Es3207: Constructions of Gender Roles in Schools
Week 5
Return to module outline.
Last
updated 18.10.10.
The reading this week focuses on a small case study of interviews with primary school children and their perceptions of gender in the classroom and in the play ground. Becky Francis uses a theoretical approach to analysing gender construction in primary schools which 'grounds discourse analysis in social experience in an attempt to analyse power inequalities' (Francis, 1998: 164). The significance of the use of discourse analysis from our point of view is that dominant discourses of gender may actually close off possibilities for children constructing their identity.
Reflect on the Francis reading in terms of the discussion we had on the different theoretical approaches to the construction of masculinity and the construction of stereotypes.
Are the children constructing their gender identities in terms of ‘othering’ the opposite sex - i.e. femininity is what masculinity is not and vice versa?
Are boys and girls learning their gender roles through the expectations of the school institution?
Do they construct their gender roles through the observation of role models (i.e. teachers / parents)?
Are hegemonic masculinities and emphasised femininities (Connell) confirmed or contested in the primary school?
How do apparent clear demarcations of gender affect the debate sover single sex schooling and the social advantages of co-educational schooling (RR Dale, 1974)
Francis concludes that school is a site where gender differences are worked out and at times contested, but that the boys' behaviour enforces or confirms their dominance largely through physical strength. However, Walkerdine (1990) notes how girls in Primary school use role play to confirm their importance in the domestic setting, turning it to their advantage.
If gender roles are 'learnt' in school, what is the role and responsibility of the teacher in 'teaching' these gender roles? Should they be imposed by the institution or should they allow individual children to work out their own identity?
What is the end result if family values and expectations conflict with those at school?
When considering the construction of gender roles in schools there are two areas which should be addressed and the relationship between the two should be considered.
1. Teacher / pupil interaction and formal classroom settings, the construction of the curriculum etc.
2. The effect of peer groups and the informal interaction which takes place in the playground and during breaks.
The most powerful discourse illustrated in the primary school according to Francis was that of the 'gender dichotomy'. The question is, should (or even perhaps, could) the school confirm or contest these views? Boys and girls constructed their gender identities as relational, taking up visual signs of their gender. (Games clothes, books etc)
In her study Becky Francis noted that girls and boys did draw on the ‘equal opportunities discourse’ when talking about their expectations of work, although fewer said that boys should be allowed to do traditional women's jobs than vice versa. (Francis, 1998:62) They also observed that this did not happen in practice in the workplace. Girls expected to engage in paid employment and not rely upon a male breadwinner.
Educational practices combine with informal education to create the gender dichotomy which defines girls as sensible and selfless and boys as silly and selfish (Francis, 1998: 40). In play, the girls, by acting selflessly consequently yielded power to the boys who drew on the notion of masculinity as selfish and silly in order to dominate the play.
So Francis concludes that by constructing gender as oppositional, girls ultimately lose out. If one sex constantly defines itself in relation to or in opposition to ‘the other’ this in effect confirm the actions of one group as ‘the norm’ against which the other is measured.
A further implication of this is that by drawing on this discourse or construction of masculinity, boys implicitly position themselves against the school culture which demands obedience, respect and diligence.
Francis' book is not only an academic piece of research, she also makes suggestions for the way that a change away from gender dichotomy might be achieved.
Children should be able to explore, for instance, bravery and tenderness, and have both valued irrespective of their gender. It is only through a dismantling of the gender dichotomy which assigns these traits to one gender or the other and which children take up as fundamental to their gender identities that such freedom and flexibility could be achieved
(Francis, 1998: 168)
Francis notes how young children rely on outward signs of gendered behaviour and appearance in order to confirm their sense of a gendered self. She argues that they can contain contradictions within those gendered boundaries. (Remember Griffiths and the weaving together of apparently disparate strands of individual experience)
Francis suggests the following strategies:
Non-sexist books in the classroom
Role reversal books (Paper Bag Princess)
Discussion
Actively teach pro-equality perspective (ie gender not relational, play down physical differences)
Part of citizenship curriculum.
