General Review of the Question.—In schools for infants and younger children co-education is approved by all authorities. It is increasingly favoured on educational grounds in smaller schools for children up to 12 or 13 years of age or thereabouts. But where elementary schools have to be large, separate departments for boys and girls are generally preferable, though mixed schools are often established for reasons of economy. At the other end of the educational scale, viz. in the universities, the co-education of men and women in the same institution is fast becoming the rule. This is due partly to the prohibitive cost of duplicating teaching staff, laboratories, libraries and other equipment, partly to the desire of women to qualify themselves for professional life by passing through the same courses of training as are prescribed for men. The degree, however, to which social intercourse is carried on between men and women students differs widely in the different co-educational universities. There are occasional signs, e.g. at Chicago, of a reaction against the fullest form of academic co-education. And it is probable that the universities will provide, among many courses common to men and women, some (like engineering) suitable for men only, and others (like advanced instruction in home-science, or certain courses of professional preparation for teachers of young children) which will rarely be attended by any but women. Common use of the same university institutions is compatible with much differentiation in courses of study and with separately organized forms of collegiate life. It is with regard to the part of education which lies between the elementary schools and the universities that the sharpest division of opinion upon the principle of co-education now exists. In Europe, with the exception of Scandinavia, those who advocate co-education of the sexes in secondary schools up to 18 or 19 years of age are at present in a distinct minority, even as regards day schools, and still more when they propose to apply the same principle to boarding schools. But the application of the co-educational principle to all schools alike is favoured by an apparently increasing number of men and women. This movement in opinion is connected with the increase in the number of girls desiring access to secondary schools, a demand which can most easily and economically be met by granting to girls access to some of the existing schools for boys. The co-educational movement is also connected with a strong view of sex equality. It is furthered by the rapidly increasing number of women teachers who are available for higher educational work. Mixed secondary schools with mixed staffs are spreading for reasons of economy in smaller towns and rural districts. In large towns separate schools are usually recommended in preference, but much depends upon the social tradition of the neighbourhood. Those who advocate co-education for boys and girls in secondary schools urge it mainly on the ground of its naturalness and closer conformity to the conditions of healthy, unselfconscious home life. They believe it to be a protective against uncleanness of talk and school immorality. They point to its convenience and economy. They welcome co-education as likely to bring with it a healthy radicalism in regard to the older tradition of studies in boys’ secondary schools. They approve it as leading to mixed staffs of men and women teachers, and as the most effectual way of putting girls in a position of reasonable equality with boys in respect of intellectual and civic opportunity. On the other hand, those who oppose co-education in secondary schools rest their case upon the danger of the intellectual or physical overstrain of girls during adolescence; and upon the unequal rate of development of boys and girls during the secondary school period, the girls being more forward than the boys at first, but as a rule less able to work as hard at a somewhat later stage. The critics further complain that co-education is generally so organized that the girls’ course of study is more or less assimilated to that of the boys, with the result that it cannot have the artistic and domestic character which is suitable for the majority of girls. Complaint is also made that the head of a co-educational school for pupils over the age of 10 is usually a man, though the health and character of girls need the care and control of a woman vested with complete authority and responsibility. While demurring to the view that co-education of the sexes would be a moral panacea, the critics of the system admit that the presence of the girls would exert a refining influence, but they believe that on the whole the boys are likely to gain less from co-education than the girls are likely to lose by it. In all these matters carefully recorded observation and experiment are needed, and it may well be found that co-education is best for some boys and for some girls, though not for all. Temperaments and dispositions differ. Some boys seem by nature more fitted for the kind of training generally given to girls; some girls are by nature fitted for the kind of training generally given to boys. The sex division does not mark off temperaments into two sharply contrasted groups. The introduction of girls into boys’ secondary schools may remove or mitigate coarse traditions of speech and conduct where such persist. But it would be unfortunate if stiff and pedantic traditions of secondary education were now fixed upon girls instead of being reconsidered and modified in the interests of boys also. In any case, if co-education in secondary schools is to yield the benefits which some anticipate from it, great vigilance, careful selection of pupils and very liberal staffing will be necessary. Without these securities the results of co-education in secondary schools might be disappointing, disquieting or even disastrous.
Bibliography.—Plato in the Republic (v. 452-456) and Laws (vii. 804-805) argues that women should share as far as possible in education with men. Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), contends that “both sexes ought, not only in private families but in public schools, to be educated together.” J. G. Spurzheim, Principles of Education, pp. 272-288 (Edinburgh, 1821), replies to this argument. In the Board of Education Special Reports on Educational Subjects, vol. vi. (Wyman & Sons, 1900), J. H. Badley, writing on The Possibility of Co-education in English Preparatory and other Secondary Schools, is strongly in favour. “In co-education ... half-heartedness means failure. The more completely both sexes can be brought together upon an equal and natural footing the less the difficulties grow.” In the Board of Education Special Reports, vol. xi. (Wyman & Sons, 1902), Rev. Cecil Grant, writing on Can American Education be grafted upon the English Public School System? answers strongly in the affirmative; co-education is recommended on eight grounds:—(1) Vast economy of expenditure; (2) return to the natural system; (3) discipline made easier; (4) intellectual stimulus; (5) a better balance in instruction; (6) improved manners; (7) prevention of extremes of masculinity or femininity; (8) a safeguard against the moral danger.
