Hadow (1923)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Membership, Analysis, Preface, Introduction
Chapter 1 History of the curriculum in secondary schools
Chapter 2 The curriculum at present in use
Chapter 3 Differences between boys and girls
Chapter 4 General review of the evidence and conclusions
Appendix I List of witnesses
Appendix II List of publications
Appendix III Coeducational day schools
Appendix IV Music and art exams
Appendix V Dr JG Adami: memorandum
Appendix VI School timetables

London: HM Stationery Office

Appendix III Digest of certain points in the evidence relating to coeducational day schools ('mixed secondary schools')
[pages 154 - 158]

The day secondary school for boys and girls seems, on a first view, to afford exceptionally favourable ground for instituting a real comparison between boys and girls with a view to deciding the question as to whether further differentiation should be introduced into the curriculum. We have before us a large body of evidence from head masters and assistant masters and mistresses in coeducational day schools. The crucial problem of coeducation does not fall directly within our province, but, as it is impossible to consider one educational question without at the same time raising several other important points implicitly, we consider it advisable to summarise the evidence regarding the advantages and disadvantages of coeducational day schools, especially as regards differentiation of curriculum. It should be pointed out that nearly all the coeducational secondary schools in England and Wales are under the control of head masters. (1) It is interesting to note that though coeducation was advocated by some of our men witnesses, only two women witnesses appeared to be emphatically in favour of the system. coeducational schools were advocated by a number of men witnesses,

(1) for social and economic reasons; and
(2) on the ground that both boys and girls, but especially girls, benefited from coeducation.

(1) Social and economic considerations

Several head masters of coeducational schools held that, as education was the preparation for the full life of a citizen, boys and girls should be prepared for common citizenship in surroundings common to both. There was no natural justification for a system of education which aimed at training boys to live the life of men only and girls to live the life of women only. Both sexes should be trained to live the life of fellowship, and each sex brought its own peculiar gifts. A well-conducted coeducational secondary school would afford natural opportunities for the healthy interplay of the qualities of both sexes, so that, when the pupils mixed in the world after leaving school, there would be none of the danger which came from novelty or lack of practice of self-control in the actual presence of the opposite sex gained in the daily routine of school life. It was a simple matter to make adequate arrangements for boys and girls to have separate work in subjects likely to be of peculiar value to them. If, on the other hand, the sexes were educated in entirely separate schools, the loss to the individual sex in all that could come only from mutual association greatly outweighed the advantages supposed to accrue from segregation in school days. It should be mentioned in this connection that Dr George MacLean, late President of the University of Iowa, in the light of his long experience of coeducation in the middle western states, said that at one time he had no belief in coeducation, but that his life work had reluctantly converted him. He now advocated coeducation throughout the elementary and university courses. He thought, however, that the sexes should be segregated during the period of adolescence.

(2) Mutual benefit to boys and girls

The head masters of several coeducational schools were of opinion that girls educated in such schools would, as a rule, have greater powers of observation than girls educated in girls' schools, because of their association with boys. The head mistress of a coeducational day school told us that she found the girls in such schools keener on their school, more broadminded generally, and less inclined to fuss over trifles. In this connection it should be pointed out that, in discussing the teaching of mathematics, physics and history, several witnesses suggested it would be an advantage if these subjects were sometimes taught to girls by men teachers. We have also some evidence indicating that the average mathematical attainments of girls in coeducational secondary schools are frequently on a rather higher level than in most girls' schools. Several women who had taught in coeducational schools thought the lessons there tended to be brighter and the contributions of pupils more spontaneous and varied than in a girls' school. The girls gained by the exchange of ideas and experience with the boys, whose life was frequently broader, fuller, and more adventurous. For example, in good coeducational schools the girls took examinations in their stride like the boys, and did not tend to strain beyond the limit of their power, as they often appeared to do in girls' schools. On the other hand, girls tended to work more steadily than boys, and this put the boys on their mettle. They thought that both boys and girls gained much by cooperation, and that the problem of the curriculum in coeducational schools was not different in kind, and not very different in degree, from that in all schools.

A head master had found that differences, such as the superiority of the boy in arithmetic and of the girl in English subjects, tended to disappear in coeducational schools when the pupils had been taught together for a few terms.

Several head masters of coeducational day schools, though believing in the benefits which accrued to both sexes from coeducation, were strongly of opinion that some difference of treatment was necessary, especially for pupils over 15 years of age. For example, girls in the upper forms should do less mathematics and physical science. In such forms the girls could, as a rule, take hygiene and general elementary science, while the boys could study mechanics and electricity.

Criticism of coeducational schools, which came largely from the women witnesses, was on the following lines:

(i) Relations between boys and girls

The principal of a large training college for women, who had among her students a number of girls educated in day schools for boys and girls, thought that the difficulties presented by coeducational schools were not so much intellectual as social and administrative. Even where the girls outnumbered the boys, the latter still seemed to run the school. She had noticed that girls from such schools had not the independent and critical outlook and the power of initiative which were usually present in pupils from really good girls' schools. She had also observed in such girls a certain reluctance to accept greater responsibility. Another woman witness stated that she had never found a coeducational school in which the needs of the girls received full consideration. The curriculum was arranged for the boys, the school was run in their interests, and, in general, they acted as a depressing element on the girls.

