Taiwan Today

Junior and senior high schools keep boys and girls apart.The results! A in academic achievement and D in socialization skills.

After school, they linger at the corner 7 – Eleven, clustered in groups defined by friendship and gender. The boys and girls occasionally eye each other, show off or giggle, but there is little interaction between them. The awkwardness is typical of teenagers everywhere, but in Taiwan it is not so easily outgrown. Even past high school, into university and the work place, teenage awkwardness remains the most obvious characteristic of socialization between the sexes.

A commonly held view is that Taiwan’s educational system, which separates boys and girls, is largely to blame for the discomfort and uneasiness that encourage the same separation in social, gatherings, even among adults. Yet it is also a commonly held view that mixing the sexes in schools will have a detrimental effect on academic achievement. So while primary schools put boys and girls together in the same classroom, junior and senior high schools opt for single-sex classrooms. High grades, rather than socialization skills, are the overriding concern at this time. Academic discipline and good study habits are developed in junior high school, where study is geared toward entering a famous senior high school. Acceptance into a reputable senior high school would provide better preparation for the highly competitive university entrance exams.

In 1968, the government instituted a nine-year free education system, and also required parents to send their children to primary and junior high schools in their own administrative districts. Previously, parents moved their children to junior high schools that were oftentimes far from home but had high academic standards. The new requirement should have allowed mixed education to continue from primary school into junior high school. But proponents of single-sex education had another argument: Keeping boys and girls apart, especially in their teen years, allows teachers and school administrators to maintain control and discipline.

Edwin H. Yen (晏涵文), health education professor at National Taiwan Normal University, says, “The only advantage of single-sex education is easy management.” Yet Yen strongly criticizes this argument against mixed education. “This is an excuse that teachers and administrators give, and it sounds very irresponsible to me,” he says. “You can force them to separate in school, but you can’t do this after school. A school is society in miniature, and teaching and learning should be carried out in an environment similar to society’s.”

There are more than six hundred public and private junior high schools in Taiwan. Ninety percent accept both boys and girls. Over half of the senior high schools are private schools. A few are single-sex, but the majority are composed of boys and girls. In general, mixed schools do not mean mixed classrooms. For example, in Taipei, out of the sixty-four junior high schools, nine are single-sex, the rest are mixed. Yet only six of these mixed schools put boys and girls together in the classroom. Vocational schools, colleges, and universities are all coeducational.

Because boys and girls learn together in the primary and college levels, the six-year separation in the high schools, from age thirteen to eighteen, has been criticized by many people in the education field as being unnatural and backward. Yet experiments in coeducation, or the successful conversion of prominent single-sex high schools to coeducation, seem to indicate that the trend toward mixed education has already begun. But coeducation remains an issue. And it is an issue colored by traditional biases and old attitudes, and centered on restraining adolescent behavior.

Hung Yo-yi (洪有義), an educational psychology professor at National Taiwan Normal University, recalls his own experience in senior high school in Penghu. “At first we had separate classrooms. When the girls passed by, we would get nervous or excited and start yelling and shouting out to the girls. Later, the school put the boys and girls together in the classrooms. Suddenly, the boys became quiet and acted more like gentlemen. And even more significant, to impress the girls, we studied harder and received better grades.”

Some teachers, however, do not see a subdued, gentler classroom, and argue that when it comes to meting out disciplinary action, girls are on the losing end. This is based on the traditionally accepted premise that girls are good and boys are naturally mischievous. Says one teacher, “When the class is in a mess, both the boys and girls will have to be punished equally. This is unfair to the girls.”

Another teacher points out that coeducation makes it difficult for a teacher to keep students attentive and interested. “Teaching approaches are different,” she says. “You can cajole girls, but the boys will not stand for this.

Often, male teachers tell boys off-color jokes to regain their interest.” This reasoning holds ground especially in sex education classes where teachers and students are equally embarrassed by discussions on the human reproductive system. Because sex is a subject that brings great discomfort to parents and teachers alike, education experts have suggested that schools place sex education within the bigger framework of character education. In this way, the education experts explain, students will not only learn about the human reproductive system but also learn to relate to the opposite sex with respect and courtesy, and be able to develop friendships with them.

In citing the major benefit of coeducation, Professor Yen looks beyond classroom dynamics. He says, “Bringing boys and girls together provides an opportunity for mutual understanding. Coeducation will contribute to happy marriages.”

