33. Gender and Education
Paper
LGBTIQ+ Wellness in Compulsory Schools in Rural Areas
Bergljót Þrastardóttir
University of Akureyri, Iceland
Presenting Author: Þrastardóttir, Bergljót
Schools exert pressure to conform with heterosexual and heteronormative understandings of gender by reinforcing and sustaining categories of gender identity that marginalise students who do not fit into the heterosexual matrix (Allard, 2004; Cushman, 2012; Kjaran, 2017; Pascoe, 2007; Sveinbjörnsdóttir et al., 2010; Woolley, 2017). Schools as regulative institutions thus contribute to the construction of gender and sexuality, often limiting the practices and performances of gender and/or sexuality available to subjects. By performing gender and/or sexuality outside of the intelligible norms, subjects risk becoming unintelligible to the codes of their social system, which then can reduce their expectations of living a liveable life (Butler, 2004). As Butler (1990) has argued, intelligibility is connected to the concept of liveability, which is assigned to those who adopt dominant gender norms and pursue life within the frame of the heterosexual matrix. Excluding the possibility of different sexualities and gender performativities and upholding heteronormative institutional values can lay the foundation for homophobic attitudes and marginalises students who do not align with the gender script.
Schools as highly gendered institutions where the ideology of gender as a binary category is strong and persistent (Bragg et al. 2018), reflect and recreate the gender binary in societies (Jones et al., 2020). Most schools practice binary gender segregation reflected in official documents, gendered school uniforms, and gender-segregated facilities such as toilets and changing rooms (Davies et al., 2019). Students are divided into gendered study groups, spaces are gender divided and various school practices (Kjaran, 2017; Mayeza, 2015; Menzies & Santoro, 2017; Paechter 2007). Non-binary students tend to become invisible beings as they are non-existent in the binary institutions. At the same time, they are visible due to their un-categorisability (Paechter et al., 2021). The binary understanding of gender has been persistent but is being resisted with reference to multiple gender performativities, sexual orientations, gender expressions, and more.
While Nordic countries have been recognized as progressive in promoting legislation and welfare to improve LGBTQI+ rights, there has been some regression with increasing hate speech, prejudice and violence in the school environment.
In Iceland increased discussion about the wellbeing of LGBTQI+ students followed findings of a national survey conducted among teenagers, based on GLSEN national school climate survey. Findings suggested that queer youth’s well-being was significantly worse than their non-queer peers (Samtökin 78, 2020). In the spring of 2022, news about trans and non-binary teenagers being cruelly bullied appeared on national television. The teenagers spoke to reporters about their insecurities and how difficult it is to be different in the compulsory school environment (Ragnarsdóttir, 2022). The survey and the experience of teenagers repeatedly under attacks surely calls for schools to be responsible for questioning and troubling the understanding of gender as binary and interfering in prejudice discourses when they appear in schools. Research has shown that a gender binary environment at school results in anxiety among non-binary students, affecting their school attendance and quality of life (Jones et al., 2019). Students should be aided in standing against or questioning the understanding of gender as binary in school regimes, giving them discursive space and insurance to contribute to and transform their environments for the better for all students. In addition, compulsory schools should provide students with gender and sexuality education and thus comply with their duties according to the Icelandic Gender Equality Act.
In this paper I ask how teachers experience their school environment regarding the safety and well-being of LGBTQI+ students and how the school environment, school practices and social relations can promote or add to their well-ness and safety.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFollowing a small survey sent to 19 compulsory schools (6-16y) in rural areas in Iceland interviews were conducted with 12 teachers working in some of these schools. The survey consisted of 30 multiple choice questions with the possibility to write short answers. Questions were about teachers´ school environment, school practices, study material and students´ relations during recess in connection to LGBTQI+ students and issues. The purpose of the interviews was to deepen the knowledge provided by the findings of the survey and ask teachers to reflect on school practices in relation to LGBTQI+ students and discuss possible practices that would promote their well-ness and security. The interviews took place on Teams and in spaces that the teachers preferred to meet with the researcher. Each interview lasted from 50–70 minutes. The interview transcripts were read several times. Notations were written, and texts were coded using an inductive approach. The first coding was open and focused on getting to know the participants’ ideas and experiences. The codes were assembled to identify repeated patterns of meaning across the data (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The teachers’ narratives were continually compared to attain conformation of their accounts and reduce possible limitations of the study in line with social construction of validity (Kvale, 1994). In the presentation, gender is seen as a social construction, as humans are actively performing gender and at the same time schools are seen as vibrant spaces and agents constructed in social relations, space and time and thus always in the process of being made (Massey, 2005).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsMain findings from the interview data indicate that schools support heteronormative understanding of sex and gender without applying the recent counter-actions in society in terms of the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals. This results in certain gender roles applied to students within a traditional gender hierarchy and lack of transformative school practices that would increase security and the well-ness of LGBTQI+ children and teenagers. The schools react positively to instances where LGBTQI+ students begin in school and information is provided from NGOs but further specialist guidance to students and their families is lacking in the schools . The findings further indicate that schools are powerful spaces when it comes to supporting gender inequalities and the necessity to prepare teachers and urge schools to provide gender and queer education.
