PRIMA TOTAL ANUAL HOMBRE MUJER

To explore the issues around academically able boys’ lower performance compared to girls in this doctoral study, the key question is in what ways does gender impact on learning in the academic learning setting which in this and most schools is the ‘classroom’. The school in question and the other schools used in this study are co-educational and so

accommodate both boys and girls at all stages. Pupils in these schools are not segregated by gender into separate classes.

There are three areas that were explored: identity and how the classroom environment impacts on a pupil’s learner identity; the relational impact of others: peers and teachers; and views on classroom policy and pedagogical practices to impact positively on boys in the classroom setting.

3.5.1 Identity and the classroom

The previous section has detailed the importance of gender identity and how this is

contested. Gender identity has implications for young people and their lived-experiences in the classroom. If the stance of Butler (1988) is considered (of gender being ‘performative’ and gender constructed through how individuals navigate their day-to-day practices) this begins to explain how young people navigate the complexity of the classroom

environment. Gender is displayed in the way young people dress, and in their communication (Butler, 1988).This can change depending on the activities they are engaged in or on the setting. It is the “stylised repetition” of gendered practices that is performed (Butler, 1988: 519). Therefore, gender becomes embodied.

It is important to recognise that not all boys act in the same way and this can depend on the environment. Studies highlighted in Skelton and Francis (2009) describe how boys behave to navigate the school environment: many developing behaviours that are contrary to the

school discipline. The tensions that can arise between being a boy and achieving were identified: the tension between the demands of being a boy and on conforming as a pupil with deference: not attention seeking and working hard, which is suggested is the opposite expected of the ‘typical’ boy. However, Skelton and Francis (2009) emphasise that this does not apply to all boys. This need to be a boy has implications for learning and achievement and is strongly influenced by their peers around them in a learning setting. 3.5.2 Relationality

Classroom environments by their nature involve others: peers and teachers. The research suggests that peers have a strong influence. There is a pressure on boys to conform through the influence of the dominant masculinity, which demonstrates the power that boys have over each other (Connell, 1995). This power is often ‘seductive’ and ‘coercive’ (Skelton and Francis, 2009). Skelton and Francis (2009: 114), using the work of several researchers, concluded that “constructions of masculinity are produced in opposition to femininity (and vice versa)” and gender difference persists in the classroom. ‘Laddish’ behaviour that manifests in ‘having a laugh’ and opposing authority is disruptive for all who are trying to learn as well as those displaying this type of behaviour: but also runs contrary to the expected behaviour conducive for learning. This has previously been seen as the province of the working class boy (Jackson and Salisbury, 1996; Willis, 1997; Jackson, 2002a). However, Martino (1999) suggests that this is no longer just the province of the working class but is also exhibited by middle class boys.

Martino (1999) stated that high achieving, middle class boys in the classroom setting were unwilling to contribute in class to preserve their masculinity. In Martino’s research the high achieving boy tended to display the same characteristics as the underachieving boy. This tendency appears to be more prevalent in the compulsory years of schooling. It is expected from peers that boys will have a strong focus on for example sport but not on schoolwork. However, it appears that once a boy moves to the sixth year in senior school, it is acceptable to be considered as being diligent academically and doing well (Epstein, 1998). (Epstein’s was a study carried out in England). This is explained as “hegemonic, middle-class masculinity” (Epstein, 1998: 103). Epstein goes on to discuss that

professional middle-class men, who work hard, are considered more masculine and there is a competitive element to this characteristic. This shift from being competitive in for

Achievement is a function of engagement in class and is dependent on perceived ability (Duffield et al., 2000; Myhill, 2002). Forde (2008) discussed how achieving girls exhibited positive engagement and good behaviour throughout their school career but high achieving boys varied in their level of engagement and participation. Boys who are not sure of themselves and feel a sense of vulnerability will work to seek approval of peers and this can exhibit as not seeing academic standing as important (Jackson, 1998: 89; Power, et al.,1998). The study by Whitelaw et al. (2000) agrees with this conclusion. They found differences in behaviour and attitudes to academic study between girls and boys, with girls being more accepting or compliant and conforming to the school norms. However, it could be argued that girls have a greater awareness of their position and are more able to

