Problems with Co-Education

I don`t know why girls are so obssessed with studying with us boys. What do they see in us afterall? Be sahram larkio haya karo.

Hafsa,

You have quoted from several articles, which must make you quite the expert. Tell me, did the research which concluded that girls in A-level co-ed classes were less likely to concetrate on classwork do any studies with students ages 4-13? I fail to imagine how pre-pubescent students can be as affected as hormonally crazed teenagers. For the record, A-level boys are not likely to concentrate on their chemistry practicals if they are preening themselves for the benefit of others.

I am intruiged by your assertion that women tend to perform better in the humanities. Is this just statistical data or could it be an effect of the very few women admitted to science degrees and programmes? Does this conclusion take into account, at least in Pakistan, that many parents do not support higher education for girls, let alone in the sciences?

I am shocked that no-one else in chowk has challenged some of the prejudices in your article. That said, I am in total agreement with jang #21. Let`s get the kids educated before we begin to tear them apart from the hips, if the ideas in this article are thought through.

Lastly, I believe that if we keep the women in Pakistan constantly sheltered from the real world, they will never become fully functioning members of it. I refuse to accept that someone will become ``independent and self-assured`` with the opposite sex (and indeed with the rest of society) if they are kept away from the other half of it. I know. I studied at an all-male institution.

Rafay Alam

I think both options should be present. And it should be a matter of choice, left to individual students, based on their own personal preferences. Different people respond differently to circumstances they are put in. You can`t really generalize it. Thanks.

Here are the priorities
1. education for girls and boys
2. sex education for girls and boys
3. education for teachers
4. sex education for teachers
5. education for parents..
...
...
...
100435. single sex education

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#6 by khurram on June 5, 2004 8:34pm PT
The bottom line is that the real world is coed. So, everyone better get used to it in school.

Pretty true. If women opt for studying in a same-sex school because it makes them more confident, how do they expect to keep up that confidence once they step in to the outer world which has a unisex environment? Unless she plans otherwise.

#14.. this indeed is done by some schools in the US

If anything, in the US and western countries, single gender students are far more confident and outspoken in coed colleges. Thats because there is no lack of opportunity for them to interact with males outside the school context. In pakistan, it appears that the effect is the exact opposite? If so, it is because there are zero opportunities for females to interact with males as equals outside school?

if, in pakistan, school is the only place where males and females can socialize and interact professionally, then coed education presents a valuable opportunity for such interactions.

perhaps single-gender classes in coed schools might be a reasonable middle ground for countries like pakistan. let me cut and paste a section from that website on learning differences..

---

from www.genderdifferences.org

Context enhances learning for most girls, but often just bores the boys. The choir director of the National Cathedral School for Girls and the St. Alban`s School for Boys told us that when he`s teaching the high school girls a new song, he`ll start by sharing a story about why the composer wrote this piece, who it was written for, or maybe how the choir director himself felt 20 years ago when he goofed the solo part. ``Giving the girls some context, telling them a story about the piece, gets them interested. The boys are just the opposite,`` he said. ``If you start talking like that with the boys, they`ll start looking at their watches, they`ll start getting restless. Then one of them will say, `Can we please just get on with it already? Can we please just learn the song already?```

Confrontation works well with most boys, although this technique is seldom taught in today`s schools of education. Get in their face. Raise your voice. Stand right in front of your student, nose-to-nose, and say to him: ``How do you know that, Mr. Miller? Prove it to me!`` This kind of direct challenge will motivate boys to work harder and to be prepared. Remember that boys` hearing is only about half as acute as girls` hearing. A well-run boys` classroom is LOUD compared with a girls` classroom. Avoid sofas or soft chairs: boys will go to sleep. Keep the class LOUD and keep the class MOVING. In particular, the teacher should be moving at all times. A class in which the teacher sits at the front of the class and talks in a soft voice is a class in which at least two-thirds of the boys will have tuned out. The boy should never know where the teacher will be 20 seconds from now. Keep them guessing.

Source: Shelley Taylor, professor of psychology at UCLA, has published important work demonstrating the reality of gender differences in the response to threat and confrontation. See Shelley E. Taylor, Laura Cousino Klein, et al., ``Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight.`` Psychological Review, 107:411-429, 2000. See also Professor Taylor`s recent book The Tending Instinct, New York: Henry Holt, 2002.

Small-group learning works well for girls. Girls will naturally break up in groups of three and four to work on problems. Let them. If you`re assigning class presentations, let two girls give a joint presentation. The format of one student giving a presentation to an entire class doesn`t work as well (for girls) as two students giving a joint presentation to a smaller group.

Formal terms of address work well for boys. Boys` classes work best when teachers and students address each other as ``Mr.`` That kind of formality enhances class discipline. If you treat boys like men, they are more likely to act like men.

