Eficiencia de canal y eficiencia de trama

Paechter (2000) investigates the gendered nature of the curriculum and she discovered the relationship between gender and curriculum. She points out that some particular knowledge are labelled by gender and among these, knowledge which is signified as masculine has more power. If we are not aware of this issue in building curriculum, the strategies for gender equality cannot be gained. We know that curriculum in school is fundamental to not only our lives but also our next generation because schools educate us through curriculum (Paechter, 2000: 3). This includes the curriculum itself and the hidden curriculum where students learn from activities and interactions in schools. Equal opportunity and anti-sexist initiatives of the hidden curriculum alert us to the role of teacher in the gender socialization in schools through their attitudes and behaviours (Measor and Sikes, 1992: 137); besides, David, Weiner and Arnot (2000: 20) show the pressure of students to wear uniform for their sexes and different disciplines. Certainly, these factors have an affect on formulating the gender identities and gender stereotypes in schools. However, it is just relating to the hidden curriculum; the written curriculum reveals many things to discuss in relation to gender equality. In this study, more concern is given to the written curriculum although the hidden curriculum is important.

England has been assessed as achieving gender parity in education but in fact, subject choices are still affected by gender stereotypes, especially in post-16 education (Arnot and Phipps, 2003). The National Curriculum has resulted in the improvements of both boys and girls in all levels of schooling; girls especially have made such a considerable progress in achievement in compulsory and post-compulsory education (David, Weiner and Arnot, 2000: 25-26). Protests about failing boys have emerged as analysed above and what is sometimes termed a boy-friendly curriculum has been conducted by some schools but there is an argument to suggest that this has actually brought about an exacerbation of gender stereotypes (DCSF, 2009). Looking more closely into the current curriculum, feminists find

many problems in terms of gender equality. Firstly, boys still dominate (Paechter, 2000) and consequently, girls remain marginalized and tend to opt for arts subjects (David, Weiner and Arnot, 2000: 20). Secondly, sex differences in subject choice for 16 post vocational and academic course remains (Arnot and Phipps, 2003: 11). Manthorpe, (1989: 129) thinks the gender problem in knowledge makes girls suffer while studying masculine subjects and boys suffer while studying feminine ones. From that acknowledgement, they come to a very interesting critique of curriculum in terms of science subjects by addressing the relationship between science subjects to the total curriculum of school and argue that science subjects in schools are to train future scientists rather than equipping the specific knowledge of science for all students (Manthorpe, 1989: 128).

From the issues above we may ask what the ideal curriculum might be for both sexes. No one gives the ideal model for the curriculum to assure the gender equality in education, but there have been some suggestions, which the researcher finds useful. From the function of the curriculum that is to make sure that all aspects of the ‘humanness’ of students are developed (Manthorpe, 1989: 129) we can see that if the curriculum makes any of students feel he or she is marginalized, it is a failure. Moreover, there should be a compulsory core curriculum so that no student can opt out of some subjects (Measor and Sikes, 1992: 76; Tatar and Emmanuel, 2001: 215). Whilst the researcher sees the logic of this opinion one must ask if it is helpful if a student has to learn those subjects unwillingly. Paechter (2003) implies to change the amount of time and the specific rooms of some subjects in order to be equal among subjects. Measor and Sikes (1992) drop a hint about the gender equality in content of textbook, language or even the storybooks to ensure equity. Therefore, what we should do perhaps is to create a curriculum attracting both sexes and applying a compulsory core curriculum as Measor and Sikes (1992) suggest. That curriculum should be gender equal in content as well as the picture and any metaphors inside.

It is notable that Vietnam suffers from some of the same issues found in the literature as England and gender bias is to be found in many school textbooks (Ngo, 2007). In Vietnam, the curriculum is written and released by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET, 2009). Every school has to use this compulsory curriculum without any changes in the time or the amount of knowledge. If they wish to adjust something in the curriculum to be suitable with the school context, they have to ask for the permission from the local educational authorities (MOET, 2009). Schools have their rights in choice of advanced or basic school

textbooks written by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET, 2009). Students can choose subjects for vocational subjects taught in schools whilst learning other subjects in the compulsory curriculum (MOET, 2009).

The Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training has been amending school textbooks and teaching material for many years with one of the targets to change or improve the gender stereotyping. Nevertheless, in her research, Ngo points out the continuing gender bias in the textbooks for high school students (Ngo, 2007). For example, in twelfth-grade literature textbooks, images of males show boys as open, positive and highly intellectual. In contrast, the few women who are represented are shown as having a low position or being dependant and being oppressed (Ngo, 2007: 199). This is also observable in other subjects such as biology, geography and civics (Ngo, 2007: 201). They reflect the stereotyped metaphor of girls to become wives, mothers and housewives. She then concludes that most of the knowledge has been filtered, edited and written through the lens of males or have been based on the ‘respect males’ standard and somehow that diminishes the role of females in the contribution for knowledge. Even people who write the school textbooks are affected by gender stereotypes and the socialization and the result is that many aspects of education are embedded in the gendered orientation of students and the expectation about the behaviours of each sex (Ngo, 2007: 203).

Explaining this situation, Ngo (2007) asserts that it is the influence of history and culture, which means that school textbooks have been written without awareness of gender or positive language to solve the gender problem, especially its roots or the way gender inequality forms, circulates, is popularised and remains through schools and the media. From that point, she suggests that the ways to counteract these problems are to provide handbooks for educational managers, editors, and teachers so they can discover the gender bias embedded in school textbooks, which are perceived as normal. The researcher believes that this suggestion can partly solve the problem of gender stereotyping in the curriculum of Vietnam because the main root lies in the society and the viewpoint of individuals. If such approaches can be incorporated with attempt to address other factors in the society through revised government policy, a revision of media approaches, and a new gender- neutral curriculum the results should be much better.

Therefore, curriculum policy is fundamental to life chances and the fulfilment of individual aspirations and we must applaud the developments in England, the UK and other Western

nations in addressing equality issues. However, despite gaining some significant improvements, the curriculum in England is still problematic and we must note that gender and curriculum has a fundamental set of interconnections (Paechter, 2003) within which some subjects in the curriculum are labelled as masculine, whilst others continue to be perceived as feminine in orientation (Paechter, 2000: 30).