Problems with Co-Education
Hafsa Ahsan June 5, 2004
#32 Posted by shaiqbashir on February 6, 2005 7:59:37 pm
Well!
I think that you have worked hard and i found you as an opponent of co-education. We are Muslims, and we should not forget that and in Islam, it is strictly prohibited for girls and boys meet together and having free discussions, chatting and laughing with each other (just like we see in our institutions offering co-education). So, co-education should be strictly prohibited, because it has more disadvantages than its advantages.
Confidence and sel-esteem can be developed in a single-sex class, but for it having a mix-sex class is not a good idea. Because, this usually gives birth to bad and dangerous social practices.
Thanks &
Very Well Done Hafsa
I think that you have worked hard and i found you as an opponent of co-education. We are Muslims, and we should not forget that and in Islam, it is strictly prohibited for girls and boys meet together and having free discussions, chatting and laughing with each other (just like we see in our institutions offering co-education). So, co-education should be strictly prohibited, because it has more disadvantages than its advantages.
Confidence and sel-esteem can be developed in a single-sex class, but for it having a mix-sex class is not a good idea. Because, this usually gives birth to bad and dangerous social practices.
Thanks &
Very Well Done Hafsa
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#31 Posted by PaagalInsaan on June 11, 2004 7:42:41 pm
`` In females, there is an intact connection between the left and ride sides of the brain, while in males, the connection is broken. Hence, female students are more productive in the sense that they can pay attention to many aspects of their education simultaneously, while the male students can only concentrate on one aspect at a time. ``
Dear Hafsa,
The deceptively simple scheme that you have presented above, is a gross oversimplification and an unwarranted generalization of a biological complexity. It is misleading to refer to the brain as if it were connected in a way similar to hardwired electronic devices.
The neural system connecting the two hemispheres of the brain is called Corpus Callosum. There are conflicting studies about the size of Corpus Callosum, with some showing Men`s CC to be larger, while others, Women`s. The latter only succeed to prove that only one part of the CC, the Isthmus, which seems to be larger in consistantly right-handed women than consistantly right-handed men. In studies relating the inter-hemispheric interaction, it has been found that women`s reaction times are slower than men`s (Hoptman & Davidson, 1994), which means the greater size of the Isthmus, or that of Corpus Callosum as you claim, does not mean greater inter-hemispheric interaction. Therefore Steven Rose, the British neuroscientist, correctly calls the hypothesis you mentioned, ``little more than ideological fantasies.`` (Rose, 1992)
You, dear Hafsa, in your well-researched article have supported both Psychic Essentialism and Biological essentialism to establish your point.
The basic problem with your psychic essentialism is that it is based on a false premise, i.e. the assumption that some students getting more attention than others is unnatural. In all-girls classes, some girls tend to get more attention than the others. Reducing the classroom size may not help, even if there are two girls in a class, one of them will get more attention than the other.
The second problem with your pysychic essentialism is that it somehow suggests that all girls from all parts of the world, from the third-world under-developed pre-renaissance Pakistani society, to the post-modern western world, face the same problem in co-education schools. It is not convincing to talk about psychology and ignore the cultural context.
While the difference in Biological make-up is can be investigated with the tools of natural science, its profound impact on behavior can not. The crucial step in biological essentialism is to relate to the supposed difference in biological make-up to the culturally defined norms of masculinity and femininity, which is also its fundamental weakness.
Dear Hafsa,
The deceptively simple scheme that you have presented above, is a gross oversimplification and an unwarranted generalization of a biological complexity. It is misleading to refer to the brain as if it were connected in a way similar to hardwired electronic devices.
The neural system connecting the two hemispheres of the brain is called Corpus Callosum. There are conflicting studies about the size of Corpus Callosum, with some showing Men`s CC to be larger, while others, Women`s. The latter only succeed to prove that only one part of the CC, the Isthmus, which seems to be larger in consistantly right-handed women than consistantly right-handed men. In studies relating the inter-hemispheric interaction, it has been found that women`s reaction times are slower than men`s (Hoptman & Davidson, 1994), which means the greater size of the Isthmus, or that of Corpus Callosum as you claim, does not mean greater inter-hemispheric interaction. Therefore Steven Rose, the British neuroscientist, correctly calls the hypothesis you mentioned, ``little more than ideological fantasies.`` (Rose, 1992)
You, dear Hafsa, in your well-researched article have supported both Psychic Essentialism and Biological essentialism to establish your point.
The basic problem with your psychic essentialism is that it is based on a false premise, i.e. the assumption that some students getting more attention than others is unnatural. In all-girls classes, some girls tend to get more attention than the others. Reducing the classroom size may not help, even if there are two girls in a class, one of them will get more attention than the other.
