Gender Dynamics in Schooling: A Comparative Study of Co-educational Practices in Two Socio-cultural Milieux

Introduction

The forms of schooling, single sex or co-educational, have been discussed by policymakers, researchers and other stakeholders from the perspective of their impact on gender equality. The heart of most of the debate on coeducation lies in its effectiveness on educational and social parameters (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2007). These parameters include accessibility, participation, choices and performance in education as well as social effectiveness in combating gendered stereotypes and cultural norms. In this context, this study attempts to advance the debate by emphasising the role of culture and tradition in co-educational schools. On the basis of a comparative study of two co-educational schools (a rural government school and a metropolitan elite private school), the study argues that school being a social institution is largely influenced by its socio-cultural settings. It further posits that the mere provision of co-education as a policy does not ensure desirable changes and it becomes very important to consider the socio-cultural variables, which are potentially influential in guiding policy implementation at the school level.

Studies have presented contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of single sex versus co-educational settings on gender equality and the formation of gender identity among students. In different African case studies, Lee and Lockheed (1990), Mbilizi (2010) and Picho and Stephens (2012; as cited in Evans, 2014) have reported the positive effect of single sex (girls) schools on the academic achievement of girls. Besides academic achievement, some researchers have pointed out the positive impact of single sex schools on speaking abilities (Ebrahimi & Yarahmadzehi, 2015), self-esteem (Sullivan, 2009), participation in physical activities and subject selection (Spielhofer, Benton, & Schagen, 2004), and co-educational settings have been considered as a risky environment for girls where girls are marginalised and belittled (Francis, 2000; Jackson, 2010; Jackson & Bisset, 2005; Pahlke, Bigler, & Patterson, 2014). In parallel, there have been studies which highlight the disadvantages associated with single-sex schools. A UNESCO (2007) study mentions that ‘only-girl schools’ have been the target of male predators who call these schools ‘candy shops’ in Africa. In different contexts, single sex schools have been considered a barrier for the development of effective interpersonal skills (Schmuck, 2005), supporting and reinforcing unhealthy stereotypical gendered notions (Fabes et al., 2015; Goodkind et al., 2013; Halpern et al., 2011; Jackson, 2010 as cited in Bennett, 2015). Evans (2014) suggested that co-educational practices give opportunities to combat gender stereotypes. On the contrary, while sharing reflections from her study in India, Manjrekar (2003) noted that practices like mixed-seating in co-educational settings was found to be used as ‘a shaming technique’ used by teachers to prevent indiscipline in the classroom. A multiplicity of evidence and arguments in contrary directions makes this paradoxical debate inconclusive. Furthermore, a review of the relevant literature draws attention to the neglect of research on the effectiveness of policies and practices vis-à-vis social context, which has immense potential in influencing practices at the school level (Smyth, 2010).