A woman witness who had done much inspecting and organising work for local education authorities, thought that in the early stages neither boys nor girls lost anything from being taught together, and that from 16 onwards the sexes might, without much difficulty, be taught together. Nevertheless, the work of girls in girls' schools usually reached a higher standard than that of girls in coeducational schools. She had noticed that in mixed classes the girls did not always answer so readily. The boys, on the other hand, were less shy. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the head masters of several large coeducational schools had found that the girls took their full share in the school life and were well able to hold their own against the boys. On the other hand, several witnesses were of opinion that, even if at present boys took too much share in the corporate life of some coeducational schools, this tendency was rapidly disappearing. One woman witness, who had taught for many years in coeducational schools, had observed that girls were more public-spirited than boys and took more part in the school life.

(ii) The danger of overpressing girls and not pushing boys forward sufficiently

Several witnesses, in the light of extensive experience of coeducational schools, regarded them as an economic necessity in smaller centres of population, but thought that separate schools were preferable, where possible. From the standpoint of teaching power, a composite staff of men and women teachers had undoubted advantages, but there was a danger of overpressing the girls or of failing to push the boys to the full extent of their capacity.

One head master had found that, though some girls were capable of working with the best boys, he could not, as a rule, give boys the amount of work they could do and would be the better for doing on account of the physical difficulties of girls working with them. On that ground he would prefer to segregate the sexes after the age of 14, mainly on account of physical reasons He added, however, that possibly the circumstances in his school were peculiar, as many of the boys and girls had to come from long distances. Other witnesses were disposed to think that in smaller coeducational day schools, where it was difficult to classify the less-gifted pupils by means of a system of parallel forms, there might be a real danger of overpressing the girls.

(iii) The relative failure to meet the individual needs of some girls

One witness of wide experience thought that coeducational schools had in some respects distinct advantages, but, on the whole, he preferred separate schools for either sex, largely on the ground that the special need of some girls for individual treatment could be more satisfactorily met in schools for girl pupils only. A woman witness who had had extensive experience both of girls' schools and coeducational schools thought that language teaching probably reached a higher standard in girls' schools, though the mathematical work was probably better in coeducational schools.

(iv) Staffing difficulties

There appeared to be general agreement that it was much more difficult to teach boys and girls together than to teach either sex separately. To teach them together required a wider outlook on life and psychological insight into the temperament of either sex, which made great demands on the intelligence, sympathy, and tact of the teacher. For example, the ordinary master often employed with success a certain grim humour in dealing with boys; yet it was obvious that such methods could not well be used in a mixed class. So, too, stern disciplinary methods which were well adapted for boys were obviously unsuitable for girls. On the other hand, many women teachers would probably find it difficult to teach boys of 15 or 16. There was unanimous agreement in regard to the need for very careful selection of the staffs of coeducational schools. Moreover, the mixed class probably increased the difficulty of presenting matter to different types of mind, as it seemed to be generally agreed that the manner of approaching and apprehending certain subjects, such as mathematics and history, differed with sex. Heads of coeducational schools (who are, with rare exceptions, men) would seldom delegate to their senior mistresses the right to communicate with or to interview the parents of girls, when in her opinion it is desirable. Thus everything hinged on right relations between the head master and the senior assistant mistress. (2) Another difficulty of school life in coeducational day schools is described by one woman witness as follows:

'It is well known that girls may develop sentimental attachments and that those are sometimes for a particular teacher. The friends of these girls are quite aware of what is happening. In a girls' school the attachment can only be for a mistress, and all the classmates are girls. There is a fairly simple situation. The mistress - assuming that she is a healthy-minded woman, and if not she ought to be sent away - dislikes but understands the phase through which the girl is passing; she tries to turn it to hard work, and, what is most important, she can and does discuss the case with the Head Mistress without any embarrassment. Further, it is an easy matter for the Head Mistress to talk frankly about the evils of sentimentality to a large group of girls and mistresses. But in a mixed school complications arise.

First, the attachment may be for a master.

Secondly, the boys as well as the girls may be aware of it. The situation is much more delicate and more difficult to tackle. To ignore it is not very satisfactory. To discuss it with either the master of [or?] the individual girl is much more difficult; and, in addition, the senior mistress has not the same weight as the head mistress of a girls' school. To speak to a group of mixed pupils is surely not desirable, while to isolate the girls for a special talk by the senior mistress may or may not be successful. Any discussion on the point between the head and the senior mistress is difficult.

In particular, the relation of the head (whether man or woman) to the second in command (presumably of the opposite sex to the head) is a matter for the most careful adjustment. The ideal arrangement would seem to be for a man and his wife to fill these positions. It is recognised that a woman must watch over certain phases of the girls' life, and it is a debatable point as to whether her functions and authority should be left to mutual understanding between her and the head master, or whether they should be defined and safeguarded by the direct authority of the governors. The former is obviously the more satisfactory relationship between two people of sympathy and tact, but it must not be forgotten that, when these conditions fail, either the girls' interests must be sacrificed (assuming the woman to have judged correctly) and the position of the senior mistress be weakened, or the senior mistress must resort to her only means of escape from surrender, viz. resignation. Few able principals would care to feel that the second in command held a position in some respects independent of their own - and this is the inevitable result of any definition of responsibility for the second in command, e.g. the right of a senior mistress to communicate with or interview the parents of girls when in her opinion it is desirable. On the other hand, women undertaking such work are naturally anxious to have some guarantee that their powers are co-extensive with their responsibilities.'

(1) We understand that at present there are only about three head mistresses of coeducational day schools which are in receipt of grant under the Board's Regulations for Secondary Schools.

(2) cf. Report of Board of Education for 1905 - 6, p. 58: 'In each such mixed or dual secondary school the status and powers of the senior mistress should be defined and recognised.'