The second problem with your pysychic essentialism is that it somehow suggests that all girls from all parts of the world, from the third-world under-developed pre-renaissance Pakistani society, to the post-modern western world, face the same problem in co-education schools. It is not convincing to talk about psychology and ignore the cultural context.
While the difference in Biological make-up is can be investigated with the tools of natural science, its profound impact on behavior can not. The crucial step in biological essentialism is to relate to the supposed difference in biological make-up to the culturally defined norms of masculinity and femininity, which is also its fundamental weakness.
#30 Posted by vertex on June 11, 2004 2:27:46 pm
Dress codes are far more important than seperate schools. As someone who has experiecned high school life here, trust me on this one.
Also, the notion that mixing sexes will sensitize boys and girls with each other...pfft. Yeah, right. A good number of my fellow males were quite scummy in their prepetual `cruising for chicks`....and I doubt either style of schooling could cure the likes of those....
#29 Posted by soundmeister on June 11, 2004 5:29:20 am
The problem here is that too much is being made of scattered anecdotal information which is being palmed off as ``research``. A simple thumb rule to live by is: if it isn`t intuitive, don`t believe it. For example, I have a terrible credibility problem with studies showing that alcohol is actually good for your heart, and that chocolate does NOT cause your teeth to rot. In the same way, it looks to me that these ``feminist`` writers are conveniently using selective data, most of it suspect in the first place to propogate their perverse views. How can boys and girls studying together ever be bad? This is crap!
#27 Posted by rahul_capri on June 9, 2004 11:48:35 am
I agree with Ahmed Bilal in principle but the problem is it is very difficult to decide. There is no conclusive evidence either way.Probably child psychologists have designed some behavioural tests to advice?I know there are a lot of studies comparing effect of same sex education; I dont know if any amount of work has been done looking at it from the apriori angle, that is which kind of school will be good for a particular child, based on some behavioral parameters.This certainly looks like a good field to work in.
As far as I can surmise from a cursory glance at articles and applying some preliminary logic, same sex education does have its benefits like less stereotyping for girls. Probably same sex till 10th or 12th and coed later? Ofcourse, us guys would prefer coed all the way and probably it is better for us in every way too.
ps - I rememeber reading the Mallory towers Series and these same sex schools do seem to have a world of their own.
As far as I can surmise from a cursory glance at articles and applying some preliminary logic, same sex education does have its benefits like less stereotyping for girls. Probably same sex till 10th or 12th and coed later? Ofcourse, us guys would prefer coed all the way and probably it is better for us in every way too.
ps - I rememeber reading the Mallory towers Series and these same sex schools do seem to have a world of their own.
#26 Posted by Tmk on June 8, 2004 9:47:24 pm
`Enlightened moderation`
General Pervez Musharraf`s call for ``enlightened moderation`` (Dawn, June 2) unfortunately has few takers in the country, as there is a contradiction between his call and the ground realities.
Consider the following ground realities: In October 2000 he promised to change those repressive laws that were made during the dictatorship of General Zia and which militated against the minorities and women.
Procedural modifications were announced in the blasphemy law. But when he realized that he needed the clergy`s political support, the general reneged on his promise.
President Musharraf also called for changes in the Hudood laws that lay down stoning to death a woman who fails to produce ``four pious Muslims`` as witnesses to prove that she was actually raped. But when the parliamentary opposition moved a bill seeking to amend the law, it was opposed by his own hand-picked adviser on women affairs.
General Musharraf has been wooing those very parties and groups whom he has been accusing of extremism. Election laws were carefully re-written to squeeze out the democratic parties and bring in clerical parties in elections which were denounced by the Commonwealth as ``seriously flawed``.
A political deal was negotiated with these parties to allow him to wear two hats of the army chief and that of the president and also give parliamentary approval to constitutional written in the GHQ.
Two years ago, promises were made to change amendments syllabi of the seminaries some of which are accused of teaching hate material. The promise was never kept.
About a month back, a new religious affairs minister was appointed, who last week announced that he had assigned to the dustbin the report of an international organization on religious seminaries.
True, the general warned jihadi outfits on January 12, 2002 against exporting militancy across the Line of Control in Kashmir. But prior to 9/11, General Pervez Musharraf was an ardent supporter of the so-called ``jihad``, even formally declaring on February 5, 2000, in Muzaffarabad the shifting of the Afghan jihad to Kashmir.
The people need to know if the glaring contradiction in the promises and the ground realities will be addressed.