A brief look at the status of co-education in India reveals that the Indian school system is largely co-educational, 96 per cent of schools are co-educational, whereas 2 per cent are only boys and 3 per cent are only girls schools (National Council for Educational Research and Training, 2016). While there is a lacuna of studies to discern gender dynamics in co-educational schools in Indian contexts, the conceptual framework suggested by Chanana (2001) for studying the development of education of women in India has been very appropriate for the current study. She underlines two simultaneous processes relevant for studying the development and growth of women’s education in India. On the one hand, state policy and public discourse on education put a premium on the need to promote education among girls and women to generate positive forces at the macro-level. On the other hand, micro-level forces rooted in the family, the kin group and culture determine the educational policies, programmes and ability of girls and women to access schooling. Therefore, it is not possible to view education without reference to the social context, which is rooted in culture, religion and in the ‘patrifocal family structure and ideology’ (Chanana, 2001, p. 37). Similarly, Kumar (2010) argued that the State’s social policy agenda in education would remain inconsequential if cultural forces shaping the lives of girls are not taken into account. The efficiency of the state, in this context, can hardly be measured without taking into account the social world—its current ethos as well as its institutions—in which the state attempts to fulfil its educational responsibility. Although education has been visualised as a policy instrument of modernisation, Chanana (1990) cautioned that it is naive to presume that education universally promotes institutional and value changes as the impact of education is likely to be shaped by the specific complex of socio-political, economic and cultural factors that prevail in a given society. Emphasising the link between educational policies, educational institutions and social context, Recepoglu (2013) also posited that the outcome of any reformative educational policy in any particular school is highly impacted by the school culture, which is further tractable by popular cultural and social norms of that region. He further suggested that varied degrees of compatibility between school culture, socio-cultural context and underlying principles of related reform policy would determine the outcome of that policy. On a similar line of argument, Thapan (2014) has also emphasised that schooling experiences differ across social contexts due to variation in social, cultural and political forces. She further emphasised the need to account for these forces while studying educational experiences of students. In a different context, yet related to the discussion here, the Verma committee on ‘Amendment on Criminal Law’ cautioned that correcting the ‘societal mindset of its gender bias depends more on social norms, and not merely on legal sanction’. Its report envisioned schools as transformative spaces in which patriarchal norms can be challenged, arguing that ‘schools have to act as counter-socialisers to tackle gender bias and discrimination’ (Verma, Seth, & Subramanium, 2013, p. 396 as cited in Iyer, 2015). This discussion indicates that the school as a social institution has potential to play a contradictory role by disrupting and strengthening social practices. Iyer (2015) cautioned that schools need to be conceptualised both as institutional agents in gendering and sexualising processes, and as sites in which young people act as agents (particularly within peer cultures) by responding to and shaping these processes themselves. On a similar note, Sharma (2014) observed that where peer groups in schools are situated vis-à-vis school authority and the adult world’s authority, within these peer groups, gendered contexts need to be studied as potential sites for the emergence and construction of gendered identities. This comparative study makes an attempt to explore this contradictory aspect of the school as an institution.

Government policy on form of schooling has gone through different phases. During the initial post-independence years, the government commissions (Government of India, 1966, 1953) conveyed their apprehension regarding co-education. However, challenging such apprehensions, in ‘Towards Equality: Report on the Status of Women in India’ (1974), Indian feminists strongly recommended the adoption of co-education as a long-term policy in the interests of ‘efficiency, economy [and] equal opportunity’ (Iyer, 2015). Iyer noted that thereafter the issue of co-education was not been discussed in Indian education policies. Nevertheless, the government of India has recently adopted a more favourable attitude towards coeducational settings, which can be noticed in the report of the Ministry of Human Resource Development on Girls Education and Common School System (2005). While addressing the issue of shortage of schools for girls, the committee supported the conversion of boys’ schools into co-educational schools besides opening new co-educational schools. However, calling this perspective shortsighted as it overlooks consistent social and community opinion on co-education, Jandhyala and Ramachandran (2015) reported the difficulties of negotiating the social environment in and outside classrooms by girls, as a major deterrent in co-educational institutions.

Against this backdrop, this study attempts to comprehend different aspects of gender and co-educational schooling. The next section elaborates on the research setting and methodology of the study. The last part of the paper analyses field observations on parental concerns, institutional practices, interplay of gender caste and class, peer culture and interface between schooling and local culture.

Research Setting and Methodology

The study is based on a comparison of two schools, one functioning in a rural and the other in an urban setting. The first is a government school, functioning in a village in Jind district, Haryana. The other school is an elite private school, situated in South Delhi. Despite geographical proximity, Delhi and Haryana have very different socio-cultural dynamics. The schools were purposively selected to understand how the co-educational schools function in different socio-cultural settings. Haryana, a wealthy agricultural state, is known as the most backward state in terms of social indicators. As per the 2011 census, Haryana has a low ranking in terms of the sex ratio, which stands at 879. Haryanvi society is notoriously known for its Khap Panchayats and their dictats, honour killings and rapes, which underline prevailing gender norms that are totally insensitive and dangerous for the girl child. Delhi, the country’s metropolitan capital city, represents a remarkable diversity in terms of social and economic groups, religion, language, culture and customs. In terms of education, it has witnessed a significant growth of private schools in recent years.

