A regime of separate and unequal treatment was noticeable in other aspects of school life, such as instruction, recreation, and provisions for leisure time. The area in which gender differences were least noticeable was the classroom, where ostensibly at least students of both sexes pursued a common academic curriculum. None of the official statements of curriculum referred to any difference of treatment in classroom instruction for female and male students. There is reason to believe, however, that some boys were deprived of the opportunity of academic instruction and required to work full-time on tasks needed for the upkeep and operation of the institution. Anecdotal evidence suggests that boys were more likely to be removed from class permanently than were girls, although many female students also complained in later years of losing time to work for the institution.

      Where the gender difference became overt was in the provision for vocationally oriented instruction, or training outside the classroom. The detail and precision in descriptions of the skills that boys were to be taught was in direct contrast to the vague and generalised statement of 'industrial training' for girls. At the Shingwauk Home in the 1870s, 'children were given Christian education along with school subjects, boys -- carpentering, farming etc. and girls -- duties of the home.'