Teaching math and science

You`ll get more out of this section if you first read our page on teaching math and science to girls. One robust difference which many teachers have told us about is that girls like to build things; boys (especially boys under 14 years of age) like to break things or blow them up. If you want to get 8th-grade girls interested in chemistry, show the girls how chemistry can be used to improve the world. Let them build natural biochemical filters to clean dirty water, so they can see how the water becomes fresh and clean. If you want to get 8th-grade boys interested in chemistry, teach them about dynamite.

---

#9 nhk has valid points as the context is very different in pakistan. in the present day, in the usa, single-gender education is hardly a call for general segregation (although in the pakistani context it may well be) outside the learning situation.

nonetheless there are real biological/developmental gender differences that should be taken into account (in the preadolescence and adolescence years) by planners. girls and boys seem to learn a lot more when appropriate teaching techniques are employed (and these can vary somewhat) and these work well in single-gender classes.

there is a world-wide trend of females outperforming males in schools (and even in colleges). some of this is due to the feminization of school education and the earlier maturation of females (this seems to have accelerated in the past few decades.. environmental influences on biology!). clearly, if in the future, the vast majority of college educated persons are females, then this could lead to unexpected and undesirable consequences.

feminist organizations in the usa are definitely against publicly funded single gender education, even for a small percentage of students (although people like hilary clinton are pro single gender education). the situation seems to be different in pakistan

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: nooralain # 10

Touche :)

I think that the observations are true to some effect...the teachers do give more attention to the male students but it also seems true that the females who have studied from single sex schools lack confidence to interact with the men in the real world. A simple solution can be that the schools be co-ed but the classes not be co-ed. This way the guys & the girls can interact with the teacher in their own way & will not have either gender hold back the other. The students should have co-ed extracurricular activity classes so that the interaction b/w the two genders remain without the holding back of either.

Any comments ... anyone ???

Saving our minorities

Sir: This is with reference to your editorial, “Police and extremism” (Daily Times, May 27). The Samuel Masih case is the latest in a series of highly regrettable episodes that are tarnishing Pakistan’s image. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have been misused since their inception; it is now time to do away with them. This would be a tangible step towards General Musharraf’s vision of ‘enlightened moderation’.

The people of Pakistan also need to show some compassion and fight the injustice that has, unfortunately, become the norm for those accused of “blasphemy”. The quest to revoke the blasphemy laws is about providing justice and security to Pakistan’s beleaguered minorities. All Pakistanis have to play role in doing this.
TAIMUR MASUD KHAN
USA

He speaks:

Rhetoric

Sir: This is with reference to J Sri Raman’s article, HUM HINDUSTANI, “There aren’t any happy endings” (Daily Times, June 3). The author writes: “There is no word from Mr Vajpayee or Mr Advani to explicitly recant on their recent rhetoric over the ‘India-Pakistan peace moves’.” And yet despite this, there is no mention of what this rhetoric is in the article. The article is about BJP’s opposition to Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin and the writer’s diatribe on BJP for which he is well known.

How this get construed as rhetoric over India-Pakistan peace moves is beyond my comprehension unless it is the authors contention that Italian Born Sonia Gandhi is the key to India-Pakistan Peace. If this is so then the above wordings are acceptable.
N S PARAMESWARAN
Chennai

J. Sri Raman replies:

It’s elementary, Mr. Parameswaran.

The “recent rhetoric over the India-Pakistan peace moves” refers to the high-strung and hypocritical claims by the BJP leaders that they had been working towards and were about to achieve everlasting India-Pakistan peace. Many Indians, mostly India-born ones, can only marvel at the audacity of such claims by a political camp known for its fundamental, ideological aversion to peace between communities in India and countries in South Asia.

The article is not about the so-called ‘foreign origin’ issue alone. It is about what to expect from a BJP licking its electoral wounds. The Sushma-Uma shenanigans are cited as an illustration of what to expect. The article argues that the BJP must be expected to return to its roots of jingoism and militarism and, in the process, to abandon talk of India-Pakistan peace, even if it cannot do so immediately. It is beyond my comprehension how this can escape anyone’s comprehension.

Italy-born Sonia Gandhi may not be the key to India-Pakistan peace. India-born communalists and fascists, who do not represent for the Indian people, however, are a threat to peace within India and in South Asia.

He speaks:

Democracy and blasphemy

Sir: This is with reference to Ishtiaq Ahmed’s op-ed “The roots of dictatorship in Pakistan” (Daily Times, May 30). Every word in this article reflects the author’s narrow-mindedness. He denies the very theory of Pakistan — the two-nation theory — and wants to prove that before the creation of Pakistan setting up the Muslim League was a stupidity on the part of Muslim leaders. In the presence of a secular party like Congress it was a huge mistake. The great decision of the great league of Muslims was a disillusion. All this reveals that the author is ignorant about the psychology of Hindus. If Congress was a secular party then why were two wars fought between India and Pakistan during the regime of the Congress party? Why is the problem of Kashmir still hanging?