ReferencesAllard, Andrea C. (2004). Speaking of gender: Teachers’ metaphorical constructs of male and female students. Gender and Education, 16(3), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250042000251489
Braun, Virginia, & Clarke, Victoria. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
Butler, Judith. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminisms and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Butler, Judith. (2004). Undoing gender. Routledge.
Bragg, Sara, Renold, Emma, Ringrose, Jessica, & Jackson, Carolyn (2018). ‘More than boy, girl, male, female’: exploring young people’s views on gender diversity within and beyond school contexts. Sex Education, 18(4), 420–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1439373
Cushman, Penni. (2012). “You’re not a teacher, you’re a man”: The need for a greater focus on gender studies in teacher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.516774
Jones, Bethany, A., Bauman, Walter Pierre, Haycraft, Emma, & Arcelus, Jon. (2019). Mental health and quality of life in non-binary transgender adults: A case control study. International Journal of Transgenderism 20(2–3), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2019.1630346
Kjaran, Jón Ingvar. (2017). Constructing sexualities and gendered bodies in school spaces: Nordic insights on queer and transgender students. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kvale, Steinar. (1994). Validation as communication and action: On the social construction of validity. Paper presented at meeting of the AERA in New- Orleans
Massey, Doreen. 2005. For Space. London: Sage.
Mayeza, Emmanuel. (2015). Exclusionary violence and bullying in the playground: Football and gender ‘policing’ at school. Journal of Injury and Violence Prevention, 13(1), 49–70. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC178542
Menzies, Fiona G., & Santoro, Ninetta. (2017). “Doing” gender in a rural Scottish secondary school: An ethnographic study of classroom interactions. Ethnography and Education, 13(4), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2017.1351386
Paechter, Carrie, Toft, Alex, & Carlile, Anna. (2021). Non-binary young people and schools: Pedagogical insights from a small-scale interview study. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 29(5), 695–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1912160
Pascoe, Cheri Jo. (2007). “Dude, you’re a fag”: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. University of California Press.
Ragnarsdóttir, Sólveig Klara. (2022, 25. May). „Segja okkur að hengja okkur og drepa okkur“ [“Tell us to hang us and kill us”]. RÚV. https://www.ruv.is/frettir/innlent/2022-05-25-segja-okkur-ad-hengja-okkur-og- drepa-okkur
Samtökin 78 [The National Queer Organisation of Iceland]. (2020). The 2017 Iceland National School Climate Survey Report. The Author. https://k3r6k4a9.rocketcdn.me/wp- content/uploads/2020/08/Skolakonnun_GLSEN_FINAL.pdf
Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Sigrún, Bjarnason, Þóroddur, Arnarsson, Ársæll M., & Hjálmsdóttir, Andrea. (2010). The happiness of queer teenagers in 10th grade. The Icelandic Psychological Association Journal 15, 23–36.
Woolley, Susan, W. (2017). Contesting silence, claiming space: Gender and sexuality in the neo-liberal public high school. Gender and Education, 29(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1197384
33. Gender and Education
Paper
Longitudinal Relationships Between Ability Grouping, Subject Liking and Academic Self-concept: An Irish National Study of Primary Schooling
Seaneen Sloan1, Dympna Devine1, Olga Ioannidou1, Jennifer Symonds1,2, Gabriela Martinez Sainz1, Aisling Davies1
1University College Dublin, Ireland; 2University College London, UK
Presenting Author: Sloan, Seaneen;
Ioannidou, Olga
Children in primary schools in Ireland are often placed in within-class ‘ability’ groups (Sloan et al., 2021), despite well-documented issues with this as a pedagogical approach (Francis et al., 2016). Recent studies have considered the longitudinal impact of ability grouping in UK samples at both primary (e.g., Boliver & Capsada-Munsech, 2021; Papachristou et al., 2022) and secondary levels (e.g., Francis et al., 2020; Hodgen et al., 2023), however similar evidence within the Irish context is lacking. Research with Irish primary school children through in-depth qualitative case studies has documented how ability grouping shaped children’s interactions and peer networks (McGillicuddy, 2021), with children in high ability groups attaining a higher social status. Longitudinal studies within the UK have shown that children placed in lower ability groups at age 7 years are less likely than their peers in high ability groups to enjoy maths at age 7 or 11 years, after controlling for maths ability at age 7, sex and social class (Bolvier & Capsada-Munsech, 2021). Other longitudinal studies, again, set within the UK context, have suggested a causal link between ability grouping and academic self-concept (Campbell, 2021) and emotional and behavioural problems (Papachristou et al., 2022), factors which are also associated with poorer academic outcomes. Taken together, these findings suggests that ability grouping practices may perpetuate social inequalities in education through an impact on a range of outcomes associated with school success. Building on the existing research conducted primarily outside of the Irish context, the current analysis seeks to explore, for the first time, longitudinal associations between ability grouping in reading and maths in an Irish primary school sample. Further, given the mixed empirical findings of evidence of gender differences in misallocation to ability groups (Muijs & Dunne, 2010; Connolly et al., 2019) and gender differences in relation to school engagement, academic self-concept and subject liking, we explored whether gender as a potential moderator in relationships between ability grouping and outcomes.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper draws on data collected over two waves of a national, longitudinal cohort study of primary education in Ireland, the Children’s School Lives (CSL) study (Devine et al., 2020). CSL involves approximately 200 schools and follows 4,000 children, their teachers, school principals, and families. This mixed methods study captures data annually using quantitative surveys, classroom observations, and case study qualitative approaches. The study involves two distinct cohorts: Cohort A followed children for 4 annual waves of data collection, from their first year in primary school (Junior Infants class; age 4-5 years) until to 2nd class (age 8-9 years). Cohort B followed children for 5 annual waves of data collection from 2nd class (age 8-9 years) until the final year in primary school, 6th class.