'Anti-sexist teaching is not enough to alter children's constructions of gender fundamentally' (Francis, 1998: 173)
Problems identified with teaching young children about gender dichotomy:
Children still keep to gender dichotomy discourse even when aware of equal opportunities (and equal opportunities still presupposes gender differences), again remember the discussion on stereotypes where Pickering notes that increasing awareness of the constructed nature of a stereotype does not diminish its strength.
If using discussion, what happens when boys dominate discussion and working groups (Paechter, 1998: 24)
Boys demand more of teachers' time. More likely to be asked questions (Because teacher scanning for behavioural problems Swann & Graddol 1994)
The implications for thinking gender
So far we have thought about classroom interaction in terms of the way that the experience of school both in formal and informal settings enables children to work out their gender identities. Much of the criticism of this falls into the ‘girls as other’ category – that is that power is associated with masculinity and girls define themselves (or what it is to ‘be’ girl in relation to boys).
How does this apparent imbalance work in relation to current concerns over boys’ underachievement and lack of self esteem? Perhaps this is the crux of the difference between the Primary and Secondary sectors. Primary schools are seen as predominantly female environments with constant debate over whether the primary teacher is part ‘carer’. After all it was exactly this argument – about women’s innate ability to teach young children that enabled them to enter the teaching profession in the first place.
In the week on theorising masculinity we considered how the construction of masculinity renders it a ‘fragile’ concept. This fragility is repeated in the reading this week. What happens to this fragile concept if teachers seek to actively disrupt gender norms? If we take Connell’s notion of the current nature of hegemonic masculinity it is apparent that this does not sit comfortably with current expectations of ‘achievement’ within school and so we could argue that the ‘underachieving boy’ actually becomes part of the current discourse of hegemonic masculinity. Skelton suggests that the consequence may well be not to counteract but to enforce traditional gender identities if the school constantly focuses on ‘underachieving boys’.
Talking gender
How important is it to pay attention to the form of words used in an attempt to counteract either sexism or racism?
To what extent do limits on the acceptability of language actually inhibit freedom of speech and even of thought? (Think how this impacts on our earlier discussion of discourse)
Is it possible ever to attain a neutral language?
So is an attention to ‘pc’ language either trivial or a threat to freedom??
Language is used not only to reflect an individual view but also a part of the public construction of values.
Read the report from Warwick at the link below
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/NE1000000233120/
In the last few weeks we have discussed the socially constructed nature of our gender roles, if language is one of the main components of this construction then attention should be paid to the way that language affirms or contests such constructions.
The media not unsurprisingly are concerned about how to deal with this problem – perhaps that is the wrong question – let’s think about why and by what means it arose in the first place.
References
Dale, R.R. (1974) Mixed or Single-Sex School? London: Routledge
Delamont, S. (1996) A Woman's Place in Education, Avebury: Ashgate
Paechter, C. (1998) Educating the Other: gender, power and schooling, London: Falmer
Short, G. & Carrigton, B. (1998) Discourse on Gender: the perceptions of children aged between six and eleven, in Skelton, C. (ed.) Whatever Happens to Little Women? Gender and Primary Schooling, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Skelton, C. (1988) Demolishing the House that Jack built: anti-sexist initiatives in the primary school classroom, in Carrington, B. & Troyna, B. (eds.) Children and Controversial Issues, London: Falmer
Skelton, C. (2001) Schooling the Boys: masculinities and the primary classroom, Buckingham: Open University
Smithers, A. & Zienteck, P. (1991) Gender, Primary Schools and the National Curriculum, Manchester: University Press
Swann, J. & Graddol, D. (1994) ‘Gender inequalities in classroom talk’, in Graddol, D., Maybin, J. & Stierer, B. (eds.) Researching Language and Literacy in Social Context, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