Both the schools are co-educational, higher secondary schools. The government school in Haryana largely caters to the scheduled castes (SCs). The school comprises 71 per cent SC, 16 per cent Other Backward Castes (OBC) and 14 per cent general category students. Gender composition is skewed in favour of girls who constitute 63 per cent of the students enrolled. The private school in Delhi refused to share category wise demographic details but informed that 56 per cent of the students were girls and 44 per cent boys. A look at the list of full names/surnames of students suggests that the majority of students belong to upper classes/castes and creamy lawyer groups. This school caters mainly to the upper-middle or higher social class of society with a minority representation of students from economically weaker section (EWS) admitted under clause 12 of the Right to Education (RtE) Act 2009, which reserves 25 per cent seats for children from EWSs and disadvantaged groups.

Mixed methods were adopted to understand the two different settings. Data were collected with the help of semi-structured interviews, school and classroom observations and focus group discussions (FGD), and informal conversations were held at different points of the academic session of 2015–2016. Interviews were conducted with different stakeholders such as parents, school teachers and principals, students and community leaders. Observations were made during the morning assembly and classroom lectures; and during recess and playground activities, interactions of the students were noted. To understand peer interaction and behaviour in different age groups, observations were made across grades the 5th and 11th classes being the main focus in order to discern the differences, if any, through pre-adolescence and middle adolescence stages.

Gendered Schooling and Schooling of Gender: Understanding Socio-cultural and Institutional Dimensions

Institutionalised Co-education

How do schools deal with these dualities and contradictions? It was observed that the government school in Haryana followed gender segregation norms in practice. The school encouraged only the minimum intermixing among girls and boys, especially in senior classes. The principal of the school stated that his school strove to inculcate high cultural values among students and these norms are very much part of this philosophy. Interviews with teachers revealed that in their view, co-educational schooling created unnecessary tension; as one of the teachers put it, ‘Their (the teachers’) role became more that of an invigilator than a teacher in the co-educational setting where they are expected to keep a close eye on students’ behaviour.’ It was seen that female and male teachers are given charge of girls’ and boys’ groups, respectively, during the performance of different tasks. For example, for National Cadet Corps (NCC) and National Service Schemes (NSS) camps, female and male teachers accompanied girls’ and boys’ groups, respectively. It was observed that the school followed different rules for senior and junior classes. A segregated sitting pattern is a strict rule in secondary school classes. However, in junior classes, the students have more intermixing space and opportunity, as there are no strict rules for seating arrangements. The segregation becomes more obvious among older students who are nearer the age of puberty. This gender-based segregation for senior students can be clearly sighted during prayer assembly, midday meals and sports activities. In class, teachers appreciate shy and docile girls. While teachers were found encouraging girl students in their academic efforts and appreciate them for their good academic performance, in general, the girls were instructed to be more ‘disciplined’. One of the teachers opined that the girls need to imbibe these qualities in their childhood and that school is the best place to learn and practice disciplined behaviour. In this context, Dube (1988) noted that gender socialisation that takes place at home and outside is reflected in the school setting as well. Girls are encouraged to speak softly, and to avoid abrasive male language. Boys, of course, learn all kinds of abusive phrases but even the milder words of abuse used by women are frowned upon if used by young girls. The teachers in this school believed and propagated these ‘moral’ values. One of the teachers shared his concern that ‘… if we could not maintain such discipline, it can impact enrolment in our school. We are working in a rural setting and we need to follow the social norms.’

