The White Ribbon. For God and Home and Humanity. WELLINGTON, JUNE 18, 1917. DIFFERENTIATION IN THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS.

White Ribbon, Volume 22, Issue 264, 18 June 1917, Page 9

The White Ribbon. For God and Home and Humanity. WELLINGTON, JUNE 18, 191 7 . DIFFERENTIATION IN THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS.

In a letter inerted in last month’s. “White Ribbon' by Mibb Chaplin, President of Women Teachers’ Association, reference was made to the articles in recent numbers of this journal on the above subject. Our correspondent is in error in saying those articles had ieference to the report on education of girl;, adopted by the Council of Education. That report had never been seen at our ofhee, and the articles were solely a protest against the University Senate’s action in making domestic training compulsory for girl students for Matric. We are in agreement with much that our correspondent urges, but it is the bedrock principle of sex differentiation that we object to. The W.C.T.U. in the past have always striven to open every to women. It is a retrograde step to make the difference on the ground of sex and not of ability, The men of the past said that woman’s place was the

home, and so they shut all the doors leading to a liberal education and the learned professions against her. We should be false to the noble women who endured obloquy and shame in their fight for equality of opportunity for our girls if we allowed that equality to be taken from them. Once admit that there should be a difference on the ground of sex, and then it is only a question of degree to go back to the early Victorian period of education. We believe that all difference should be on the ground of aoility, not of sex. We do not believe that woman’s place is the kitchen, neither do we agree with the Kaiser’s dictum that women arc on!> good for “the church, the cradle, and the kitchen.” But we endorse heartily the words of our leader, Frances E. W 1 Hard : “If 1 wni aSkcd tin' mission of the ideal woman, I would say it is to make the whole world homelike. The true woman will home-like every place she ei - ters, and she will enter every place in this wide world.”

We understand that the attempt to make Domestic Science compulsory for girls does not commend itself to the younger teachers, but is supported by the older, and presumably more conservative portion of the teachers.

Dear Madam, —l have read with interest Miss Chaplin’s letter 111 your issue of May in defence of differentiation in the education of boys and girls. There is much to be said on both sides of the question, but does it not all hinge on the view taken as to the main aim in education? If th.it aim is to cram each child’s mind, as far as possible, with a variety of facts on a number of subjects, and to develop a certain amount of dexterity in various branches of manual work, possibly differentiation is necessary. But if the aim is to cultivate a desire to explore, to so present various subjects to the children’s minds that a desire to know more is created, and then to lead them on to find out and think out for themselves, there can be no need for differentiation. Your coriespondent says, “The education of both boys and girls is a matter of the deepest moment. In considering chat of the girls, there are three aspects to be noted: (1) The citizen aspeet. (2) The home aspect. (3) The wage-earning aspect.

Out women must be trained to U good citizens, good mothers, and cap able workers.”

True, but are not these three aspects of equal value in the education of the boys ? Should they not be trained to be good c t.zeiis, good fathers, and callable worker.-." Is not the same raining necessary lor both." The qualities that go to make a girl a good citizen are also needed to make a boy a good citizen. It is just .is necessary that a boy be a good father, and have high ideals of parenthood, as for a girl, but 1 doubt if this result will be attained in either by a course of domestic training. There are some women who, having thought seriously, and 1 think not superficially, on thil subject, would recommend that in all our schools there be no differentiation; that boys and girls alike be taught needlework, laundry, cookery, woodwork, and every other subject contained in the primary school syllabus ; and that the differentiation, if needful, be on account of ability, not sex. It is never a handicap for a boy to know how to cook a wholesome meal and wash or mend his own clothes. Hundreds of our boys now in the trenches would be only too thankful had they known more of subjects. Nor will it ever be anything but gain to any girl to know how to use a hammer, saw or spade. There are few housekeepers but at some tiune or other find it necessary to use all of these tools, end to have learnt how to u->e them properly, and also how to take care of them, will be a distinct gain. These subjects how ,vcr, though desirable, should ;uu be considered anything hut secondary. Tlic chief aim, mid the one always to be kept before the teac her, should be the development of the child's intelligence, the cultivating of a child's desire for knowledge, or, in other words, for truth; and the training that will help eac h child to think for itself, not simply to believe what it is told. Lastly, I .igrcc wth your correspondent in that “during the years cf adolescence the influence of a capable woman teacher” is most desirable, and I would add that at that time a Woman teacher, capable of directing the girl’s thoughts of marriage and motherhood into pure and lofty <hannels, would be of inestimable value to the individual girls and to the nation. But it is not necessary for that teacher

to be a domestic science mistress, nor is it to be taken for granted that a domest.c science mistress would possess the necessary qualifications. Also, during the years of adolescence, a similar influence would be of perhaps greater value in the life of a boy, and whether that should be the inMu< nee of a man or woman would largely depend on the suitability and not the sex of the teacher. If the aim of domestic teaching is to make our girls better home-makers there is not the ability to cook or sew t'lat is wanted, but the spirit that puts the welfare of others first, not in waiting “hand and foot’’ on all and sundry, but that has patience and kindness in teaching each to do their own share when it is infinitely easier to do it oneself. In othe* - words, it is the spirit of Christ who gave Himself for others. Thanking you in anticipation.—l am, etc., JESSIE FIELD.