SENATOR FARHATULLAH BABAR
Islamabad
General Pervez Musharraf`s call for ``enlightened moderation`` (Dawn, June 2) unfortunately has few takers in the country, as there is a contradiction between his call and the ground realities.
Consider the following ground realities: In October 2000 he promised to change those repressive laws that were made during the dictatorship of General Zia and which militated against the minorities and women.
Procedural modifications were announced in the blasphemy law. But when he realized that he needed the clergy`s political support, the general reneged on his promise.
President Musharraf also called for changes in the Hudood laws that lay down stoning to death a woman who fails to produce ``four pious Muslims`` as witnesses to prove that she was actually raped. But when the parliamentary opposition moved a bill seeking to amend the law, it was opposed by his own hand-picked adviser on women affairs.
General Musharraf has been wooing those very parties and groups whom he has been accusing of extremism. Election laws were carefully re-written to squeeze out the democratic parties and bring in clerical parties in elections which were denounced by the Commonwealth as ``seriously flawed``.
A political deal was negotiated with these parties to allow him to wear two hats of the army chief and that of the president and also give parliamentary approval to constitutional written in the GHQ.
Two years ago, promises were made to change amendments syllabi of the seminaries some of which are accused of teaching hate material. The promise was never kept.
About a month back, a new religious affairs minister was appointed, who last week announced that he had assigned to the dustbin the report of an international organization on religious seminaries.
True, the general warned jihadi outfits on January 12, 2002 against exporting militancy across the Line of Control in Kashmir. But prior to 9/11, General Pervez Musharraf was an ardent supporter of the so-called ``jihad``, even formally declaring on February 5, 2000, in Muzaffarabad the shifting of the Afghan jihad to Kashmir.
The people need to know if the glaring contradiction in the promises and the ground realities will be addressed.
SENATOR FARHATULLAH BABAR
Islamabad
#25 Posted by bittersweet on June 8, 2004 12:48:31 pm
Single-sex education cannot guarantee more confident females whatsoever. It may in some cases help female students to be more confident in certain subjects as mentioned in the article but when we see these females in the broader context i.e. in practical life they are less confident in dealing with their male counterparts which is one thing which should be there after years of education.
I myself have been a student of a coed institute and have experienced quite a frank environment till my A levels. Students were free to interact with each other both inside the academic circle and outside it. We used to treat our male and female friends alike. However things have changed now that I have stepped into the university life. Here we have people from diverse social and cultural backgrounds. There is a blend of a multitude of people from various schools of thought. Now I am clearly able to separate students who are from single-sex institutes from those of coed ones. Be it be a male or a female student, if he/she is from one of those single-sex places they’ll be treating people from opposite sex as beings of a different world! I’ve seen girls going all ga-ga over guys and vice versa. On the other hand ppl from coed places are normally well behaved and they don’t tend to be partial towards anyone. This is however, just an example of one case, there maybe and are exceptions. I am not by any means implying that single-sex education is not practical, what I mean to say is that it is not the only determinant of the success in female or male students which the writer seems to think.
As for moral problems a coed institution creates, it must be noted that schools are only one of the myriads of places where such things happen and that too, to some extent and not always. We were a very close lot in my school and I know guys used to smoke and the majority dated but that is by no means unusual. Go to any girls college and u will find girls coming out all dressed up and guys waiting outside welcoming them with colgate smiles. A very well known girls college has a number of its girl students who are very fond of smoking and using other drugs. This can be found in coed schools as well, and shows that moral degradation has to do nothing with single-sex or coed schools.
I myself have been a student of a coed institute and have experienced quite a frank environment till my A levels. Students were free to interact with each other both inside the academic circle and outside it. We used to treat our male and female friends alike. However things have changed now that I have stepped into the university life. Here we have people from diverse social and cultural backgrounds. There is a blend of a multitude of people from various schools of thought. Now I am clearly able to separate students who are from single-sex institutes from those of coed ones. Be it be a male or a female student, if he/she is from one of those single-sex places they’ll be treating people from opposite sex as beings of a different world! I’ve seen girls going all ga-ga over guys and vice versa. On the other hand ppl from coed places are normally well behaved and they don’t tend to be partial towards anyone. This is however, just an example of one case, there maybe and are exceptions. I am not by any means implying that single-sex education is not practical, what I mean to say is that it is not the only determinant of the success in female or male students which the writer seems to think.
As for moral problems a coed institution creates, it must be noted that schools are only one of the myriads of places where such things happen and that too, to some extent and not always. We were a very close lot in my school and I know guys used to smoke and the majority dated but that is by no means unusual. Go to any girls college and u will find girls coming out all dressed up and guys waiting outside welcoming them with colgate smiles. A very well known girls college has a number of its girl students who are very fond of smoking and using other drugs. This can be found in coed schools as well, and shows that moral degradation has to do nothing with single-sex or coed schools.