By contrast, the school in Delhi made a conscious effort to incorporate the principles of co-education. To defy the concept of ‘the gendered otherness’, the school opted for mixed-sex sitting arrangements and classroom activities by forming crews or groups of both boys and girls in all the grades. Interactions between boys and girls were so common and normal that it did not receive special attention from school authorities. It was noted that the majority of parents were not apprehensive of such interactions among students. Observations made at PTMs showed that parents voiced their concerns if they perceived their child expressing prejudice against the other gender. Teachers were very thoughtful and receptive to discussions on these issues. Individual cases were often discussed in staff meetings and follow-ups were often supported by parents. The school authorities conduct special workshops for orienting parents on gender stereotypes. In a workshop organised by the school for parents of students in grades 3–5 for raising awareness of the development of gender stereotypes, resource persons extensively instructed parents to ensure for their children gender-neutral reading materials, stationery, bags, lunch boxes and water bottles. On a school trip for students of grades 5 and 6, the activity organiser was specially instructed by the principal to be conscious of grouping students in mixedsex groups in adventurous activities and to avoid boys versus girls teaming. Here, the role of teachers becomes very critical as they ensure that girls get equal opportunities in every activity and are encouraged to participate in all adventurous activities. It was observed that, similarly, boys shared equally in the responsibilities of decoration and food distribution, usually regarded as feminine activities. In the same way, it has been observed that the school laid emphasis on the participation of girls in physical activities. The physical trainers are given continuous orientation in favour of the equal participation of both boys and girls in sports activities. One of the physical trainers had this to share:

Students often enter the playground with some sort of gendered notion of sports. However, we make conscious efforts not to affirm stereotypes, which they have about the other gender. Along with playing traditional common games, we often work on planning new games, which demand a mix of skills: physical strength as well as quick decision-making. We try to convey that while some skills demand strength and stamina, others demand concentration and quick response. Every individual differs in their capabilities due to several factors, however anyone can improve their skill set if they practice.

Besides sports, this school encourages participation of boys and girls in several unconventional activities, which are often gender stereotyped, such as dancing, painting and cooking for boys and drumming for girls. Most of the clubs and recreational activities comprised a mix of boys and girls. During a conversation, the Principal of the school very proudly said,

We do our best to realise the principles of co-education in every sphere. We have no apprehension if either boys or girls prefer to learn unconventional skills; rather, we encourage and provide support to them for learning what otherwise is called gendered. We consider it a goal and achievement of co-educational schooling.

Thus, both the schools differ in their dealing with gendered concerns and highlight the fact that the school setting plays a crucial role in shaping the mind and ideas of the students. It is important to mention that the government school in the village works closely with and is under the influence of the village community. In the private school in the urban setting, which is an autonomous body, the school authorities have the freedom to make attempts to achieve gender equality and were free from the influence of community-based patriarchal forces, which are quite visible in the village government school.

Peer Culture in Co-educational Settings

Students’ responses and their behaviour in both the schools present very diverse pictures. At FGDs with the students in the government village, school girl students were very hesitant in giving any opinion on co-education and intermingling with the opposite sex but most of the girls were very anxious to discuss the issue. It was observed that essentialisation of the division into two genders, ‘boys’ and ‘girls’, is so rigid that they cannot think of the opposite sex as their fellow students only. As they do not get much space for interaction, girls have a fear and anxiety about gender relationships/co-education. As ‘girls talking to boys’ is not a very normal sight, to be seen talking to a boy generally leads to aspersions on the girl’s character. The only acceptable form of relationship between boys and girls was a ‘brother–sister relationship’. Girl students informed us that they had Rakhi ² brothers in their class with whom they could interact freely. This relationship is the most respected and valued relationship between a boy and a girl, better than being ‘just friends’. Sancho (2012), Sinha-Kerkhoff (2003) and Abraham (2001; as cited in Iyer, 2015) maintained that brother–sister relationships are often idealised as the most appropriate form of hetero-social interactions within co-educational schools in India. Unlike the girls, it was noticed during interviews that boys responded to restrictions/segregation in a very agitated manner. It was reported that they try to defy the rules of segregation whenever they get a chance. For example, during their NCC and NSS out-station camps, joint activities with girls are planned. These tours are eagerly looked forward to by all the students as an opportunity to have fun with their classmates. Although they are accompanied by male and female teachers outside their school and village setting, they managed to break the rules set for intermixing.

