I also attended an independent boys' day school (but in the 1970s), and I can confirm from my own experience that we were not taught anything about future gender expectations at school: how each boy viewed their prospective relationship with the opposite sex depended on their family background and parental example. In some cases these could be disclosed to schoolmates, providing an eye-opening insight into how different other people (ostensibly of the same social class) could be.
Please note Whalley Range has not been free from scandal despite the Wikipedia article. I know more but then I am an alumni. Oh and the Wikipedia article does not mention the most famous of the alumni Dodie Smith.
I also attended an independent boys' day school (but in the 1970s), and I can confirm from my own experience that we were not taught anything about future gender expectations at school: how each boy viewed their prospective relationship with the opposite sex depended on their family background and parental example.
I attended a (good) comprehensive school. My experience (1980s) was also that we weren't taught anything about future gender expectations. All of that came from outside the school - parents and other family members (most often implicit, how things actually worked in the home rather than explicit "this is how it will be"), coupled with any differences in expectations from what friends said about their families, church and associated youth groups (for the few of us who went) was probably the biggest place where such things were discussed with someone in a position of authority who could be said to be teaching, and of course what we were watching on TV.
My experience was mostly that school, family and church simply didn't challenge expectations of the local social groups - neither pushing something more progressive in relation to empowering young women nor pushing a more conservative message to young women to get married, do the housework and let their husbands earn the money to keep them. TV and movies, on the otherhand, were a major source of more progressive role models for young women to do what they wanted and get careers (other than teaching and nursing) and influence the world - we had Mrs Thatcher as PM (and, despite all the rest of what that meant it did give a role model for young women that they could be political leaders) and Leia as a general leading the rebel alliance among many examples.
I went from an all-boys independent set up along the lines of muscular Christianity to a co-ed that had a fiercely achievement orientated culture of the kind @betjemaniac describes. My experience is similar to that of Alan, there was no particular teaching on gender (and definitely no division of home economics / design and technology sort), but simultaneously no dialogue over the ambient culture, so I suspect what people took away was somewhat specific to the individual.
Even if the case of our elite schools, I think some of you are not quite understanding the demographic they served. These were day schools, and quite different from boarding schools like Eton or wherever.
We were mostly middle class, of varying degrees of wealth. Some were very comfortably off, others less so. My parents were both primary school teachers, for example. A few students had mothers who were housewives, but in most cases both parents worked. I don't think many families had paid cleaners or whatever.
Actually, I remember at school in 1981, when the newspapers were full of the romance of a teenage Lady Diana getting engaged, one of our female teachers told us at length why no girl should think that getting engaged and married so young, was a good idea.
There was a lot of subtle gendered stuff, day in and day out, but there were also much less subtle exhortations to study, gain qualifications, and establish ourselves in careers.
I should add to what I said above, I'm coming from a blokes perspective. It's quite possible that the girls experience of exactly the same school and system would be different - we all had individual feedback from teachers, and an exhortation to the girls "to study, gain qualifications, and establish ourselves in careers" (as NEQ just put it) may have been through those less formal and individual routes than to the whole class (and, equally that could have been said to all and it didn't register to me as it wasn't addressed to me).
Actually, I remember at school in 1981, when the newspapers were full of the romance of a teenage Lady Diana getting engaged, one of our female teachers told us at length why no girl should think that getting engaged and married so young, was a good idea.
Strange to think that my mum married my dad a few months prior to Charles and Diana, with my mum almost the same age (my dad was a couple of years older). My parents seem to have had a much happier marriage. Mrs Feet and I were of similar ages when we married and have likewise been happy. I think a lot depends on the people involved.
We weren’t taught anything about it at school at all.
However, as suggested, we were in a hot house environment, where any girl we (rarely)came into contact with was at least our intellectual match if not our better, so the thought of adult life being anything other than a partnership of equals genuinely never occurred to me.
If I'm reading you correctly, your experience of your education was not "directly" gendered in terms of partnership expectations. It was indirectly gendered, so to speak. Both you and your prospective partner would have been expected to rely on the paid labour of a woman, or women, to take care of household tasks and childcare.
Um no. Really no.
Both I and my prospective partner would have been expected to muddle along together.
This goes back to my whole doubts with Epiphanies, the second intervention of a poster’s opinion/belief (ideological assumption?) to critique a poster’s own experience of a specific (in this case an individual school) - made slightly more endurable here because I know there’s at least one other person on the thread that knows exactly where I’m talking about and that I’m not making this up.
