Interpretive Frameworks Explanations Which Focus On Construction Of Gender ]
Many of those interviewed in this study that had looked at important aspects of girls' and boys' socialisation also took their understanding of gender equity and what needed to happen into another level of analysis and interpretation. The key to their interpretive frameworks was not focusing on a simple binary difference between girls and boys, males and females, but focusing on critically knowing how gender is socially constructed and maintained for men and women alike. A logical extension of this interpretive framework was the need to challenge social structures and processes that, through gender, disadvantage some individuals and groups over others.
CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER
This framework is commonly referred to as the `social construction of gender' and differs from that which focuses on sex role socialisation. According to Connell, where sex role theories focus on passive internalisation and enactment of norms, the construction of gender perspective 'explores the making and remaking of conventions in social practice itself' (1995:35).
For those working within this interpretive framework, gender is a key organising concept; a lens through which much of what happens at school is seen. According to a principal of a school whose work in gender equity had been set within a construction of gender framework, 'In terms of working within a construction of gender framework, you apply it right across all your teaching'. In addition, for this principal, what was done was strongly rooted in principles of equity and social justice.
Implications for action
For the school cited above, working within a construction of gender framework has meant, in the first instance, a focus on the curriculum, both formally and incidentally. Teachers are encouraged to take every opportunity to look at how gender is socially constructed and to look at the implications for girls and boys across all curriculum areas. To quote:
We've tried to do it through the curriculum in particular. When teachers are developing units, we try to encourage them to make sure that any gender issues are developed there.
An `across the board' approach to the construction of gender is further illustrated in the following:
But also, running with incidents as they happen has been really critical. So that if something happens in your classroom context (and it doesn't have to relate to gender, it might relate to class, race, or something else), if you can see that it is putting someone down in some way, then you run with that incident and deal with it in terms of a broader social construct, then and there.
For many schools in this study, working on gender equity issues could not be done effectively in one-off situations. Whatever perspective teachers brought to bear on their data gathering and analysis, the pervasiveness of gender led them to address issues from many angles. Accordingly:
We do a lot of role playing and that sort of thing. So that you're not actually naming the people but you are bringing to the forefront how people are feeling in that situation and how it could have been better dealt with and the reasons why people might behave in that way. We also look at issues through critical literacy programs and that sort of thing. We do a lot of analysis of texts, TV shows, advertisements, and ... anything at all, even toy catalogues.
DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF MALENESS AND FEMALENESS
In not highlighting differences between girls and boys in terms of binary oppositions, those working within a construction of gender framework prefer to talk about multiple femininities and masculinities. As indicated in the following example, while the school emphasised the need to value girls' specific experiences and past histories and to accept difference, it did so in terms of accepting a range of male and female behaviour. According to the principal:
And I suppose also, we can't change things for girls unless we change boys and men, so I've always believed that there are some things about dealing with conflict and about violence and about caring that need to be explicitly taught to boys. ... and to give all children, whether they be male or female, some empathy and understanding about difference. Whether you're male or female, there are different concepts of maleness and femaleness on a continuum and we should actually respect all of those different kinds of maleness and femaleness.
Implications for action
An immediate practical implication of the above perspective on gender surfaces in the school's efforts to improve literacy for boys. From their analysis of boys' problems with literacy, one aspect that the school recognises it must deal with is one directly related to gender. It has to do with boys' perceptions of literacy not being a masculine activity. According to the principal:
In terms of literacy, it is the construction of masculinity that's preventing boys from achieving. That's also a very critical focus and one that we're hoping to pick up and run with next year; a lot more than we have in the past. Boys don't feel that reading and writing are masculine subjects; they see them as being feminine subjects.
EVERYONE OF THEM HAS TO BE GENDER-INCLUSIVE
Inclusivity is another concept that in this study was often linked to interpretations that looked at the construction of gender. Whereas in frameworks discussed previously the emphasis is on differences and exploring dichotomies, those working from a construction of gender perspective tend to see dichotomies as problematic. They talk of breaking down the oppositions with respect to girls and boys, women and men and what they do and adopting a more tolerant and inclusive approach to all, irrespective of the differences. According to a principal:
That whole idea of categorising subjects is a problem but the dichotomies are very, very firmly established. Even though you try to get kids to look at those dichotomies and how they disadvantage people by setting people in opposition and by setting subjects in opposition, it's going to be a very long term case. It's going to take years and years and years to do anything about breaking this down.
