THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS.

White Ribbon, Volume 23, Issue 265, 18 July 1917, Page 10

THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS.

(To the Editor). Dear Madam, Ido not w ish to enter into any lt>n>4 controversy on the suoject of differentiation in the education of girls. I th ilk inv letter stated pretty clearly mv views on the subject, but in justice to myself, may I refer the writer of the article in the June number to an article which appeared on the first page of the January number? A reference is there made to the Council of Education's recommendations, and their subsequent endorsement by a conference of women teachers. This is one of the articles I had in my mind when writing. With both writers in the June issue, 1 am at one in the belief that girls should have the widest educational opportunity, but l believe that this must be chine with due- recognition of th.it preparation for life* specially needed by the mothers of the race. I cannot subscribe to the idea that th»> fathers and the* mothers need exactly the* s.lmc educational training, though much of it may be on similar lines. It is certainly jUst as necessary that boVs should be trained for the* responsibilities of fatherhood as that girls should be trained for the duties of motherhood, but the training required for both, though equally important, is not identical. One of the greatest needs to-day is expressed in that aim of the* World’s W.C.T.U. : “To preserve the home* and to safeguard child life.” Few of us can feel any satisfaction with the present condition of things, and the resolutions I referred to in my last letter dealt with the matter from a practical standpoint.—l am, etc., EMILY A, CHAPLIN, 8.A., President N.Z. Women’s Teachers’ Assc. (W’c must apologise to Miss Chaplin for incorrect statement. The article in June issue was written away from home, and no “W.R.” to hand, the*, writer forgot that, though the full report had not reached our office, a Press Assoc iation message was c ommented on. —Ed. W.R.)

(To the Editor.) Madam, —1 have read with interest the articles and correspondence on sex differentiation in education, appearing recently in your paper. Miss Chaplin’s letter in your May number makes known the- fact that the N.Z. Women Teachers’ Assoc iation, at ,i conference •»t delegate's, approved of the* principle ot differentiation in th«* education of boys and girls, and desired to see it put into immediate operation. In order that your readers

may know that there is also a body of educational opinion strongly opposed to differentiation on sex grounds, 1 would like the resolution of the Wellington Branch of the New Zealand Educational Institute to have the same pvblicity that of the Conference of Women Teachers. The resolution, passed at a largely attended meet.ng, was as follows: —“That the Wellington branch of the N.Z.E.L affirms its opinion that the principle that the segregation of the sexes is desirable in the' primary schools from Standard 111. upwards (adopted in a report by the Council of Education), is fundamentally unsound, and it is based on fallacies regarding the* intellectual, moral, and national training of children.’’ This resolution has been forwarded to the Executive of the N.Z.E.L, with a strong recommendation that ac tive steps be taken by the Institute to prevent such principle being enforced in practice, inasmuch as it is believed that •such a course would be an educational, and therefore a national, calamity. The resolution has been remitted to all branches of the Institute for general discussion, and the result will be* awaited with keen interest by all who value the* opinion of our men teachers equally with that of the women. 1 am sure we are all agreed upon the* importance of the education of our boys and girls, and that the women teachers and the women members of the Council of Education, in recommending this alteration, are actuated by the highest motive, disinterested concern for the* welfare of our girls and our ‘nation, but as the aim of all feminist movement is to remove sex barriers, it appears to some of us an exceedingly retrograde step to base our educational system upon sex, and so lay the foundation of a morbid sex-conscious-ness, which cannot fail to react disastrously upon women, and through them upon the nation. Miss Chaplain refers to (i) the citizen, u) the home, (3) the wageearning aspects as three separate considerations, which is, I think, confusing. They are not tiiree, but one, as the second and third are of necessity included in the first. The aim of our educational system, primary, secondary. and university, is to make perfect citizens, and no one is a perfect citizen who is no; a good parent and a capable worker. As the girls of this country will be enfranchised c itizens, they arc* entitled to just the same educational advantages as the boys, and vice versa. As we value our freedom, let us struggle to maintain our system of co-education. Thanking you in anticipation.—l am, etc., MARGARET GRAHAM.