Coeducation:A Contested Practice in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Secondary Schooling

This chapter discusses the history of coeducation in secondary schooling, mainly in Europe and North America. The analysis focuses on the gendered characteristics of educational systems and curricula, as well as on national discourses about single-sex or mixed schooling. The focus is on the latter half of the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth century, when the merits and perils of coeducation were debated for this stage of schooling. Until after World War II, children of the working class hardly ever attended school past the age of 13 or 14. Therefore, this is a history of middle- and upper-class education. In the early nineteenth century, girls had to do with a very limited, private education that prepared only for homemaking and motherhood, while boys could attend public grammar schools that opened the door to the university and the professions. From the mid-nineteenth century, initiatives to improve the quality of girls’ education were taken. Few countries opened up boys’ public schools for girls; in most cases, new girls’ schools were established with more serious but still unequal curricula, focusing mainly on humanities. Schools teaching a curriculum equivalent to that of the boys’ schools were not created until after the turn of the century, when a more critical view of coeducation became the rule. Democratization and coeducation came hand in hand with the introduction of comprehensive mixed secondary schooling in the 1960s and 1970s. The shortcomings of coeducation, however, were not rediscovered until after it had generally been introduced

"A renewed sense of purpose": mothers' and fathers' experience of having a child following a recent stillbirth.

Most research has focused on mothers' experiences of perinatal loss itself or on the subsequent pregnancy, whereas little attention has been paid to both parents' experiences of having a child following late perinatal loss and the experience of parenting this child. The current study therefore explored mothers' and fathers' experiences of becoming a parent to a child born after a recent stillbirth, covering the period of the second pregnancy and up to two years after the birth of the next baby. In depth interviews were conducted with 7 couples (14 participants). Couples were eligible if they previously had a stillbirth (after 24 weeks of gestation) and subsequently had another child (their first live baby) who was now under the age of 2 years. Couples who had more than one child after experiencing a stillbirth and those who were not fluent in English were excluded. Qualitative analysis of the interview data was conducted using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. Five superordinate themes emerged from the data: Living with uncertainty; Coping with uncertainty; Relationship with the next child; The continuing grief process; Identity as a parent. Overall, fathers' experiences were similar to those of mothers', including high levels of anxiety and guilt during the subsequent pregnancy and after the child was born. Coping strategies to address these were identified. Differences between mothers and fathers regarding the grief process during the subsequent pregnancy and after their second child was born were identified. Despite difficulties with bonding during pregnancy and at the time when the baby was born, parents' perceptions of their relationship with their subsequent child were positive. Findings highlight the importance of tailoring support systems not only according to mothers' but also to fathers' needs. Parents', and particularly fathers', reported lack of opportunities for grieving as well as the high level of anxiety of both parents about their baby's wellbeing during pregnancy and after birth implies a need for structured support. Difficulties experienced in bonding with the subsequent child during pregnancy and once the child is born need to be normalised

Islands and despots

This paper challenges a conventional wisdom: that when discussing political systems, small is democratic. And yet, can there be paradises without serpents? The presumed manageability of small island spaces promotes and nurtures dispositions for domination and control over nature and society. In such dark circumstances, authoritarian rule is a more natural fit than democracy. By adopting an inter-disciplinary perspective, this paper argues that small island societies may be wonderful places to live in, as long as one conforms to a dominant cultural code. Should one deviate from expected and established practices, the threat of ostracism is immense. Formal democratic institutions may and often do exist, and a semblance of pluralism may be manifest, but these are likely to be overshadowed by a set of unitarist and homogenous values and practices to which many significant social players, in politics and civil society, subscribe (at least in public).peer-reviewe