Whose Knowledge? Knowledge Built Over A Period Of Time ]
The principals and teachers who were part of this study were representative of schools across Australia that had already done a lot of work in gender equity reform. For all of them, knowledge of gender issues had been built over a period of time and as such, it was extensive. In talking to them about the data gathering strategies they had used, it was often difficult to separate the process of finding out from what they know about gender equity. What emerged was that their data gathering was not something that occurred as a discrete act. Often what they now knew was an accumulation of incidental observations, conscious acts of data gathering, talking through and debating issues with others, and ongoing professional development.
Two examples are drawn from the study to illustrate the cumulative nature of teacher knowledge on gender equity.
Being open to gender inequities
The first example comes from a principal of a primary school who has been at the same school for nine years. In that time she has been collecting information formally and informally, and as her comments suggest, over the years the various bits of knowledge have been consolidating into a comprehensive picture of gender at school. The language suggests that determining what the schools needs were in gender equity was simply a matter of `just seeing' or looking for the obvious.
However, what is also significant is the fact that this principal had a heightened awareness of gender issues from the start. This not only helped her see what were obvious data on gender equity needs, her awareness encouraged others to add to the schools accumulated knowledge. It was as if she were a magnet attracting more information. As she said 'they started talking to me'. The following excerpt is illustrative of the breadth of this principal's accumulated knowledge of gender equity needs. It touches on boys' disruptive behaviour, stereotypical play patterns in Reception classes, classroom gender dynamics, teacher/student interaction and playground patterns.
I just had to look at the children that I had to deal with because of their disruptive behaviour, and it was mainly males. We've been working for years on a Behaviour Management Policy.You could go into a Reception class and look at which kids were playing with what and whether the teachers were doing anything about it. The boys were doing all the construction things and the girls were doing passive things.
I could even go into a classroom, take the class and identify classes where teachers weren't taking into account that boys were getting the air time. But I could then also see a class where teachers were being very equitable and made sure that girls and boys were getting air time. You could see the difference. And I could also see the difference where teachers were encouraging boys to do the more passive activities. So I could actually see a difference in how teachers were treating their classes; whether teachers were aware or not.
The yard here, with 700 kids, was always an issue. You only had to walk into the yard to see the boys (and it wasn't only gender, it was also size and age) - the very dominant boys - that had all the court space and the ovals.
So it wasn't hard. If you were aware, it wasn't hard. I should also say that they'd had a male principal before me that didn't have a heightened awareness, so it didn't take long for people to see that maybe I was a bit sensitive to some issues. And then they started talking to me about it through curriculum meetings and so on.
Finding out - questioning - reflecting
The second example is longer and illustrates one teacher's understanding of gender pieced together like a jigsaw from many experiences. As his knowledge base is expanded and his awareness heightened, he picks up more clues. Throughout this process, there is much questioning and reflecting.
It's really difficult to know where I started. But it is partly just your own observations and your own gut response to those observations. Those observations simply might be the language that boys and girls were using with each other. As an English teacher language was a major issue. Other things, how boys and girls worked in groups in classrooms, how they naturally started to gravitate towards certain types of people. Whether that was because they could communicate with each other or because they were fearful of each other, I don't know.Going back to the language, can you give us any examples or any sort of things?
Yes, to me it just stands out like a sore thumb. It is very easy to get girls to speak honestly, helpfully, intelligently when you are asking them questions. All you have to do is create an atmosphere where they are aware that you are trying to get some reasonable feedback and they will, in the majority of cases, offer that type of feedback. Whereas with boys, you continually come across the quips within the meaningful. Girls will offer me meaningful comments in conversation but boys will offer me quips and witticisms and unless I work very hard at the way I construct the groups and work very hard at the way I set up the atmosphere within the classroom, I come across that all the time.
Why do you think they are making these quips; is it just showing up their sense of humour and saying that they are good people to be with or what is it?
That's part of it because I have found that it is a very big thing with boys that they are accepted and that they are humorous and that they can make a joke. But the other thing is that it is basically protection, a defence mechanism; so they are always on the defensive, they are always looking for a negative comment.
Why do you think they are?
It's not so much a put-down. It's more where you look. The put-downs are always there but the first stage is to protect themselves, not to put someone else down. That is, not to let people see in because if you see in you become vulnerable and vulnerability is an incredibly important issue for boys. They cannot afford to be seen as vulnerable and so it's the first line of defence. That first line comes through not just in the way they dress and behave and so on, but it's also in the way they speak.
You talked about different group work and the way the girls and boys worked in groups. What sorts of things?
Boys when they work in groups are usually very stupid. They go flat out and are easily distracted. They are over the top of each other; they do not listen to each other very well. So that is what happens in groups of boys. When you put boys and girls together, the girls tend to go a little bit quiet and the boys are once again over the top and domineering; they find it difficult to stay in their own groups and tend to want to interact with other groups. You can see that I am speaking very generally because there are always groups of boys and there are always individuals who will go in the group and just work perfectly and they will confound everything I have said.