Dismantling Educational Sexism through Teacher Education

Engaging Preservice Teachers in an Anti-Sexism Curriculum

Kimberly J. Pfeifer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000462081
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Teaching Methods

This book details the development and impacts of anti-sexism professional development (PD) workshops for preservice teachers.

Designed to help teacher candidates recognize gender inequity and think more deeply about their role as anti-sexist educators, Dismantling Educational Sexism through Teacher Education explores how workshops can respond directly to issues manifesting in US schooling such as misrepresentation, androcentric pedagogy, and sex(ual/ist) harassment using an intersectional approach. By documenting participants' learning, the text offers valuable insight into how teacher candidates view their role in combatting sexism and illustrates how an anti-sexism curriculum can positively impact on educators' beliefs, discourses, and teaching practices.

This volume will be a valuable resource for researchers and scholars involved in teacher education and issues of gender equity more broadly, as well as teacher educators seeking a theoretical framework for anti-sexism trainings.

Part One Conceptualizing the Study

1 Introduction to Educational Sexism

DOI: 10.4324/9781003161042-2

Naming the Problem: Educational Sexism

Generations of feminist theorists have conceptualized gender as a social construct. Echoing de Beauvoir’s renowned words “One is not born, but rather becomes, woman” (1953/2010, p. 330), Butler’s theory of gender performativity argues that gender is not a stable identity, but rather instituted through “a stylized repetition of acts” (1988, p. 519). In addition to this social location being constructed through cyclical expectations and performances, it has also been reified through these same means. Gender has become a mechanism to categorize individuals as men or to mark them as other. Through the construction of these falsely assumed a priori categories, abilities and limitations have also been assumed and has paved the way for a particular, gendered oppression: sexism. Sexism however is not monolithic, neither in its enactment nor its manifestation.

Gendered oppression has been conceptualized and deepened specifically by feminist scholars of color such as Cherríe Moraga and Gloria E. Anzaldúa (1981), Kimberle Crenshaw (1989), Patricia Hill Collins (2000), bell hooks (2014), Audre Lorde (1984), Chandra Talpade Mohanty (1984), and Gayatri Chakavorty Spivak (1999). These scholars speak not only to the construction of gender, but to the intersection of race and gender as constructs, and moreover how the neglect of this intersection has left womxn of color and of the global south in the periphery of feminist theory, oftentimes invisibilizing their voices and presence. It is important to note that even the notion that white, western womxn first theorized about gender oppression and only after this did womxn of color speak to these issues is part of the problematization the abovementioned scholars posit (Mohanty, 1984). This understanding of gender oppression as wide-ranging must not only be applied to the theorizing of sexism, but also to enactments and experiences of sexism. As Crenshaw (1989, 1991) and Collins (2000) demonstrate in their writing, sexism and racism intersect in particular (but not monolithic) ways for Black womxn, and the oppression resulting from both the construction of race and gender must be understood multidimensionally. As Crenshaw writes, “Sexism isn't a one-size-fits-all phenomenon” (2017).

In addition to needing to be understood intersectionally and multidimensionally, sexism can also be understood as having specific intentions and manifestations in different contexts. For example, workplace/occupational sexism is often characterized as an applicant or employee being treated differentially or less favorably by an employer (or colleagues) because of her sex or gender (Equal Rights Advocates, 2019). Everyday sexism, though not confined to a physical space or structure, has become an informal term used as well as an online platform in which womxn share and catalogue the experiences of sexism they are consistently subjected to simply in living their everyday lives: while walking down a street, attending a social event, going to the doctor, etc. (Bates, n.d.). It is important to note these two forms of sexism primarily center the experiences of adults; however, sexism does not only oppress adults, it affects children and adolescents, particularly in the context in which they spend the majority of their time—schools (AAUW, 1992; Churches, 2017; Eliasson et al., 2007; Kenway et al., 1998; Lahelma, 2002; McCullough, 2017). And though sexism in schools has been documented and researched, especially after the passage of Title IX in 1972 and the Gender Educational Equity Act of 1974, it has often been termed “gender bias” and furthermore described as implicit and subtle (Bailey, 1992; Chapman, n.d.; Hall & Sandler, 1982). Shaping the understanding of sexism in educational spaces as such inadvertently minimizes the immense oppression girls face; this marginalization should not only be named sexism when children become adults. Sexism does not have a minimum age requirement for either the perpetrator or target. Thus, I have created the term educational sexism to bring attention to and name the concrete, specific, and explicit forms of sexism girls, womxn, and non-binary folks continue to endure within their schooling experiences and employ the term throughout this work.