Implications for action
So, for the principal quoted above who saw dichotomies as problematic, the implications can be seen in the way her school has approached the issue of the use of playground space. Rather than ensuring boys and girls have 'equal' use of space in the playground, the emphasis in this case is on a 'gender-inclusive' approach:
We still have a problem in terms of playground space, because the boys still tend to dominate. We've started organising lunch time clustered activities, but we've said that every one of them has to be gender inclusive. So if we have someone coming in and training people at softball, the team has to be equal numbers of girls and boys.
However, in addition to practices that are changed, another essential element of this school's approach is how the above is dealt with as an aspect of the curriculum. In a sense, the real life experience of gendered school practices is used as a curriculum exemplar.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The above example also illustrates the importance of critical analysis to those working within a construction of gender framework. Though all aspects of schooling need to come under scrutiny, various aspects of school life are particularly subject to critical analysis with respect to gender. These include teachers and teaching, student interactions and relationships, the curriculum and school structures and organisation.
Implications for action
In the current study, teachers working within a construction of gender framework provided many examples of how they used a range of school situations to critically analyse gender at school. According to one teacher:
So you know it might be using the media, for example, film clips, videos, anything at all, and we use those as a talking point and do a lot of critical analysis of them. 'Why do people behave the way that they do? Would there be a better way of approaching that? What would the relationship be like if this happened ... ?' You know, all that sort of stuff.
A similar example of a school making use of a specific school experience is given by a principal who uses her regular contact with individual students sent to her office:
I believe very much in one on one, and if I have students down in my office to be interviewed, what I try to do is use therapy with them to get them thinking and coming up with solutions themselves. And I don't make judgments about their behaviour. I let them know very, very clearly that I am not into blaming boys for their behaviour, that I know that it is a whole range of things that make people feel that they have to behave the way that they do. When I interview kids one on one, I often find that they do know where they want to go, but as soon as they get back into the peer situation, the behaviour goes. So we talk about that and try to find out why it is like that and whether it has to be like that.
An example which relates to the formal curriculum comes from a school which was focused on ensuring their students, all girls, were successful. Several years ago, there was a major shift in the direction of its Religious Education Department which drives a lot of what happens in the school in terms of its overall philosophy. The shift was spearheaded mainly by the Subject Head who brought new perspectives in terms of women in the Church. The broad directions that were set by the Religious Education Department have also filtered down to the curriculum areas. According to a teacher of Humanities:
Because I taught in that [Religious Education] area, as well as teaching in the other Humanities areas, I really feel that it started the trend in our Humanities here to look at the whole issue of gender, how we teach, curriculum etc.
Another important dimension to the critical analysis within this interpretive framework is picked up by the teacher who talked about the need to take off our own 'lens' when looking at gender equity. As she suggests when asked about her gender knowledge base:
How do you know that these are issues of concern? My basic view is that school reflects the total society's values, and as that is so, in that respect we'd be kidding ourselves if we didn't accept that that's how our kids, and we, are positioned. And that, personally, is what I've found the hardest single thing; to take off your own lens and try (and I don't want to talk jargon) and view the hegemony from the outside. And I think that's what I found with kids, too, They found it really uncomfortable when we first really started getting into this.
While this can be said of any school based research and reform, with issues such as gender with which we all have direct personal experience, it is even more critical that we are aware of our lenses. This aspect is also central to the process of critical reflection in action research. It is developed further in the section on interpretive frameworks and personal histories.
GOING BEYOND THE SCHOOL
While it is important, within the construction of gender framework, for the school as a social situation to be critically scrutinised, this framework also takes a critical look at society more broadly, and especially those social structures which disadvantage women and girls, men and boys.
In this study, the gendered structures and processes of the wider community were seen to impact on the school in a number of ways. In the first instance, the school as a social situation was seen to mirror the wider community. In addition, the wider community was where students had their most significant gender experiences and where their gender was constantly 'being made and remade'.
All of these aspects of the wider community were important to schools in this study working within a construction of gender framework. So also was what happened to girls and boys when they left school, especially the post-school experiences of girls. According to one teacher:
I think when they go beyond schooling, that's when it worries me, because even though the girls might be higher achievers at school, when they get into universities and into the work force, they're still coming up against all these barriers.
Implications for action
For these schools, exploring the impact on gender of structures and processes of the wider society was an important aspect of the gender curriculum with students. According to a principal:
So it's the wider community that's still a big problem, and that's why we're focusing a lot on social structures, and language discourses with the school kids, so that they can get a better understanding of how society is structured to make it easier for men than for women. So that even though a man might have lower qualifications, in actual fact he might get the job instead of a woman. I think that element is very important for the girls and for the boys, if you're going to actually succeed in doing anything.