Mr Ahmed says, “On the contrary, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto employed his parliamentary majority to get the heterodox Ahmadiyya sect declared non-Muslims”. The Ahmadiyya sect is non-Muslim. It is obvious from the verses of Holy Quran “Muhammad (PBUH) is not the father of any man among you. He is the last Prophet” (Chapter 22). The one who revolts against the Holy Quran cannot be Muslim.

In my opinion democracy is the liberty of thinking, liberty of speech and the liberty of action. Everyone is at liberty to do according to one’s creeds but not against the creeds of others. If it is so, there should be upheaval in the society and it would end civil society. The Blasphemy Law is not there to sentence Muslims or non-Muslims to death, but rather for the maintenance of law and order. If the removal of the Blasphemy Law from the constitution is democratic we are proud to be dictators.
RANA IHTESHAM ALI SHAMI
Okara

Ishtiaq Ahmed replies:

Nations are social constructions and one can have two, three or ten nations out of the same population or bring them together in one grand nation. Each model, however, carries its own implications. The two-nation theory was indeed problematic in that one-third of the Muslim population was left behind in India. Another one-third broke away to establish Bangladesh. So, the partition of India has actually partitioned the Muslim community and that is something Mr Rana has never thought about.

If wars are only fought by non-secular parties then what has happened throughout the 20th century becomes impossible to explain. The first and second world wars were fought by secular leaders and parties. Mr Rana obviously doesn’t know what he wants to say. Any serious student of politics would tell you that at least the 1965 war was a follow up to operation Gibralter launched by Pakistan in the Indian-administered Kashmir.

Finally, one can have any opinion about whether Ahmadis are Muslims or not but according to Mr Jinnah’s 11 August 1947 speech that is not the business of the state.

I am amused to read “In my opinion democracy is the liberty of thinking, liberty of speech and the liberty of action. Everyone is liberal to do according to one’s creeds but not against the creeds of others.” Even a casual reading of this statement would leave no doubt that Mr Rana has little or no training in logical argumentation. A liberal is one who keeps his creed to himself and justifies his standpoint on rational grounds and that Rana Sahib is not prepared to do. So, I see no way of communicating with him in any intelligent way.

{Can we expect our new generation of female students to be independent and self-assured, if they are a product of such co-educational classrooms/schools?}

The answer my friend is not blowing in the wind. The answer is yes.

I am the product of a same-sex secondary education environment in Pakistan, and I can tell you that one does not necessarily come out of that environment feeling independent and self-assured. Nor is it necessarily devoid of `patriarchal relations`. That is not to say that it is impossible for girls to emerge from same-sex schools being empowered and self-assured. It is to say that it is not the only option, nor is it always the best option.

I think that nazar sahib makes a good point. I also feel that in a society where gender segregation is being pushed for, and not just by clerics, that we might fail our female children by depriving them of co-educational arenas outside the family environs just as we fail ourselves as adults by not fighting such segregation. In a school in Lahore, for example, like Cathedral, I believe that girls excelled in academics as well as sports, and that they were encouraged to do so. If we are advocating for gender segregation in all aspects of life, not just education, but in the outside world, in the workplace, in our gatherings, in the everyday living of our life than perhaps it might be ideal to have more same-sex schools than already exist in the world, but that hardly seems realistic.

The solution to gender disparities is not to separate the `males` from the `females`, but to work to reduce those disparities not just within the educational system, but the `system` and society at large.

Kabuliwallah #8

if i may highlight two quotes from you:

a) {The research you have cited paints a monolithic boys vs monolithic girls picture. But you have to realize that not all boys are alike, there are some very intelligent, some moderate and some poor students. The same can be said about girls. } and

b) {I think the operative word is ``feminist``. }

then might I also point out with all due respect that not all ``feminists`` are alike either, and that feminism is not a monolith. : )

regards,
a perplexed feminist :)

In liberal Western societies, if there is a call to have a few non-co-education instututions, it is in a completely different context - more to do with education, socialogy and psychology.


In societies like Pakistan, where the clerics are always calling for segregation of sexes on theological grounds, by expounding the virtues of non-co-education institutions, we will only provide more fodder for the clerics - and regress further into gender discrimation and intolerance.

Our context is completely different - we should be asking for wide spread quality education - and first rise to the level of a normal educated society with no gender discrmination.

It is best done by opening all institutions for both sexes - and not get distracted into such fine details for which we have no resources.