The Pros And Cons Of Single-Sex Schools

After going to an all-girls school for fifteen years, I have noticed and become more appreciative of my education. It is often argued that single-sex schools prevent a lot less pressure and instill confidence. In single-sex classrooms, girls and boys are encouraged to explore subject areas not normally identified with their gender. Teachers will usually adjust their instruction to better fit how a boy or girl learns, which can be more advantageous in a single-sex environment. There are benefits to attending a single-sex school; boys and girls learn differently and should be taught in separate environments to have a better focus on his or her learning style. In today’s society, men and women are still attempting to break gender boundaries

Single-sex schools provide students with a better opportunity to take courses they are interested and want to succeed in. As Sullivan continues, “the gender norm enforcement model” makes it, “harder for girls to show interest and ability in maths and sciences, and for boys to show interest and ability in English and modern languages, in mixed settings than in single-sex settings” (263). It is more likely that the gender stereotypes will be prevalent in a co-ed school. Therefore, a girl’s or boy’s perception of themselves will be lower in a more “masculine” or “feminine” subject. As Ra’ana Malik points out, “…boys are more likely to pursue their actual interest in the single sex schools, rather than being pressured by stereotypes to pursue ‘traditional’ boy’s courses in the coeducational schools” (150). The pressure to choose atypical courses is lessened in a single-sex school, letting students take a course appealing to them. However, in single-sex schools, it has been argued that girls and boys will perceive their skills to be higher in the gender-stereotyped subjects. The perceptions change and, “girls….[are] less likely to see themselves as ‘below

As Allison Booth explains, “If behaving competitively is viewed as being a part of male gender identity but not of a female, then being in a coeducational school environment might lead girls to make less competitive choices than boys” (544). Girls may choose to refrain from participating in class or activities if they are intimidated and afraid in a co-educational setting. Many a time, it is mistaken that boys are more competitive since they are seen as more dominant in society. However, competitiveness between girls in a single-sex school is just as equal to that of boys. In addition to this competitiveness, boys and girls will have the possibility of gaining more confidence if taught in separate environments. It is apparent that boys and girls learn differently from one another. Therefore, the focus should be on how each gender learns in a single-sex school. This emphasis could be more advantageous for higher grades. As Malik argues, “in single-sex schools, the teacher is able to concentrate on the learning styles of each sex and uses variety of pedagogical strategies to bring out the best in each student” (159). Teachers can acquire a skill in teaching a certain gender, instead of trying to meet the needs of a co-educational school. It is also shown that girls in a single-sex school receive more attention from teachers and teachers are