Experiences vary. These are mine.
I believe you! I did not mean to create a defensive reaction. Your experience of education and mine differ greatly. I cannot know "from the inside" what your experience was, so I appreciate your response. I'm glad that you feel able to speak a common language of experience with another poster here.
I grew up in a small prairie town, population 300. But the school in the middle of the town, by far its largest and most important building, held 600 students. The catchment area was enormous to cover sparsely populated territory. Some students rode the school bus for two hours in the morning and another two hours in the afternoon.
I and my classmates were bussed to another school, 45 minutes away, for Home Economics (AFAB) and "Shops" (AMAB) classes. Because of the distance and expense, it was a whole day once every two weeks. AFAB people spent the morning in Cooking and the afternoon in Sewing. AMAB people spent the day in Woodworking and Mechanical/Electrical.
The expected "muddle along" in terms of life together, in my experience, was the expectation that the AFAB person in the couple would be responsible for housework and childcare. Any other arrangement would have been anomalous. Not many AMAB people had experience (military or Scouting) in domestic education, fewer inclined to live doing equitable domestic labour, and even fewer inclined to teach such an expectation to their children.
And it is definitely still that way in many places. I'm in my 40s but I know that my mother had to fight to keep my sister from being forced to take a home economics course. (My sister decided to keep the cooking course even though she was shoved into it for sexist reasons as my sister does enjoy cooking.) I, on the other hand, was told I didn't want to take shop. I absolutely did but figured there was something I didn't. Sure enough it was 99% male and I (AFAB) would have been made miserable. Sadly it's probably a good thing I didn't take shop.
There is quite an outcry of protest at the merger of the girls’ school where I last taught with its parallel boys school, particularly because the new name is closely aligned with the boys’ school, with no retention of the girls’ school name.
The new Head is male. Girls will be taught separately from 11 - 16, but in the boys’ school buildings ( not sure what happens to the Home Ec classes).
The girls’ buildings will be used for co-ed junior and infant sections ( though I am not sure whether all the specialist facilities eg labs will be retained).
This change is driven by financial constraints, but the loss of the girls’ school ethos is regrettable.
The new Head is male. Girls will be taught separately from 11 - 16, but in the boys’ school buildings ( not sure what happens to the Home Ec classes).
I am interested to know how this works (or if other shipmates have experience of a similar setup). My gut feeling says that having boys and girls mingling in the corridors but segregated for lessons imports most of the downsides of mixed-sex education and most of the downsides of single-sex education, but I don't have any data to back that up.
I am guessing that the former boys junior school buildings will be reallocated to girls, but no details are available yet. It doesn’t start till next September, so there is a lot to sort out.
The new Head is male. Girls will be taught separately from 11 - 16, but in the boys’ school buildings ( not sure what happens to the Home Ec classes).
I am interested to know how this works (or if other shipmates have experience of a similar setup). My gut feeling says that having boys and girls mingling in the corridors but segregated for lessons imports most of the downsides of mixed-sex education and most of the downsides of single-sex education, but I don't have any data to back that up.
My secondary school was technically a comprehensive but segregated for the first 3 years (age 12, 13, 14), partially segregated for the next 3 years (ages 15 & 16) and only fully integrated for 6th form (ages 17&18).
I'm not sure it helped me socially relate to the opposite sex (to say the least).
Other former pupils will no doubt have a variety of experiences and opinions.
There is quite an outcry of protest at the merger of the girls’ school where I last taught with its parallel boys school, particularly because the new name is closely aligned with the boys’ school, with no retention of the girls’ school name.
The new Head is male. Girls will be taught separately from 11 - 16, but in the boys’ school buildings ( not sure what happens to the Home Ec classes).
The girls’ buildings will be used for co-ed junior and infant sections ( though I am not sure whether all the specialist facilities eg labs will be retained).
This change is driven by financial constraints, but the loss of the girls’ school ethos is regrettable.
Well to be fair, I am not currently in touch with opinions from that quarter, but given that their name and their buildings are retained I think the implications will be slower to dawn. Certainly it won’t suit everyone.
I went to an all boys RC secondary school run by Brothers in the 1970s. They were physically and emotionally brutal and academically I didnt thrive at all. It was when I went to the seminary that my academic brain started to actually work.