The current analysis focuses on ability grouping practices within Cohort B. For both cohorts, the first wave of data collection began in 2019 which means that the 2020 wave of data collection were impacted by Covid-19 school closures. For this reason, the current analysis focuses on two waves of data from Cohort B: wave 3 (Spring 2021) and wave 4 (Spring 2022). Wave 3 involved 99 primary schools, recruited following stratified random sampled from a national database to reflect the school population in relation to school size, designated disadvantaged status, and school gender mix. Teachers reported their use of ability grouping for reading and for maths, and in classes where ability grouping was used, teachers reported whether each child was in a low, middle or high ability group. Other variables were measured using child report through a self-completed questionnaire administered by trained fieldworkers on a whole class basis. Questionnaires consisted of validated measures, selected following a review of the literature.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAt wave 3, for reading, 10% of the sample were not taught in ability groups, with a similar proportion not taught in ability groups for maths (11%). For reading, 34% of the sample were placed in high ability groups, 37% in middle ability groups, and 19% in low ability groups. The proportions were similar for maths, with 31% in high ability groups, 40% in middle ability groups, and 18% in low ability groups. There was a high level of consistency between ability group placements across subjects, with 72% to 74% of those in the low, middle or high ability group for reading also in the same ability group for maths.
Analysis is currently underway using multilevel linear regression to account for the clustered nature of the data (children within schools). These models will assess the relationship between ability group status in wave 3 and change in a number of outcomes over time including: child academic self-concept, school engagement, school belonging, subject interest.
Preliminary analysis to date suggests that overall, children in middle and low ability groups for maths at wave 3 have significantly lower interest in maths at wave 4, while for reading, a significant difference was only found for children in low ability groups. After controlling for subject interest at wave 3, this pattern remained for maths, but not for reading. When the models were split by gender, girls in low ability groups had significantly lower liking for reading in wave 4, however there was no difference between boys by ability group status. For math, boys in low ability groups, and girls in both low and middle ability groups, had lower liking in wave 4.
ReferencesBoliver & Capsada-Munsech, 2021 Does ability grouping affect UK primary school pupils’ enjoyment of Maths and English? Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 76, 100629.
Campbell, 2021. In-class ‘ability’-grouping, teacher judgements and children’s mathematics self-concept: evidence from primary-aged girls and boys in the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(5).
Connolly et al., 2019. The misallocation of students to academic sets in maths: A study of secondary schools in England. British Educational Research Journal, 45(4). 873-897.
Francis et al., (2017). Attainment Grouping as self-fulfilling prophesy? A mixed methods exploration of self confidence and set level among Year 7 students. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 96-108.
Francis et al., (2020). The impact of tracking by attainment on pupil self-confidence over time: demonstrating the accumulative impact of self-fulfilling prophecy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(5).
Hodgen et al., (2023). The achievement gap: The impact of between-class attainment grouping on pupil attainment and educational equity over time. British Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 209-230.
McGillicuddy, 2021. “They would make you feel stupid” - Ability grouping, Children’s friendships and psychosocial Wellbeing in Irish primary school. Learning and Instruction, 75, 101492.
Muijs & Dunne, (2010). Setting by ability – or is it? A quantitative study of determinants of set placement in English secondary schools. Educational Research, 52(4), 391-407.
Papachristou et al., (2022). Ability-grouping and problem behavior trajectories in childhood and adolescence: Results from a U.K. population-based sample. Child Development, 93(2), 341-358.
Sloan, S., Devine, D., Martinez Sainz, G., Symonds, J. E., Crean, M., Moore, B., Davies, A., Farrell, E., Farrell, J., Blue, T., Tobin, E. & Hogan, J. (2021). Children’s School Lives in Junior Infants, Report No.3. University College Dublin. https://cslstudy.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CSL_Annual-Report-_30.11.21.pdf
|