Analyzing the Problem: Looking to the Research

The passage of Title IX in 1972 (in the US) is used as the starting point to delve into research focused on gender inequity in education because it is this precise discrimination that Title IX seeks to eradicate. The federal law states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

(US Department of Education, 2018)

Two years later, the Women’s Educational Equity Act (1974) was passed in the US. This act was a critical extension of Title IX’s policy, specifically in terms of the role of funding. Meaning, while Title IX was not funded at a level that allowed for the widespread enforcement of its provisions, the Women’s Educational Equity Act provided funding not only for research, but training centered on the elimination of gender bias in schools (Blumberg, 2008). Thus, this work views these two legislative moves toward gender equity in the US as a foundational turn in gender education research that directly engages with questions centered on how sexism is constructed and reified through schooling structures as well as pedagogical practice. And in line with both pieces of legislation, the following sections include works that seek to actively shift schools from sites of prevailing sexism to learning spaces that confront and dismantle this oppression.

Though legislation in the US is used as a marker, this book looks to research from around the globe. This geographical widening of studies included allows readers to zoom out, to make connections between contexts that often remain self-contained and separate. This is not to say these national and cultural contexts’ histories, policies, and research focused on sexism in schools should be conflated or seen as the same; rather, in including voices from researchers and participants from vastly different contexts and putting them in conversation with one another, larger phenomena are discovered. Both the depth and presence of sexism in the classroom as well as the global and endemic danger of this prejudice can be understood more clearly when grasping its occupation of so many disparate spaces.

In fact, gender inequity in educational spaces ranging from inadvertently androcentric to outright sexist (and violent) has been well documented in educational research globally (AAUW, 1992; Blumberg, 2008; Chapman, n.d.; Elliasson et al., 2007; Fordham, 1993; Galman & Mallozzi, 2015; Gober & Mewborn, 2001; Hartman, 2006; Hayik, 2016; Hofer, 2015; Kelly, 1988; Lahelma, 2002; McCullough, 2017; Miroiu, 2004; Murphy et al., 2013; Neal-Jackson, 2018; Porreca, 1984; Rosser, 1989; Sunderland, 2000; Thorne, 1993). Educational sexism can be grouped into three distinct manifestations that create and sustain the physical, vocal, spatial, and academic marginalization of female and non-binary students in classrooms and hallways: 1) sex(ual/ist) harassment (AAUW, 1992; Churches, 2017; Eliasson et al., 2007; Kenway et al., 1998; Lahelma, 2002; McCullough, 2017; Thorne, 1993), 2) misrepresentation of girls/womxn in curricular materials (Blumberg, 2008; Galman & Mallozzi, 2015; Hayik, 2016; Miroiu, 2004; Porreca, 1984), and 3) androcentric pedagogy (Gober & Mewborn, 2001; Hofer, 2015; Kelly, 1988; Rosser, 1989; Sunderland, 2000).

Even within the current political moment with movements such as #Metoo and Time’s Up continuing to shed light on the gendered violence permeating every imaginable sphere of the US workforce, P-12 classrooms have been noticeably absent from conversations centered on the damaging implications of sexism and misogyny. Moreover, educational researchers unwittingly, yet problematically, reify patriarchal ontologies in learning spaces as they often describe sexism in schools as “subtle” “elusive” and “implicit” (Bailey, 1992; Chapman, n.d.; Hall & Sandler, 1982). One concerning consequence of this interpretation is the resignation of sexism in schools as difficult to name and disrupt. It follows then that educators feel unsupported and ill-equipped to confront the sexism they bear witness to and perhaps unintentionally perpetuate in their schooling contexts (National Education Union, 2017); it is difficult to conceptualize concrete tools and defined strategies to confront the theoretical and undefinable. This professed ill-preparedness brings into sharper focus not only the rationale, but the urgency to include anti-sexism curricula into teacher education programs and professional developments for in-service teachers. Equipping practitioners with not only the understanding of educational sexism as explicit, but also the tools to navigate and combat this sexism allows for teachers to become more agentive in creating and sustaining anti-sexist and gender equitable learning environments with their students.

