the other. Once people start thinking like that, it is very difficult to change their way thinking. I don’t believe that if I were to be in a classroom where there were only girls that, that will make me any more successful than being with both men and women. It all depends on the will to be successful in your education not in any one’s point of view or help.

    Reply
  8. Alexis l.

    S. Affo argues that same sex schools are beneficial to the success students. Affo claims that students learn more efficiently in same sex classrooms than regular intergated classrooms. He believes this because of the higher percentage of students sent off to college than integrated schools. I agree with Affo to an extent. If a student is more likely to become successful in life if he/she goes to a non integrated school then by all means allow them to.

    If sacrificing social experiences to become something big in life, then yes it should be allowed. But those social experiences that are sacrificed may jeopardize ones ability to adapt in life. If there is a high possibilty of a student, who graduated from a non integrated highschool, failing then obviously the student should attend a mixed gender school. It all really comes down to funding and social experiences.

    A low budget school can still produce successful students and have a better chance of not lacking in social skills. Unlike a well funded school, which can produce more students that go to college but having a chance of acquiring low social skills. Integrated schools don’t put students at a disadvantage. The students acquire the same education but at a different budget.

    These students can also learn life skills such as speaking to the opposite gender. Unlike same gender schools that don’t fully know how the opposite gender’s appeals may be. A male student may interact well with another male but not with a female. Students in integrated schools have the opportunity to learn how to interact with any gender.

    Affo’s proposal has a positive outcome but it also comes with negatives effects. Such as interaction with the oppostie gender. The funding is obviously better than an integrated school which allows better learning supplies. Non integrated schools high percentages in college acceptance is another positive outcome. It all depends on the students experiences in the schools.

    Reply
  9. Hannah R.

    Hannah Reddy
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English 11, Period 2
    17 March 2013

    In S. Affo’s argument, she claims that in order for children to excel in school, they should be placed in same sexed schools. She uses the example of private schools and how they “send a higher percentage of their students to college than do public schools.” However the private schools she is referring to are “often single-sex,” meaning that some are co-ed. I highly disagree with Affo’s argument because her examples are not legitimate.
    First, many private schools are funded differently. Public schools are funded by tax payers’ money, while private schools charge tuition. Because of this private schools can use the money in any way possible in order to increase the resources for their students. The more resources one has, the better opportunities he/she has. Public schools only receive about 2% of tax payers’ money. Especially now that jobs have decreased, not many people are making money, which means fewer taxes, so less funding. Yes, schools can get money other ways, but considering the number of public schools in America compared to the amount of money there is, the distribution is scarce.
    Second, the interactions you get in school are different from those outside of school. The way people act in school is different than that of away from school. Outside of school, majority of the people are more relaxed and carefree, while during school, it is a more serious environment. Meaning if one would leave interactions with the different sex for outside of the school, it may be possible that when you head to a higher level of education (college); you won’t know exactly how to interact seriously with a boy or a girl. Boys and girls are different, and you interact with them differently, especially in a more serious environment, so if you don’t know how to interact with them, it would be hard to excel in life.
    Overall, there are other factors that relate to education and graduation rates of school than just being in private single-sexed school. S. Affo’s argument is invalid solely for the fact that the evidence she based her argument on is invalid.

    Reply
  10. Brittany-Ann D.

    Brittany-Ann V. Dela Cruz
    Keeble
    AP English
    15 March 2013

    S. Affo argues same-sex classrooms are more beneficial. Affro believes the expansion of single-sex education will increase the focus on academics and higher the percentage of students going to college. With Affo’s logical proof and my own personal experience, I can agree that same-sex education will improve schooling programs tremendously.

    Using the facts and content from Affo’s reading, we can conclude same-sex education is positive. She states, “But many educators contend that boys and girls both do better when taught separately.” This proves teachers themselves, who know the capabilities of their students, believe in Affo’s belief. There is no point in having coed classrooms if the students are neither comfortable or capable of doing their best. Affo also states, “…single-sex institutions, send a higher percentage of their students to college…” The main goal of high school is to prepare students for college. If we take Affo’s side, we are only making it better for students to reach success. The facts prove same-sex education will bring society closer to a better schooling program.

