A few years ago, the belief in unmixed schools was strong.
The advantages were said to be many
First, people said, this kept immorality at bay. Secondly, it was believed that students would be mor
satisfied with what their parents gave them if they were in unmixed schools. Also, it was claimed tha
since boys never liked to feel humiliated with girls around, and vice versa, discipline would be lax in
mixed schools. Finally, it was claimed that the constant thought of the opposite sex never allows
students
to face their studies.
The greatest fear of disciples of the old system is that of immorality. Yet, when cases of immorality
occur in purely girls schools, one wonders who is to blame. The basic cause of immorality may even
be the old system. For when boys and girls go to the same institution, working and playing together.
they normally take one another for granted. On the contrary, barricades erected by the old system make
boys continually nurse fanciful ideas about girls, and vice versa. Thus, any rare opportunity of coming
together is usually abused. But morality is cultivated under an atmosphere of freedom; all it needs is the
right guidance.
If students crave for expensive materials to impress the opposite sex, the fault again is wrong
guidance. For, if one is brought up at home to worship vanity, whether or not he goes to a mixed school,
his taste for costly materials would always be high. Indeed, the craze for costly things may be more rife
in
unmixed schools where the rare opportunity to impress the opposite sex is often seized with both hands
On the other hand, a boy who works and plays with girls has no particular need to impress them with
special clothes and shoes. He can only do this with good morals and academic performance.
Indeed, such an urge to impress promotes a healthy academic rivalry between the two sides. Boys
never like being beaten in examinations by girls. A boy who wants to impress the girls would therefore
struggle to prove academically superior to them. Conversely. girls like to prove that they can do
whatever
boys can. Thus, a very healthy academic competition is promoted.
If anyone claims that discipline is lax in mixed schools, one wonders why there are cases ofjuvenile
delinquency in purely boys' schools. Also there have been cases of students flagrantly disobeying the
rules in girls' schools. Therefore, if the standard of discipline falls, the fault is not in any system but in
the
relationship maintained by the authority with students. A friendly but hard-working, strict but just
teacher
will command respect and successfully enforce discipline among all students.
Finally. one must consider the limited public funds. Should we continue to build different schools
for the different sexes, there would be duplication and wastage. Imagine different universities for the
two sexes! The cost of founding them would be enormous, that of running them crippling. Rather than
encourage the old system therefore, it is wiser to expand existing schools for both sexes.
Therefore, I maintain that the virtues of the old system all lie on shaky ground. Co-education should
now be welcomed as a system that has come to stay. It is then that healthy social association can be
cultivated, healthy academic rivalry promoted, and public expenses minimised. And, with the right
guidance, immorality will be curbed, discipline will be maintained and contentment promoted.