This section addresses three strands that together comprise the problem statement: 1) the lack of inclusion of P-12 classrooms in larger, national conversations around misogyny and sexism, 2) educational researchers’ language around sexism in schooling contexts, and 3) the lack of and urgent need for anti-sexism curricula in teacher education programs and professional developments for in-service educators.

Lack of Inclusion of P-12 Classrooms in Larger Conversations around Sexism

As stated above, P-12 schools have been conspicuously left out of the conversation, interrogation, and mobilization centered on gender inequity stemming from current social movements such as #MeToo and Time’s Up. Despite these movements resulting in a heightened consciousness around the violent implications of sexism and misogyny, as well as legal and carceral consequences for some (albeit too few) predators, explicit connections between these violent behaviors/actions and educational sexism have not yet been illuminated and sustained. It is important to name this connection because “harassment is not something that surfaces only when women enter the workforce. It can start much, much earlier” (Churches, 2017, p. 1). Classrooms themselves act as microcosms of society, meaning the socialization of children that too often leads to distorted perceptions of gender roles and positionings are reflected in classrooms (Marshall & Reinhartz, 1997). And more than just merely reflected, the classroom often becomes a context in which these positionings are (re)produced.

This is not to say that school agents themselves are unaware of the sexism that takes place in hallways and classrooms, but rather a permissive attitude toward sex harassment is often employed by educators and administrators (Chapman, n.d.). Bailey (1992) argues that when schools ignore sexist and violent interactions between students, they give an unspoken approval to such behaviors. Ultimately, Bailey claims this tacit approval results in the understanding that not only is it appropriate for boys to exert power over girls (and subaltern boys), but that girls are not worthy of respect. Despite the very clear parallels that can be drawn from these arguments to the conversations being had in the present moment about sexual assault and harassment, schools are neither being interrogated as critical sites of this harassment, nor seen as a crucial piece to this pervasive oppression. In not explicitly connecting the role that schools play in perpetuating sexist and misogynistic ideologies, schools are often overlooked not only as a part of the problem, but also as an integral part of the solution.

Educational Researchers’ Language around Sexism

While sexism and gender bias have been examined in schooling contexts, particularly after the passage of both Title IX (1972) and the Gender Educational Equity Act of 1974 (Blumberg, 2008), much of the foundational educational research focused on gender inequity describe this inequity as “elusive,” “implicit,” “subtle” and part of the “hidden curriculum” (Bailey, 1992; Hall & Sandler, 1982). While this foundational research has paved the way for additional study, inquiry, and interrogation of educational sexism, it has also continued to shape the language used to describe gender inequity.

More contemporary authors’ works reproduce this language (Chapman, n.d.), which then contributes to the understanding of educational sexism as intangible and difficult to explicate. And yet, recent reports such as the National Education Union (2017) demonstrate the unambiguous and explicit forms of gender inequity permeating classrooms and hallways. It seems that characterizing this sexism as implicit thwarts the identification of misogynistic behaviors, and moreover the development of tools and strategies needed for school agents to combat these behaviors and dismantle patriarchal classroom practices.

The Need for Anti-Sexism Curricula

In situating this study within the current political moment—with conversations and litigation centered on violent sexism and misogyny—the urgency to include anti-sexism curricula into teacher education programs and professional developments for in-service teachers is made apparent. Perhaps more accurate...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• A Note to the Readers
• Definition of Terms
• Part One: Conceptualizing the Study
• Part Two: Making Sense of the Study: Findings, Experiences, and Learning
• Appendix
• Index