Co-education: a series of Essays (London, 1903), edited by Alice Woods, is in favour of co-education, nine practical workers recording their experience; this is one of the best books on the subject. J. H. Badley’s Co-education after Fifteen: its Value and Difficulties. Child Life (London, January, 1906), is candid, judicious and practical. M. E. Sadler in Reports on Secondary Education in Hampshire, Derbyshire and Essex (1904, 1905 and 1906 respectively) gives details of the curriculum of many co-educational secondary schools. In the U.S. Commissioner of Education Report for 1903, vol. i. pp. 1047-1078, Anna Tolman Smith, writing on Co-education in the Schools and Colleges of the United States, gives an historical review of the subject with bibliography (compare bibliography in Report of U.S. Commissioner of Education for 1900-1901, pp. 1310-1325). G. Stanley Hall on Adolescence, its Psychology and its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education, vol. ii. chap. xvii., on Adolescent Girls and their education (New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1904), is strongly against co-education during adolescence. In W. Rein’s Encyklopädisches Handbuch der Pädagogik (Langensalza, Beyer), art. “Gemeinsame Erziehung für Knaben und Mädchen,” K. E. Palmgren is in favour of co-education (vol. iii. of 2nd ed. 1905). See also W. Rein, Über gemeinsame Erziehung von Knaben und Mädchen (Freiburg, 1903), and Bericht über den I. Internationalen Kongress für Schulhygiene (Nürnberg, 1904), vol. ii. pp. 140 ff., “Co-education in der höheren Schulen.”
(M. E. S.)
COEFFETEAU, NICOLAS (1574-1623), French theologian, poet and historian, was born at Saint-Calais. He entered the Dominican order and lectured on philosophy at Paris, being also “ordinary preacher” to Henry IV., and afterwards ambassador at Rome. In 1606 he was vicar-general of the congregation of France, and received from Marie de’ Medici the revenues of the sees of Lombez and Saintes. He also administered the diocese of Metz, and was nominated to that of Marseilles in 1621, but ill-health obliged him here to take a coadjutor. Coeffeteau won considerable distinction in the controversy against the Protestant reformers and also wrote a History of Rome from Augustus to Constantine. Many of his theological writings were collected in one volume (Paris, 1622), and at the time of his death in 1623 he was engaged on a translation of the New Testament which is still in manuscript.
COEHOORN, MENNO, Baron van (1641-1704), Dutch soldier and military engineer, of Swedish extraction, was born at Leeuwarden in Friesland. He received an excellent military and general education, and at the age of sixteen became a captain in the Dutch army. He took part in the defence of Maastricht in 1673 and in the siege of Grave in the same year, where the small mortars (called coehorns) invented by him caused the French garrison considerable trouble (Seydel, Nachrichten über Festungskriege, Leipzig, 1818). He was made a colonel for his gallant conduct at the battle of Seneff (1674), and was present also at the battles of Cassel (1677) and Saint Denis (1678).
The circumstances of the time and the country turned Coehoorn’s attention to the art of fortification, and the events of the late war showed him that existing methods could no longer be relied upon. His first published work, Versterckinge de Vijfhoeks met alle syne Buytenwerken (Leeuwarden, 1682), at once aroused attention, and involved the author in a lively controversy with a rival engineer, Louys Paan (Leeuwarden, 1682, 1683; copies are in the library of the Dutch ministry of war). The military authorities were much interested in this, and entrusted Coehoorn with the reconstruction of several fortresses in the Netherlands. This task he continued throughout his career; and his experience in the work made him the worthy rival of his great contemporary Vauban. He formulated his ideas a little later in his chief work, Nieuwe Vestingbouw op en natte of lage horizont, &c. (Leeuwarden, 1685), in which he laid down three “systems,” the characteristic feature of which was the multiplicity and great saliency of the works, which were calculated and in principle are still eminently suited for flat and almost marshy sites such as those of the Low Countries. He borrowed many of the details from the works of his Dutch predecessor Freytag, of Albrecht Dürer, and of the German engineer Speckle, and in general he aimed rather at the adaptation of his principles to the requirements of individual sites than at producing a geometrically and theoretically perfect fortress; and throughout his career he never hesitated to depart from his own rules in dealing with exceptional cases, such as that of Groningen. Subsequent editions of Nieuwe Vestingbouw appeared in Dutch (1702, and frequently afterwards), English (London, 1705), French (Wesel, 1705), and German (Düsseldorf, 1709).
From 1688 to the treaty of Ryswick Coehoorn served as a brigadier. At the battle of Fleurus he greatly distinguished himself, and in 1692 he defended Namur, a fortress of his own creation. Namur was taken by Vauban; but the Dutch engineer had his revenge three years later, when the place, on which in the meantime Vauban had lavished his skill, fell to his attack. Coehoorn became lieutenant-general and inspector-general of the Netherlands fortresses, and the high-German peoples as well as his own countrymen honoured him. He commanded a corps in the army of the duke of Marlborough from 1701 to 1703, and in the constant siege warfare of these campaigns in the Low Countries his technical skill was of the highest value. The swift reduction of the fortress of Bonn and the siege of Huy in 1703 were his crowning successes. At the opening of his following campaign he was on his way to confer with Marlborough when he died of apoplexy at Wijkel on the 17th of March 1704.