In the private school in the urban setting of Delhi, there were no set rules for inter-mixing of boys and girls, rather conscious efforts were made by school personnel to construct a school culture free from any kind of gender bias. The impact of school endeavours was very visible as one can observe the absence of gender-preferred selection of peers for any group activities, and most of the groups presented diversity in terms of gender composition. As a result of liberated gender interactions, students were very comfortable in expressing themselves in the presence of members of the other gender. School also provided them ample opportunities to feel comfortable with each other, which led to a reduced sense of ‘otherness’ among students. Students in junior grades sometimes discussed relationships among senior boys and girls. They also pointed out the inclination of particular peers towards members of the opposite sex. This was offset by the remarks of a fifth-grade girl,

…they always think that I have some wrong intentions towards the boy I sit with. Yes, I like to sit next to him because we have a good understanding and he needs my help in academics. I even told my friends that I consider him my brother. But still some of my friends think that I love him. I don’t know why they think so badly about me.

In another incident in grade 7, a light exchange turned into spat among a group of friends where one girl was questioning the closeness of her friend to a boy of another class. During the argument, one girl said that ‘if no affair [love relationship] exists between you two, then why don’t you call him Bhai (brother)?’ This particular observation echoes the findings of earlier cited studies (Iyer, 2015; Sancho, 2012) regarding brother–sister relationships in co-educational schools. Interestingly, most such incidents were reported by students belonging to the working class ³ who have got admission to this elite school under the EWS quota.

The girl who had been questioned (in the incident cited above) complained to her teacher. Next day, the class teacher during circle time ⁴ discussed the issue in class without naming the students and tried to engage them in critically analysing the need of brother–sister relationships among boys and girls at school. She further conveyed that just being friends ⁵ is also a platonic form of hetero-social interaction. Other than a few instances of this kind, in general, hetero-social friendships were considered platonic by teachers as well as by students in this school. This discussion illustrates the role of the school as an agency in guiding the students who were experiencing two different socialisation processes, one at home within the family and the other at school.

Interplay of Gender, Caste and Co-education

Velaskar (2016) emphasised that gender, caste and class relations of power are deeply interrelated and inextricably entwined with difference, inequality, domination and power manifested in social relations. The complex relationship between gender and caste ensures that patriarchy works differently for different castes and challenges the category ‘women’ as a monolithic identity. While upper caste women’s body becomes the site of caste purity, the lower caste women’s body remains vulnerable to different kind of exploitation by the whole society (Sen). Chakravarti (1993) points out that women are considered as the gateway of the caste system. Controlling the sexuality of females is viewed by the upper castes as a matter of caste purity, maintenance of hierarchy and family honour. Furthermore, lower caste groups are not recognised as possessing any honour. Given their weak socio-economic position, they are also unable to claim any such honour especially in relation to the higher castes (Chowdhary, 1997). The intersectionality of gender and caste in society is found to be replicated in the arena of the school and influences peer interactions in the government school in Haryana. It was noticed that the social power or the lack thereof, which comes with caste, plays an important role in communications and interactions among the young. In one incident, a lower caste boy was pressurising a Jat girl to enter into a relationship with him. The girl complained in writing to the school authorities against him. She informed the researchers that when he did not stop irritating her, she slapped him in the school assembly. In her words,

…the boy wanted to spoil my family honour. How can he think that he can have any relation with a Jat girl? I need to protect my family and caste honour. He will always remember this tight slap before thinking about any Jat girl in future. We Jats are brave and we know how to handle these kind of miscreants.

Her response to the whole incident reflects power dynamics, which she draws from her caste positioning. In this context, Velaskar (2016) suggested that women acting on behalf of their men, families and kin groups are embodiments of caste ideologies, which they have deeply internalised. This incident resulted in an explosive situation, both caste organisations (Chamar and Jat) planned a confrontation. Chowdhary (1997) pointed out that such occasions are used as an opportunity by the upper castes to assert their hegemony and to teach a lesson to those who challenge it or wish to do so. In this case, the Jat community pressurised the school to expel the boy from school, and this was done. During discussions, school authorities emphasised that the Jats were the dominant caste and carried social and political influence. The school was in an area dominated by Jats and many teachers too were from this caste. Hence, the school could not afford to ignore Jat intervention in the functioning of the school.