#24 Posted by Urstruly on June 8, 2004 9:32:04 am
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.
#23 Posted by rafay_alam on June 8, 2004 9:02:09 am
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
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
#22 Posted by AhmadBilal on June 7, 2004 3:45:27 pm
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.
#21 Posted by jang on June 7, 2004 8:18:22 am
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
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
#20 Posted by kaurasach on June 7, 2004 7:31:46 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#19 Posted by Goddess on June 6, 2004 7:03:54 pm
#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.
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.
#18 Posted by warpster on June 6, 2004 1:03:38 pm
#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.
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.
#17 Posted by warpster on June 6, 2004 12:18:11 pm
#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
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
#16 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on June 6, 2004 12:18:11 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#14 Posted by khurramtm on June 6, 2004 11:41:15 am
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 ???
Any comments ... anyone ???
#13 Posted by Tmk on June 6, 2004 6:57:53 am
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
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
#12 Posted by Tmk on June 6, 2004 6:57:53 am
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.
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.
#11 Posted by Tmk on June 6, 2004 6:57:53 am
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.
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.
#10 Posted by nooralain on June 6, 2004 4:44:32 am
{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 :)
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 :)
#9 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on June 5, 2004 11:26:15 pm
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.
#8 Posted by kabuliwallah on June 5, 2004 10:27:22 pm
re: maybe this theory would work in an already segregated society like say Saudi Arabia for example. But then societies being patriarchal in general and particularly so in places like Saudi Arabia, ``liberated by segregated education`` girls can expect to achieve more in only those fields where they play a bigger role anyway (I cant think of any such field in Saudi Arabia where women play a big role, maybe television presenters?)...but by and large this segregation business sounds like balderdash because in the real world adults, both male and female, are expected to interact with each other rather than segregate themselves in their own hives. Unless of course one lives in Saudi Arabia. By the way, in all my classes I can think of at least 3-4 girls among the leading achievers in class and they were in no way cowed, but individuals with great determination and self esteem. There were about the same number of individuals in the male segment of the class too. 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.
``But if we look from a Western sociological perspective, co-education has been declared as extremely disadvantageous to the female students. Many feminist movements have started an active campaign to get single-sex schools established in large numbers.``
I think the operative word is ``feminist``.
regards
Kabuli
``But if we look from a Western sociological perspective, co-education has been declared as extremely disadvantageous to the female students. Many feminist movements have started an active campaign to get single-sex schools established in large numbers.``
I think the operative word is ``feminist``.
regards
Kabuli
#7 Posted by khurram on June 5, 2004 8:34:26 pm
The bottom line is that the real world is coed. So, everyone better get used to it in school.
#6 Posted by warpster on June 5, 2004 8:34:26 pm
There are, now, quite clearly some very compelling arguments and evidence for single-sex education, particularly during adolesence. Many of these arguments have not been made in this article but they do exist. I have done a bit of research that indicates that single-gendered females are LESS stereotyped than coed students and there is lots of other research that bears this out rather well. Curiously this is one issue that the feminists (NOW, ACLU) are on the wrong side of the evidence that they choose to ignore.
An as yet unpublicized site covers a lot of this ground... See
Gender differences The content and arguments have been marshalled by a single-sex advocate Dr. Leonard Sax (my role was to organize and design the site) who is also publishing (an important, IMO) book on the subject.
#5 Posted by anilazainub on June 5, 2004 7:02:30 pm
Although its an interesting outlook from a feminist perspective but it will create more problems than it will solve.
most of the women from an exclusively female environment tend to join the real world (that is outside the academic environment) with way more insecurities in reference to the male gender, in my experience. and so in personal relations as well as in professional, the interaction with male gender which is inevitable can only be made more complex and problematic if they were to attend same sex schools.
this is my opinion and i am not sure if their are any studies that prove this or not.
my question is that if we are to consider school as a microcosm of the society than is it not necessary to attempt at making it more equitable in terms of survival for both genders so they can practice the same when they enter the actual society?
most of the women from an exclusively female environment tend to join the real world (that is outside the academic environment) with way more insecurities in reference to the male gender, in my experience. and so in personal relations as well as in professional, the interaction with male gender which is inevitable can only be made more complex and problematic if they were to attend same sex schools.
this is my opinion and i am not sure if their are any studies that prove this or not.
my question is that if we are to consider school as a microcosm of the society than is it not necessary to attempt at making it more equitable in terms of survival for both genders so they can practice the same when they enter the actual society?
#4 Posted by nakhok on June 5, 2004 7:02:30 pm
Hafsa Ahsan wrote:
+++++
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?
+++++
Ahsan seems to be introducing a Pakistani version of the ``separate but equal`` policy that was enacted into law throughout the U.S. Southern States during the period of segregation.
Well, it would certainly make sense to first revisit the ``separate but equal`` policy in USA. Because of racist attitudes, the facilities turned out to be unequal with poorer facilities being allotted to Blacks. Why should the fate of Ahsan`s ``separate but equal`` policy for Pakistani students be any different in view of the ``wider society characterized by patriarchal relations``?
The repeal of ``separate but equal`` laws was a key focus of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s in USA. In Brown v. Board of Education of 1954, the Supreme Court outlawed segregated public education facilities for blacks and whites.
Co-education classrooms in Pakistan are can pave the path to empowerment for the women in Pakistan. ``Separate but equal`` policy on the other hand is bound to keep Pakistani women stranded at their present state of dependence in misogynistic Pakistan.
+++++
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?
+++++
Ahsan seems to be introducing a Pakistani version of the ``separate but equal`` policy that was enacted into law throughout the U.S. Southern States during the period of segregation.
Well, it would certainly make sense to first revisit the ``separate but equal`` policy in USA. Because of racist attitudes, the facilities turned out to be unequal with poorer facilities being allotted to Blacks. Why should the fate of Ahsan`s ``separate but equal`` policy for Pakistani students be any different in view of the ``wider society characterized by patriarchal relations``?
The repeal of ``separate but equal`` laws was a key focus of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s in USA. In Brown v. Board of Education of 1954, the Supreme Court outlawed segregated public education facilities for blacks and whites.
Co-education classrooms in Pakistan are can pave the path to empowerment for the women in Pakistan. ``Separate but equal`` policy on the other hand is bound to keep Pakistani women stranded at their present state of dependence in misogynistic Pakistan.
#3 Posted by Shehryar on June 5, 2004 7:02:29 pm
Hafsa, The question of co-ed vs single-sex schooling has long been debated. I think these excerts articulate well on the subject.
Delany College
Grimwood Street
GRANVILLE NSW 2142
Many Catholic parents who live in the older established parts of Sydney are now calling for a co-educational option for secondary schooling. They see a co-eduational setting as a more natural environment in which young people can grow in faith and knowledge. The old fears about bringing the sexes together have been expunged by decades of successful co-education in Catholic and Government schools. Co-brother/sister relationships that arise among male and female students in co-educational schools are seen as preferential.
“Observations on Co—Education``
Hanover Monthly January 1885
As to just what the difference between the strength and activity of the masculine and feminine intellect is, we do not propose to say. As to whether the power of the brain is in proportion to the strength of the body, or to its own weight, the fact is, we don’t know. But the news that comes from Cornell, and the last term work in the Senior Prep. and Freshman classes of Hanover are sufficient for some observations.
First: we observe that the question which has so long agitated the mind of so many strong men, “whether young ladies are capable of pursuing the same course of study as young men,” is fast being solved. However broad the chasm may have been between male and female brains, the young ladies are fast bridging it, and the opposers of co-education are fast being driven behind the ramparts of the impropriety of the association of the two sexes in college.
Here they may think they have a safe retreat, but we doubt it, because Western Reserve has lately had this very bulwark tumbled down on them. It seems that the trustees of that institution so keenly appreciated the need of this reforming element around them that they put it there against the wishes of students and faculty. That it is refining to both sexes for them to be associated together none should deny, and the apprehensions of too great intimacy from such association seem to us groundless. It is a noticeable fact that male are far more immoral and female seminaries far more giddy, than where the two are together in a mixed school. When we see male and female schools existing apart in the same town with no other reason than the one referred to for their separate existence we are made to remember the ancient custom of worship, when they had a partition wall between the two sexes.
What a hard time the preachers of that age would have had to get attention if there were any cracks in those walls!
What a hard time the principles [sic] of those two schools have to-day to keep their students separated! But they say they are paid for all their trouble in seeing the maidenly blushes of the young misses, who have lost not a whit of their original modesty. We have heard of a teacher in a female seminary who, (as the little innocents filed by on Sunday morn, telling yarns as to their whereabouts the day before, that would make “Irony” blush,) enthusiastically exclaimed, “Your blushes doubly repay me for my trouble in watching you!” No doubt it did. It was our pleasure during the holidays to get a little information as to the relations of two such schools, in a town of a neighboring state. My informant said, “we all go to church on Sunday, (but she didn’t say whether there was a partition), we are not allowed to speak to the boys, if professor is looking at us, but we have to run the gauntlet.” What’s that? exclaimed I, almost frightened about her safety. “Be calm and she and I will explain.”
The boys always get out first and they station themselves down the walk to the number of hundred and fifty, and ten of course we have to walk by. It’s a little embarrassing at first but then we soon get so we like it.
When I told her that our girls went through the basement to avoid passing the boys on the steps, she sighed and looked skeptical, and said that if she didn’t know my mother so well she wouldn’t believe it. I afterward spoke to her mother about sending her to Hanover, but she was opposed to co-education.
It may be well to append to this article, the professed position of Hanover College upon co-education. The purpose of admitting ladies into the college was to extend to them the opportunities which are here afforded for obtaining an education. There are many ladies in the immediate county who can take advantage of our college opportunities, and who would not wish to go further from home, on account of expense and disadvantage of distance, but yet can come here. More than this reason, few ladies’ schools in the west are of as high a standard as should be accessible to ladies. There were none of the common theoretical doctrines of coeducation considered when these doors were thrown open to it. There are, indeed, certain advantages arising to both sexes in their being placed on an equality. A modifying of boisterous manners and, it may be, a better moral tone in general, although Hanover never was known as anything else than a moral place.
Delany College
Grimwood Street
GRANVILLE NSW 2142
Many Catholic parents who live in the older established parts of Sydney are now calling for a co-educational option for secondary schooling. They see a co-eduational setting as a more natural environment in which young people can grow in faith and knowledge. The old fears about bringing the sexes together have been expunged by decades of successful co-education in Catholic and Government schools. Co-brother/sister relationships that arise among male and female students in co-educational schools are seen as preferential.
“Observations on Co—Education``
Hanover Monthly January 1885
As to just what the difference between the strength and activity of the masculine and feminine intellect is, we do not propose to say. As to whether the power of the brain is in proportion to the strength of the body, or to its own weight, the fact is, we don’t know. But the news that comes from Cornell, and the last term work in the Senior Prep. and Freshman classes of Hanover are sufficient for some observations.
First: we observe that the question which has so long agitated the mind of so many strong men, “whether young ladies are capable of pursuing the same course of study as young men,” is fast being solved. However broad the chasm may have been between male and female brains, the young ladies are fast bridging it, and the opposers of co-education are fast being driven behind the ramparts of the impropriety of the association of the two sexes in college.
Here they may think they have a safe retreat, but we doubt it, because Western Reserve has lately had this very bulwark tumbled down on them. It seems that the trustees of that institution so keenly appreciated the need of this reforming element around them that they put it there against the wishes of students and faculty. That it is refining to both sexes for them to be associated together none should deny, and the apprehensions of too great intimacy from such association seem to us groundless. It is a noticeable fact that male are far more immoral and female seminaries far more giddy, than where the two are together in a mixed school. When we see male and female schools existing apart in the same town with no other reason than the one referred to for their separate existence we are made to remember the ancient custom of worship, when they had a partition wall between the two sexes.
What a hard time the preachers of that age would have had to get attention if there were any cracks in those walls!
What a hard time the principles [sic] of those two schools have to-day to keep their students separated! But they say they are paid for all their trouble in seeing the maidenly blushes of the young misses, who have lost not a whit of their original modesty. We have heard of a teacher in a female seminary who, (as the little innocents filed by on Sunday morn, telling yarns as to their whereabouts the day before, that would make “Irony” blush,) enthusiastically exclaimed, “Your blushes doubly repay me for my trouble in watching you!” No doubt it did. It was our pleasure during the holidays to get a little information as to the relations of two such schools, in a town of a neighboring state. My informant said, “we all go to church on Sunday, (but she didn’t say whether there was a partition), we are not allowed to speak to the boys, if professor is looking at us, but we have to run the gauntlet.” What’s that? exclaimed I, almost frightened about her safety. “Be calm and she and I will explain.”
The boys always get out first and they station themselves down the walk to the number of hundred and fifty, and ten of course we have to walk by. It’s a little embarrassing at first but then we soon get so we like it.
When I told her that our girls went through the basement to avoid passing the boys on the steps, she sighed and looked skeptical, and said that if she didn’t know my mother so well she wouldn’t believe it. I afterward spoke to her mother about sending her to Hanover, but she was opposed to co-education.
It may be well to append to this article, the professed position of Hanover College upon co-education. The purpose of admitting ladies into the college was to extend to them the opportunities which are here afforded for obtaining an education. There are many ladies in the immediate county who can take advantage of our college opportunities, and who would not wish to go further from home, on account of expense and disadvantage of distance, but yet can come here. More than this reason, few ladies’ schools in the west are of as high a standard as should be accessible to ladies. There were none of the common theoretical doctrines of coeducation considered when these doors were thrown open to it. There are, indeed, certain advantages arising to both sexes in their being placed on an equality. A modifying of boisterous manners and, it may be, a better moral tone in general, although Hanover never was known as anything else than a moral place.
#2 Posted by Shehryar on June 5, 2004 7:02:29 pm
And this is what I am inclined to concur with ...
The single sex model, which is older, grew out of schooling that centuries ago was for boys only. Girls were educated separately when society understood the need to educate girls; prior to this, girls didn`t go to School. In this century, single sex schools have been accused of being unnatural and certainly boys only schools don`t address the needs of a hierarchy in the next century that will be less and less male dominated. Co-education is the younger model and dates back to the last century. Co-ed schooling has been based on two arguments in the main: firstly; that it is more natural for boys and girls to learn together; and secondly, that it is more economical to house girls and boys in a single building.
However, neither model alone addresses the needs of the 21st century. There is no evidence, for example, that putting girls and boys into the same school reduces gender stereotyping. It doesn`t work like multicultural schooling, where putting the races together can reduce racial tension and misunderstanding. In fact, if one considers that 98 per cent of all American children are in co-ed schools and one looks at the statistics for rape, divorce and the breakdown of the nuclear family, the correlation would appear to be the opposite. The same would appear to be true of South Africa, where more than 90 per cent of children are in co-ed schools and our statistics are no better.
At St Stithians College we offer an alternative model: the co-ordinate model, which comes from a different set of thinking - what is best for the children; not what are the historical precedents, or what is most viable.
Founded in 1953 on a 90-hectare estate, St Stithians College today is a village of schools, comprising a co-ed post-matric Centre, a boys-only College and Preparatory School, a girls-only College and Preparatory School, and a pre-primary school that is co-ed. These free-standing schools form a co-ordinate model of education, which allows for sharing and separation. Co-ordination means single sex schooling when maturation of girls and boys require it, and co-instruction where this would be of benefit.
Effective education is about bringing children out of themselves. It is inside out. What is best for children is that they grow and develop at their most appropriate pace in a space with which they identify, and in which they feel secure, loyal and committed. The facts of early teenagehood are that boys and girls develop at different paces. International research has shown that boys and girls perform best when they are taught separately in their teenage years.
The co-ordinate model addresses gender equity, a key issue in the 21-st century, in an exceptional way. In a co-ordinate model children are able to understand their sexuality with their gender peers and to develop a self-confidence that allows them to be verbal and participative in a co-ed situation. Furthermore, the staff cannot propagate dismissive assumptions about girls and boys, or male and female staff, because they, together, work out what is best for boys, and what is best for girls; they have to learn to respect the other`s differences and needs, become sensitised, and cannot get away with a generalised sameness. or allowing one gender to dominate the other. The staff have to articulate their differences and negotiate win-win situations. Thus differences are respected, not subsumed.
Another advantage of the co-ordinate model is that it allows significant increase in student responsibility in student government compared to a single large co-ed school. For example, Heads of Schools, SRC, Chairmen of Clubs are all replicated. Added to that in the co-ordinate model, the two separate groupings of girls` and boys` clubs can combine for added richness.
The co-ordinate model is not expensive because the really costly items, such as the school hall, laboratories, theatre, centres for music, art, design and technology and information technology can be shared with creative timetabling. It is `` interesting to note two points that emerged from the British Financial Times top 100 schools survey in 1998. The first is that schools that appear in the top ten schools and that work together (such as those in the Girls` Day Schools Trust) have, according to one Headmistress, these advantages: ``tremendous economies of scale: financial and legal issues are organised centrally and head teachers are concerned only with teaching and learning``.
And that is the Saints vision as the only independent school in the country to operate four schools together.
To conclude, the question we need to ask ourselves is what is best for the children and design our schools accordingly. Neither the co-ed model nor the single sex model has the complete answer. The co-ordinate model provides the opportunity for the 21 st century to allow girls to gain self-confidence and boys to positively channel and control their ``power`, to moderate their aggression, and to become confident in male-female relationships.
- Taken from ``Independent Education`` Autumn 2000
The single sex model, which is older, grew out of schooling that centuries ago was for boys only. Girls were educated separately when society understood the need to educate girls; prior to this, girls didn`t go to School. In this century, single sex schools have been accused of being unnatural and certainly boys only schools don`t address the needs of a hierarchy in the next century that will be less and less male dominated. Co-education is the younger model and dates back to the last century. Co-ed schooling has been based on two arguments in the main: firstly; that it is more natural for boys and girls to learn together; and secondly, that it is more economical to house girls and boys in a single building.
However, neither model alone addresses the needs of the 21st century. There is no evidence, for example, that putting girls and boys into the same school reduces gender stereotyping. It doesn`t work like multicultural schooling, where putting the races together can reduce racial tension and misunderstanding. In fact, if one considers that 98 per cent of all American children are in co-ed schools and one looks at the statistics for rape, divorce and the breakdown of the nuclear family, the correlation would appear to be the opposite. The same would appear to be true of South Africa, where more than 90 per cent of children are in co-ed schools and our statistics are no better.
At St Stithians College we offer an alternative model: the co-ordinate model, which comes from a different set of thinking - what is best for the children; not what are the historical precedents, or what is most viable.
Founded in 1953 on a 90-hectare estate, St Stithians College today is a village of schools, comprising a co-ed post-matric Centre, a boys-only College and Preparatory School, a girls-only College and Preparatory School, and a pre-primary school that is co-ed. These free-standing schools form a co-ordinate model of education, which allows for sharing and separation. Co-ordination means single sex schooling when maturation of girls and boys require it, and co-instruction where this would be of benefit.
Effective education is about bringing children out of themselves. It is inside out. What is best for children is that they grow and develop at their most appropriate pace in a space with which they identify, and in which they feel secure, loyal and committed. The facts of early teenagehood are that boys and girls develop at different paces. International research has shown that boys and girls perform best when they are taught separately in their teenage years.
The co-ordinate model addresses gender equity, a key issue in the 21-st century, in an exceptional way. In a co-ordinate model children are able to understand their sexuality with their gender peers and to develop a self-confidence that allows them to be verbal and participative in a co-ed situation. Furthermore, the staff cannot propagate dismissive assumptions about girls and boys, or male and female staff, because they, together, work out what is best for boys, and what is best for girls; they have to learn to respect the other`s differences and needs, become sensitised, and cannot get away with a generalised sameness. or allowing one gender to dominate the other. The staff have to articulate their differences and negotiate win-win situations. Thus differences are respected, not subsumed.
Another advantage of the co-ordinate model is that it allows significant increase in student responsibility in student government compared to a single large co-ed school. For example, Heads of Schools, SRC, Chairmen of Clubs are all replicated. Added to that in the co-ordinate model, the two separate groupings of girls` and boys` clubs can combine for added richness.
The co-ordinate model is not expensive because the really costly items, such as the school hall, laboratories, theatre, centres for music, art, design and technology and information technology can be shared with creative timetabling. It is `` interesting to note two points that emerged from the British Financial Times top 100 schools survey in 1998. The first is that schools that appear in the top ten schools and that work together (such as those in the Girls` Day Schools Trust) have, according to one Headmistress, these advantages: ``tremendous economies of scale: financial and legal issues are organised centrally and head teachers are concerned only with teaching and learning``.
And that is the Saints vision as the only independent school in the country to operate four schools together.
To conclude, the question we need to ask ourselves is what is best for the children and design our schools accordingly. Neither the co-ed model nor the single sex model has the complete answer. The co-ordinate model provides the opportunity for the 21 st century to allow girls to gain self-confidence and boys to positively channel and control their ``power`, to moderate their aggression, and to become confident in male-female relationships.
- Taken from ``Independent Education`` Autumn 2000
#1 Posted by khamkhwa. on June 5, 2004 7:02:29 pm
[ Spender taped some of the classes she took, in which she tried to divide her time equally between the male and female students. She discovered, however, she only spent 38% of her whole time in interacting with the female students.]
..stats are perfect for ms. Spender. however, if she was mr. Spender, the girls would have got all the attention..say about 93%...
..stats are perfect for ms. Spender. however, if she was mr. Spender, the girls would have got all the attention..say about 93%...
Interact Index
Also by Hafsa Ahsan
Similar Articles
- School Days FouzKhalid Khan
- London’s Knife-Crime Epidemic: Asif Naqshbandi
- Muslim Ghettoisation Iftikhar Ahmad
- Looking Towards a Brighter Future Fiza Asar
- Dumbing Down Parliament....Again! Hammad Siddiqi
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- masadi: HP writes "Asadi sahib... There is no ‘honour’
- _arjun19: There used to be... US Commando Strike in
- masadi: HP writes "You brought... There is no ‘honour’
- DawgUSA: My Dear NFP.. How... What Talibanization?
- rabiawsti: "There is a greater... US Commando Strike in
- rabiawsti: CreateAlpha: my point was... US Commando Strike in
- anil: Hamidm sahib: Taxing where the... US Commando Strike in
- CreateAlpha: Rabia, how do you... US Commando Strike in