Where we live there are a lot of single sex schools. Our daughter went to a girls school where the headmistress (as she was called) had the highest expectations of the girls. both academically and in terms of social development. She was something of a Miss Jean Brodie and none the worse for that.
The mixed sex schools were poor in all repects.
Our sons went to an all boys school. It seemed to major on sports and army cadets. Academically it was acceptable, but not a shining beacon, so our boys went to the girls school for their A levels.
Comments
Please note Whalley Range has not been free from scandal despite the Wikipedia article. I know more but then I am an alumni. Oh and the Wikipedia article does not mention the most famous of the alumni Dodie Smith.
Hardly the preserve of the elite.
My experience was mostly that school, family and church simply didn't challenge expectations of the local social groups - neither pushing something more progressive in relation to empowering young women nor pushing a more conservative message to young women to get married, do the housework and let their husbands earn the money to keep them. TV and movies, on the otherhand, were a major source of more progressive role models for young women to do what they wanted and get careers (other than teaching and nursing) and influence the world - we had Mrs Thatcher as PM (and, despite all the rest of what that meant it did give a role model for young women that they could be political leaders) and Leia as a general leading the rebel alliance among many examples.
We were mostly middle class, of varying degrees of wealth. Some were very comfortably off, others less so. My parents were both primary school teachers, for example. A few students had mothers who were housewives, but in most cases both parents worked. I don't think many families had paid cleaners or whatever.
There was a lot of subtle gendered stuff, day in and day out, but there were also much less subtle exhortations to study, gain qualifications, and establish ourselves in careers.
Strange to think that my mum married my dad a few months prior to Charles and Diana, with my mum almost the same age (my dad was a couple of years older). My parents seem to have had a much happier marriage. Mrs Feet and I were of similar ages when we married and have likewise been happy. I think a lot depends on the people involved.
I believe you! I did not mean to create a defensive reaction. Your experience of education and mine differ greatly. I cannot know "from the inside" what your experience was, so I appreciate your response. I'm glad that you feel able to speak a common language of experience with another poster here.
I grew up in a small prairie town, population 300. But the school in the middle of the town, by far its largest and most important building, held 600 students. The catchment area was enormous to cover sparsely populated territory. Some students rode the school bus for two hours in the morning and another two hours in the afternoon.
I and my classmates were bussed to another school, 45 minutes away, for Home Economics (AFAB) and "Shops" (AMAB) classes. Because of the distance and expense, it was a whole day once every two weeks. AFAB people spent the morning in Cooking and the afternoon in Sewing. AMAB people spent the day in Woodworking and Mechanical/Electrical.
The expected "muddle along" in terms of life together, in my experience, was the expectation that the AFAB person in the couple would be responsible for housework and childcare. Any other arrangement would have been anomalous. Not many AMAB people had experience (military or Scouting) in domestic education, fewer inclined to live doing equitable domestic labour, and even fewer inclined to teach such an expectation to their children.
The new Head is male. Girls will be taught separately from 11 - 16, but in the boys’ school buildings ( not sure what happens to the Home Ec classes).
The girls’ buildings will be used for co-ed junior and infant sections ( though I am not sure whether all the specialist facilities eg labs will be retained).
This change is driven by financial constraints, but the loss of the girls’ school ethos is regrettable.
I am interested to know how this works (or if other shipmates have experience of a similar setup). My gut feeling says that having boys and girls mingling in the corridors but segregated for lessons imports most of the downsides of mixed-sex education and most of the downsides of single-sex education, but I don't have any data to back that up.
My secondary school was technically a comprehensive but segregated for the first 3 years (age 12, 13, 14), partially segregated for the next 3 years (ages 15 & 16) and only fully integrated for 6th form (ages 17&18).
I'm not sure it helped me socially relate to the opposite sex (to say the least).
Other former pupils will no doubt have a variety of experiences and opinions.
But the loss of the boys' school ethos is not?
Where we live there are a lot of single sex schools. Our daughter went to a girls school where the headmistress (as she was called) had the highest expectations of the girls. both academically and in terms of social development. She was something of a Miss Jean Brodie and none the worse for that.
The mixed sex schools were poor in all repects.
Our sons went to an all boys school. It seemed to major on sports and army cadets. Academically it was acceptable, but not a shining beacon, so our boys went to the girls school for their A levels.