The government has taken no part in the debate, and has left the decision of single-sex or coeducation to the schools themselves. Chen Han-chiang (陳漢強), director of the Department of Education, Taipei City Government, has repeatedly told the press, “We do not regulate, nor do we encourage or prohibit. The school principal makes that decision.”

As schools in Taipei illustrate, the decision to mix is made after careful thought, and it is not irreversible. For example, Nankang Junior High School in east Taipei has had separate classes for boys and girls since it was founded in

1960. In1978, the school decided to join the classes. The school had already earned recognition for its high academic standards, but the result of coeducation threatened this reputation. There was a significant decline in the students’ academic performance, and the teachers complained that they could not teach as effectively as they had when the students were separated. Maintaining discipline had become a problem.

The following year, the school decided to return to tradition and once again kept boys and girls apart. But the issue is far from closed because of pressure from the media and the changing times. In June 1990, the school distributed a questionnaire to its teachers and students, and parents. Survey results showed that, despite the fear that the students’ academic performance might suffer, the respondents generally agreed that the advantages of coeducation far outweighed its disadvantages. Says Lin Yi-hui (林薏蕙), a female teacher at Nankang:

“Competition increases. The boys are ashamed if they lag behind the girls. Although boys and girls have their own intrinsic talents in different subjects- boys in math and science, and girls in language and the humanities – they compete and at the same time learn from each other.”

The school has postponed making a decision based on the positive attitudes toward coeducation, as revealed by the survey. “Many obstacles still can’t be overcome,” says a school official. “The teachers and the parents are still very concerned that their children do well in the university entrance exam.”

Ta-an Junior High School in central Taipei began in 1988 to accept girls who live in the Ta-an administrative district. It maintains single-sex classrooms. A school administrator says, “For thirty years we have been an all-male school. Our teachers have no idea about teaching a mixed class.”

But there have been schools that have implemented coeducation-and successfully. Chinhwa Junior High School, widely known as “the nunnery” because it educated only girls in a strict and rigid environment, has been admitting boys since 1988. The change will be gradual. Only the first year has boys and girls together in the classroom, while the upper classes separate them. The first year students approve. “It’s just like being in primary school,” one student says. “We don’t have problems. We study together, and we play together.” The teachers are just as enthusiastic. Huang Ho-mei (黃和美), a home economics teacher, says: “I teach cooking, needlework, handicrafts, and shop. The boys and girls learn together and do equally well.”

The wind of liberal ideas regarding the benefits of coeducation and mixed schools has not drifted toward senior high schools in Taipei. They are generally single-sex, unlike the senior high schools in the rest of Taiwan. This can, perhaps, be attributed to the stiff competition in Taipei to gain entry to top universities, bowing to the old argument that mixed education distracts from good academic performance. Only the newer senior high schools in Taipei, such as Sungshan Senior High School in east Taipei, admit both boys and girls. Says Yeh Wen-tang (葉文堂), the school’s principal: “It is a good idea – boys and girls in the same classroom. They are very active, and are not without self-discipline. I am told they appreciate the opportunity to better understand the opposite sex.”

In fact, according to school and media surveys on coeducation, the students are the most appreciative of mixed classrooms. “The boys will become more polite, and the girls will become livelier,” says twelve-year-old Chou Yu-hung (周俞宏), a male junior high school student. “Why not mix us?” adds Chen Yi-pin (陳怡蘋), sixteen, a female senior high school student. “We are mature enough. We can exchange views and learn to respect each other.”

University students today, the majority of whom are products of single-sex education, also favor coeducation. They often cite the embarrassment and anxiety that could have been avoided had they gained experience in relating to the opposite sex during high school. “When I was in high school, the only boys I spoke with were my brothers,” says Chiang Pei-ying (江培英), a twenty-two-year-old female student at Fu Jen Catholic University in Taipei. “Uppermost in my mind were my teacher’s words about study and self-discipline. Suddenly, in university, there were so many boys. I didn’t know how to behave around them or talk with them.

I was very shy and timid.” A National Taiwan University student recalls: “Once some unlucky guy came up to me, asking for a date. I was as nervous as he was, but not as confident. I was so frightened I just walked away.” A senior at the same university sums up the effect of single-sex education on him. “I went to an all-male high school,” he says. “I think that’s the reason I don’t understand girls.”

Professor Yen has collected many examples of the emotional agitation caused by inexperience in socializing with the opposite sex. “It sounds very melodramatic,” he says, “but many college freshmen have a conversation with someone from the opposite sex on a moonlit night and they think it’s love.”

As the Awakening Foundation, a professional women’s organization, sees it, society not only has to alleviate this anxiety and awkwardness. It also has to deal with the wrong attitudes toward male-female relationships and roles, which are reinforced by single-sex education. In a 1988 report, the foundation cited textbooks for elementary and secondary schools that were filled with stereotyped portrayals of men and women.

For example, the first lesson in a first grade textbook reads: “Every morning mother is busy cleaning the house, while father sits in the living room, reading the newspaper.” The media joined forces with the Awakening Foundation in calling for a revision of family roles as presented in textbooks. The National Institute of Compilation and Translation gave in and the text now has the mother going out for morning exercise instead.

“We are not making a fuss out of nothing,” says Fan Ching (范情), secretary-general of the foundation. “In fact, many outdated and biased concepts are imposed on our young generation in the same way. Revising stereotypes in textbooks is the first step to removing prejudices and building an understanding of male-female relationships and roles.”

It is during their high school years, according to Professor Hung, that youngsters can develop sound attitudes toward the opposite sex and toward male-female relationships. The six-year separation during high school does more harm than good. “It is very unwise to deprive them of this opportunity to learn about each other and to be open-minded,” he says.

Since the government has adopted a flexible policy toward coeducation, education experts generally agree that parents and teachers are the stumbling blocks to the conversion of single-sex schools to mixed schools. They also hinder the development of a more progressive attitude toward roles and relationships. But according to Lin Mei-chin (林美琴), a teacher at Wuchan Junior High School in north Taipei, “Twenty years of teaching tells me that it makes no difference if the class is single-sex or mixed. The important thing is to understand the students and their problems. To be able to do this, a teacher has to keep up to date and be able to respond quickly to changes in society.”

Professor Yen agrees. “It is the teacher that counts,” he says. “The majority of our elementary and secondary teachers are women. They are all immersed in tradition, and parts of it are no longer compatible with the modern way of living. I have heard of teachers telling their students on the first day of a new semester that men and women should be kept apart. That a mixed class is like a big family, and since the boys and girls are like brothers and sisters, it would be incestuous to fall in love. If teachers have such twisted notions, what can we expect of the teenagers?”

The Awakening Foundation recognizes that teachers play a major role in modifying old ways and passing on new perspectives. It has great expectations of teachers as harbingers of change in attitudes toward male-female relationships and roles. In 1988, the foundation held a program called “Gender Equality Education” for teachers in Kaohsiung and Taipei. About sixty elementary and secondary school teachers participated. The program’s stated objectives were to critique primary school and junior high school textbooks for stereotyped presentations of men and women; to lay the foundations of an education that is fair to boys and girls; and to cultivate an independent, respectful, and confident younger generation.

The program included lectures, discussions, and role-playing. “We invited scholars to talk from psychological, educational, sociological, and physiological perspectives,” says Fan Ching. The response to the program was energetic and favorable, and to spread its positive results, the foundation plans to publish the program proceedings for distribution to teachers, educational agencies, and legislators. The book will also include an appendix outlining suggestions from teachers on how the program can be improved.

A follow-up questionnaire showed that the teachers regarded the program activities as having been of invaluable help. One male teacher wrote: “I teach in a girls’ school, and I felt it was necessary for me to join the program. I try to apply what I learnt. It has been of great help to me.”

Encouraged by the participants’ response and by requests from numerous teachers, the foundation has decided to hold similar gender equality education programs every year. This year’s program will include children, teenagers, and adults.

Perhaps it will not be too long before coeducation will be the rule rather than the exception. Maybe fewer students will gain top scores in university entrance exams. Maybe socialization between the sexes will be easier. And maybe, as Professor Yen says, it will contribute to happy marriages. But whatever its long-term advantages or disadvantages, coeducation will help administrators, teachers, students, and society to look at men and women with a more open attitude, and with less prejudice, illusion, and confusion. Or, at least, coeducation will make it possible for adults to get rid of their teenage awkwardness at the office party.