    From personal experience, I also agree same-sex education is beneficial. In a class with all females, I am more willing to speak out and focus on the content. I am no longer humble, but fighting over the others to answer the next question. In additionally, I am more competitive to be the best. With a class full of girls, you are naturally vicious and greedy. You always want to be the girl with the most excellent test grades, the one with the greatest speaking and writing skills, and even the one with the most outgoing personality. With same-sex education, students will fight and strive even harder to succeed in life.

    Some people may believe single-sex classrooms will prevent girls and boys from interacting and working together, but that is true. There are plenty of school events such as dances and rallies that bring the girls and boys together. By proving these mixers, we are giving the students best of both worlds. We are allowing them to individually concentrate while working in a classroom environment, but also interact with each other at events such as the coed dances and rallies.

    Through logical proof and personal experience, I agree that Affo’s insertion of same-sex education is favorable. Same-sex education will allow students to focus on their academics more and increase the number of students going to college.

    Reply
  11. Kiana Ledda

    Kiana Ledda
    Keeble
    AP English, Period 5
    17, March 2013

    S. Affo argues that single sex classrooms will be more beneficial for both genders’ education, and will also expand their opportunities with getting into universities. The issue with same sex classroom is a very controversial topic and has been looked into recently by Washington D.C leaders. I personally disagree with Affo’s argument because she is lacking solid evidence that single sex classrooms are more successful than in an all sex classrooms. I believe that in order for a student to be successful in their academic future, they will need to learn in a male and female environment.

    The best way to educate the student academically and socially is through being in a both male and female class room. Students need to develop their social skills in order to interact with their peers. This is an important skill to obtain because in the real (business) world, these students will need to know how to socialize and interact with the opposite sex. For instance, in elementary school, children aren’t separated by gender because they are permitted to observe their surroundings. Stripping them of the opposite sex might affect them in a negative way based off their differences in interests. The same situation applies with high school students because my aunt told me how she was completely traumatized with going to an all girl’s school. She had nothing in common with her fellow classmates, and this later on affected her abilities to learn or to interact with anyone. She strongly suggests that public schools are better for a student’s education.

    Another reason why I don’t agree with Affo’s philosophy is because I know many students who attended public schools and have gone off to universities such as Riverside, UCLA, and SJSU, which are all great schools! Many public schools have lack of funding for the student’s proper materials in order for them to learn. Students at public schools realize that they have a lower advantage of getting into universities, so they work harder in order for them to stand out. Private schools are often set off to a higher standard than public schools, so they are given more efficient teachers, supplies and other necessities for the students to succeed. For example, my friend, who attended Hayward High School, and my cousin, who attended Moreau Catholic High School, both applied to UCLA. My friend who attended a public school got accepted while my cousin got rejected. Regardless of all of the materialistic advantages given to private schools, it is still the student’s decision to use their privileges wisely. The student’s education is not based off of their gender but what they are provided by with the school.

    However, I must agree with Affo when she suggests that single sex classrooms increase the student’s focus. In a single sex classroom, the student is able to focus more on their work, and isn’t distracted from the opposite sex. They do not need to experience the common struggle with talking to the opposite sex. For instance, many high school students tend to build relationships with the opposite sex, and this causes them to do poorly with their academic studies. Because they are so involved with that one person, they tend to give up everything for them. It’s as if school doesn’t matter to them anymore. Although I disagree with Affo’s opinion on proper schooling techniques, she does have a point with students being distracted from their work due to the opposite sex.

    Regardless of the different types of school environments, funding privileges, and distractions, I still believe that separating genders in different classrooms is not a proper way for a student to learn. I believe that students learn more by developing their social skills at a young age. Also, Affo cannot prove her point when she states that single sex schools have a higher percentage of attending universities over an all sex school. In conclusion, segregating the students by gender will hurt themselves later on in life, and that is why we shouldn’t uphold the idea of single sex classrooms.

    Reply
  12. Mercedes G.