THE 'STUFF' THAT NEEDS TO BE CONFRONTED
A strong feature of the work done by the schools in this study that were working from a critical perspective was their concern that schools themselves need to be subjected to a critical gender analysis. As indicated by one principal when talking about sexual harassment and grievance procedures:
And that's the other thing. Staff didn't really know how to access grievance procedures. So you're facing an uphill battle if you're trying to teach kids things that teachers can't do. Staff have to model that; have to be able to feel free and do it automatically to be able to teach kids properly. I think one of the issues is that a lot of people don't even know that they're being sexist or racist. And all that sort of stuff that happens needs to be confronted and challenged, not just put into the too hard basket.
There were numerous examples in this study of schools questioning their own, or other schools' complicity in a construction of gender which was damaging to girls ... and boys. One of the more severe critiques of the role of schools in the construction of gender drew attention to what he referred to as 'bad' schools; schools that did nothing to tackle serious underlying gender issues confronting most schools. According to him:
Many boys come to my Grade Prep and you can see it written all over them that they've been reared to believe that they are a better species than girls. So that's the first thing. At a bad school, that's allowed to persist.
This raises an interesting issue vis-a-vis schools and their role in gender equity reform. Often schools will be concerned about the relationship of what they might be doing at school and what happens outside. Sometimes the concern comes from the point of view that their good work will be negated. Sometimes however, it comes from a sense of helplessness and the view that 'what's the point'; the sense that societal forces are too great to overcome. From the perspective of the principal just quoted, schools have an obligation to work towards gender equity. One other major concern the same principal expressed with respect to schools and the perpetuation of gender inequity was with what he referred to as the ''locker room' mentality of the boys.
I think that in the area of young adolescents the schools have never taken up the challenge of really coming to grips with what I call the `locker room' mentality. They've never, ever, come to grips with it. Girls who suffer are regarded as being loose and as not being there legitimately, and they're given no help. The boys seem to get away with it.
An example of a more general concern was raised by a principal who believed that many schools were still not confronting and challenging the very fundamental link between gender and educational disadvantage. Her concern was with schools who still denied that educational disadvantage was related to how gender was socially constructed and who did not see any link between this and what was happening in their schools. According to her, schools needed to confront the fact that they themselves imposed limitations on students, and especially on girls. While girls may have shown they are able to achieve, 'their daily school experiences really constrain and limit their options', and with serious repercussions for their post-school options.
Implications for action
While it is possible for schools to be self-critical and recognise they play a major part in the ongoing construction of gender, it is not a simple matter to suggest what schools need to do to ensure they do not constrain and limit. According to the principal quoted above, coming from a construction of gender perspective, there were many things that needed to happen. Her suggestions read like a ready-to-use checklist of major gender equity reform items and have been presented in summarised and tabulated format for easy reading:
You need to be really up front and have some base line data, some simple action research that says, 'girls are not participating in the value curriculum'.You only have sit in a classroom for half an hour and look at who's taking the teachers time and the equipment (and that would happen in every classroom in Australia).
There's also anecdotal evidence, like the number of boys in special programs, the amount of administrative and counselling and teaching time spent on boys. You need to be up front about that and what you're going to do about it.
One of the issues is that a lot of principals and staff have not really got the theoretical background on which to base a changing practice.
It is important that you actually have some training and development to challenge peoples' views and give them the opportunity to work through some of their thinking in supportive groups.
You need to use policy as a lever.
You need to create an ethos of teachers taking risks in their teaching and learning and being prepared to make mistakes. It's a bit like a high jumper, once you've got to a certain height, you put it up a little bit higher and set yourself up for failure and then try something different. While you may be setting yourself up for failure in some instances, you're also finding out what is good practice.
We don't spend enough time sharing good practice. The sorts of things that work in one school would probably work in other schools, but it's got to fit in with the workload and the number of hours in the day.
There needs to be more explicit teaching of social skills, harassment grievance procedures, group skills. You can sit down and teach kids that sort of stuff, but it's a bit like teaching language I suppose. All the time you go back to what happens in your classroom and in the yard and in the school environment.
There needs to be consistency about what happens regarding sexual harassment, violence and racial harassment and even verbal harassment. These are unacceptable and there must be consequences that you are forever consistent with.