In another incident, a lower caste girl and an upper caste boy were involved in a romantic relationship. When this came to the notice of the Principal, he tried to tell the girl that these kinds of relationships are not accepted and that the boy might be fooling her. She should therefore focus on her studies. The girl’s response to the principal reflects societal notions about her caste. She said,

Wo mera fayda bhi utha lega to koi baat nahi, hum nicchi jaati ki ladkiyon ka to aise hi fayda uthaya jata hai. (Even if he takes advantage of me, it does not matter. Lower caste girls are generally treated in this manner.)

Her statement speaks of her awareness and acceptance of the position of lower caste females. She informed the researchers that the boy later refused to continue the relationship with her because of her caste. In both the cases, caste position influenced attitude: while the upper caste girl was aware of her dominant position, the lower caste girl was prepared to negotiate it from her humble position. Caste position leads to different experiences for different students. Thus, it can be argued that in this rural co-educational school setting, status differences are continuously and actively constructed in peer interactions where gender and caste matter.

It was difficult to research the intersectionality of caste, class and gender in the private urban school as the school authorities did not share caste data and the researchers too felt constrained to probe this issue on ethical grounds. However, some instances came to light that pointed towards the intersectionality of these identities, which suggests that caste and class play an important role here too in a heterogeneous setting. Students of all backgrounds are socialised from a young age to avoid love relationships, especially with boys/girls from another caste. For example, as mentioned earlier, parents of students belonging to the Jat community from a neighbouring urban village had concerns regarding liberated interactions among boys and girls. As is well known, the Jat community has strong traditional norms and codes, in relation to marriage. While members of this caste are ‘modern’ enough to admit their wards into a co-educational school, in Delhi, their caste norms do not favour the acceptance of modern liberated behaviour especially for girls, who are responsible for maintaining the honour of the family and expected to observe community norms and cultural codes. Mothers were more anxious in this regard perhaps because they are considered responsible for the desirable socialisation of their children: Economically better off students warned girls from poorer sections of society (who most probably were also lower caste) not to interact with upper caste boys freely. Parents of students who gained admission to the school within the quota provided for EWS and who had no objection to co-education were equally uncomfortable in this scenario. Thus, families of higher as well as lower castes and classes were apprehensive that their children would develop relationships across caste and class. At one of the PTMs, a teacher brought to the notice of the parents the inattentiveness in class of their daughter (who was, from the EWS category), who would rather keep talking to the boy who sat next to her. The father requested the teacher to seat the girl only with girls and not with boys. When the teacher pointed out that the issue is not about sitting with or talking to a boy, rather, it is about paying attention to what is being taught, the mother remarked that if any relationship developed between their daughter and the boy sitting next to her, all the blame would fall on them because of their low socio-economic background. Later on, discussion with a few of the parents revealed that parents of children belonging to the EWS category are often nervous that their children might fall in love with schoolmates from a higher socio-economic class. Parents felt vulnerable and self-conscious of the conduct of their children, and fearful of their suspension or expulsion from school. More research is required on this issue, which is complicated by factors such as caste, class, coeducation and education itself.

Interface Between Society, Culture and Schooling

The school, being a social institution, is embedded in the socio-cultural context of its surroundings. Drasko, Ceriman, Bojanic, and Zentner (2016) suggested that, to enhance gender equality in schools, continuous monitoring of cooperation between school and family becomes important. Rightly, school officials believe that leaving the task to schools alone will not be able to bring about desired changes. Keeping this in mind, school officials dealt with such issues more sensibly and tried to make parents comfortable with the philosophy, which they consider best suited to themselves in the changing social context.