    Affros argument was based on the fact that public schools have lower scores due to single gender schools that have higher test scores. He was making it a point to make all schools single gender schools because of the test score difference. I have to say that I do agree with him because mixed schools might have the boys and girls distracted with dating and other things. There also might be more drama about who dated who, who cheated on who, and girls being pregnant and having to drop out to not suffer judgments and embarrassment .
    In school there are boys and girls and some might like another boy or girl and start dating and as well as starting problems. By dating someone who goes to the same School it would distract the couple from doing their homework and focusing on their relationship instead. By doing this they will obviously have poor grades as well as test grades. But by going to a single gender school they would not have to worry about dating and distractions from their boyfriends.
    By there being relationships there comes drama, breakups, hatred, cheating, tears, and heartbreak. All of these things can easily distract the girls or boys from their study and focusing on hating that person wanting to fight that person for cheating or just not going to school because they just can’t deal with seeing that person at school everyday. These things would not be a problems in the one gender schools because there are not any boys or girls to mad at because they cheated or broke the boy or girls heart it would be a bit more peaceful at the school and more focusing on important things in life.
    More importantly there would not be as many pregnancies that we have today with the mixed gender schools. Boy and girls will go farther in their relationship and have sex and the girl might just get pregnant and drop out because she couldn’t handle all the people talking, and judging her. By her dropping out it can cause the father to drop out as well to support his soon to be family and that is defiantly not good for the schools scores. The single gender schools will probably have boyfriends and such but they will not be with them all the time and they also might have sex but it is less likely they would compared to a mixed gender school.
    Overall the single gender schools seems as if it would have fewer problems and drama compared to the mixed school that see their boyfriend or ex’s everyday. But with the single gender school. There might be a few problems with friends but not even close to how many a mixed gender school would have. So I would have to agree that single gender schools will have better and higher test scores than mixed gender schools.

    Reply
  13. Joelynn D.

    Joelynn D.

    Ms. Keeble

    AP English – 2nd period

    16 March 2013

    The intermingling of sexes in unpreventable. In college, work, life, and society, females and males are bound to meet and interact. Affro argues that single-sex education is better by saying that a larger percentage of students from single-sex private schools go to college than students from coed public schools. She also states that boys and girls who are taught separately learn better and focus more on their education, so it will help improve education in the long run. Seemingly concrete, Affro’s argument is actually invalid because comparing private schools to public schools is unfair and separating females and males in schools is illogical.

    As Affro stated, she advocates for single-sex education and believes that it is better. As evidence she says, “Consider that private schools, which are often single-sex institutions, send a higher percentage of their students to college than do public schools.” Although it is true that more students from private schools go to college, Affro glances over the fact that students who go to private schools also have families of better background. This means that students of private schools have parents who probably went to college, have higher incomes, and hold going to college in high-esteem. On the other hand, the majority of students of public schools have parents who did not go to college and/or are low income. This means that the goals of students from public schools and private schools are different as well. While almost all students at private schools are aiming to go to college, only a small percentage of students from public schools have that goal in mind. Affro’s argument is unfair because the percentage of students going to college from private/public schools has nothing to do with being single-sexed or coed, but the demographics of the students’ backgrounds.

    Affro’s argument that says it is better to split up boys and girls in school is illogical. In the majority of colleges and society, females and males work together and interact, so splitting them up in high school is counterproductive. From my own personal experience, many of the girls or guys I know that go to single-sexed schools are awkward around the opposite sex. Since they never work together with them during school, they are not as prepared for the “real-world” as those who have had the interactions and are comfortable around the opposite sex. As important as education is, it is useless if the student does not know how to apply it to society and life. And one of those life skills is being able to interact and work properly with all types of people; including those of the opposite sex.

    Getting a proper education is important, but has nothing to do with whether a student goes to a single-sex or coed school. In general, private schools are geared more towards going to college so Affro’s argument comparing single-sexed private schools to public schools is irrelevant and unfair. Also, by separating girls and boys, they are not able to properly prepare for college and society. The difference in the percentage of students going to college from single-sexed private schools and co-ed public schools is due to the resources, funding, teachers, etc; not the fact that the school is single-sexed or not. Therefore, this makes Affro’s argument comparing single-sexed private schools to public schools invalid.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *