Problems with Co-Education

[ 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%...

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

The bottom line is that the real world is coed. So, everyone better get used to it in school.

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

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.

{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 :)

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.

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.

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

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 ???

re: nooralain # 10

Touche :)

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