Before analysing the implications of social and cultural factors for schools in rural areas, it is important to mention that given the decentralised educational system, local governing bodies (village panchayats ⁶ in the case of villages, and municipal committees in urban areas) are given the responsibility for effective school governance. Besides these, every school also has a School Management Committee (SMC) where mothers are given representation. Attesting to the inflexible hold of patriarchy in Haryana, Mahajan (2004, p. 263) pointed out that the incidence of female foeticide, domestic violence, dowry deaths and harassment, caste- and gender-based oppression and cultural restrictions on women’s access to educational and health opportunities in all the socio-economic sections of Haryana are well documented. Another important cultural norm in Haryana is the restriction on women’s right to share public spaces. Insistence on the veil, and veiling in the presence of elders, are important tools that ensure that females do not speak or participate in the public domain alongside males. These rigid social traditions do not let them gain confidence to participate in the public sphere (Narwana, 2015). For instance, the participation of women in SMC meetings was negligible. Narwana (2015) noticed that mothers have a comparatively high rate of participation in school meetings when they are supposed to deal with a female teacher or if it is a girl’s school because adult male-to-female interaction still remains an uncommon occurrence. The interface between such cultural norms and schooling is very much reflected in the school’s functioning. The culture of grabbing public spaces by males, and gender segregation are invariably cultivated at the school level. It was observed that in the senior classes, girls and boys sat in separate sections. The principal informed the researchers that this was organised at the behest of and under the special instruction of the village panchayat. If the school needs to take combined classes due to any reason, the school authorities need to seek the permission of the village sarpanch. This indicates that co-educational schooling, per se, does not lead to any kind of change particularly when the local cultural mores succeed in mediating the schooling experience. Local cultural beliefs and societal norms play a vital role in instituting, maintaining and upholding segregated gender-based schooling in rural areas.

The Delhi-based school faced similar challenges when parents from neighbouring urban villages expressed their apprehensions regarding the liberated culture of the school where there was free mingling of boys and girls. These apprehensions were noticeable because of the difference between the progressive culture of the school and the culture of some students’ families and communities, which were patriarchal in nature.

Conclusion

This article attempted to study the gender dynamics in two co-educational schools based in rural and urban settings, respectively. Both the schools, in spite of being co-educational, presented two different pictures. Working in the patriarchal atmosphere, the government school in Haryana was found to be reinforcing the gendered cultural norms of the dominant local society and group. The parents and village panchayat were playing an important role in maintaining gendered segregation in the school. In the name of inculcating cultural values in students, the school authorities were observed to be promoting ‘gendered otherness’ among students. Safety of girl students, fear of love relationship developing among adult students and family honour were major concerns of parents and teachers, which shaped norms and practices in the school. On the other hand, the elite private school in the urban area in neighbouring Delhi was found to be functioning as an effective agency in promoting gender equality and sensitivity. Different aspects of school functioning such as seating plans, group activity, teachers’ attitude and parents’ orientation are managed and planned keeping modern gender norms in mind. While giving space to the parental voice and concerns, the school authorities effectively championed the cause of ‘challenging gender stereotypes’. In both the settings, the impact of the school vision and philosophy on peer behaviour was very visible. In the rural school, where girls were found to be unconfident, shy and idealising the brother–sister relationship as the ideal form of boy–girl relationship, the boys in this school were seen resisting the school rules at every possible opportunity. On the contrary, the elite school peer groups were found to be freely mixing during different activities. Even when there was any difficult situation, teachers were observed playing an important role in guiding and counselling students.

Prevailing caste and class hierarchies played a significant role in gender relations in co-educational schools in both the settings. This comparative study demonstrates that the functioning of school and gender practices need to be analysed and understood in terms of the local context and of the social-cultural milieu. The findings suggest that the school as an agency has potential to play an important role in challenging stereotypes including gender stereotypes. However, it needs to be emphasised that there are multiple factors, which shape and influence the functioning of the school. The article cautions against any generalisation on the role of co-educational or single sex schools in impacting gendered practices in society.