navigate the positioning of being academically able as well as navigating their social sphere with both peers and adults. Boys appear to take longer to understand that they can be successful academically and be popular with peers. Boys seem to want to do well academically but their concern about being ostracised is overriding. The 'coolness' and 'poor behaviour' run counter to working for academic success. However, Skelton (2010) gives a similar conclusion for girls where she suggests that girls considered high achieving are concerned about performing well but also their relationships with others in the class. In contrast, there have been several studies looking at both academically able boys and girls and how they navigate the gender landscape successfully. Jackson (1998) found some academically able boys are able to achieve without appearing to work. Some have a ‘‘cool’ cleverness image’ that gives them the opportunity to work without being teased by others (Bleach, 1996, cited in Jackson, 1998). Francis (2010) in her study considered the

construction of gender and gendered behaviour for groups of high achieving pupils in nine schools in England, using a mix of gender, socio economic background, ethnicity and popularity. They sought to interrogate gender monoglossia and heteroglossia using the empirical evidence.Heteroglossia was overtly evident in a number of cases. It was noted with interest that high achieving boys and girls were more ‘monological’ in how they acted out their gender. This was considered to cover up underlying heteroglossia of their

gendered behaviour.As explained in Francis (2010: 479)

Bakhtin (1981) argues that language is never neutral, but rather reflects and constructs power relations. He uses the term ‘monoglossia’ to refer to dominant forms of language representing the world-view/interests of dominant social groups, which are positioned or imposed as unitary and total. However, for Bakhtin language is never static or fixed, but is rather diverse, with different meanings and readings constantly jostling in assertions or subversions as subjects use language in different ways. Hence while at the macro-linguistic level there

may appear to be stability, at the micro level there is fluidity, contradiction and resistance: heteroglossia. Bakhtin explains: Unitary language constitutes the theoretical expression of the historical processes of linguistic unification and centralisation, an expression of the centripetal forces of language. A unitary language is not something given but is always in essence posited – and at every moment of its linguistic life it is opposed to the realities of heteroglossia (1981, 270).

This concurs with the work of Martino (1999), Skelton (2001), Swain (2002), Jackson (2006), Francis (2010) and Skelton and Francis (2012). Francis (2010) found that

academic boys who were popular in a masculine activity, for example football, had status and this allowed them to be academic without affecting their masculine gendered

identity. Equally, successful girls were found to exhibit similar characteristics, showing traits associated stereotypically with males, being confident and competitive. Forde (2008) also cites that boys can be able and exhibit non-hegemonic behaviour and be accepted by their peers.

Hence gender heteroglossia operates within the individual gender ‘attributes’, as well as within individual performances, and more broadly within the whole (apparently monoglossic) system of gender (Francis, 2010: 488).

Skelton and Francis (2012) considered high achieving pupils in the context of the

‘Renaissance Child’. (This expression used by Skelton and Francis is attributed to Vincent and Ball (2006) in their book Child-care, Choice and Class Practices.) Their conclusions suggest that boys are able to exhibit ‘Renaissance Masculinity’, that is boys being able to develop the breadth that is the ‘Renaissance Child’ and declare their interest in subjects such as English, which could be considered feminine, and still be popular amongst peers. ‘Renaissance Masculinity’ with the eclectic skills and qualities that this brings is

considered to be important for future career prospects. These researchers did not see the same opportunities for girls to be so overt in their choices for fear of risking their positioning amongst peers.

Where a boy, or indeed a girl, is not popular there appears to be more of a challenge in how they navigate the gendered environment, particularly with peers. Mendick and Francis (2012) discuss the ‘geek’ or ‘boffin’, acknowledging that not all high achieving pupils are labelled ‘boffins’. There is some debate between Mendick and Francis of the positioning of the ‘geek/boffin’. Francis describes the boffin as abject: ‘cast out’ by the peer group

because of the way they behave as a geek. This was found to be true in a variety of schools with different characteristics. This was seen as the dominant culture. This leads to others modifying their behaviour to avoid the impact of being seen as a boffin. There is therefore

a conflict between aspiration to achieve and acceptance socially by peers (Francis, 2009). Mendick, whose study is focused on mathematics undergraduates in tertiary education, gives a different perspective on the boffin when she describes the privileging of boffins as they gain qualifications being seen favourably by teachers, as well as gaining status beyond schools as belonging to a ‘nerd’ culture. Mendick also maintains that the

characteristic of ‘nerdiness’ has become popular in the media. However, Francis asserts “the sexuality of boffin girls and boys tends to be pathologised by peers as homosexual in the case of boys and asexual in the case of girls” (p.18). The agency or ‘ownership’ is also dependent on context and culture and stage: school/post school contexts. The findings suggest there is still the sense of boffins in schools feeling and being isolated by peers. Shaping a culture of aspiration and ambition could counter this boffin identity as being negative (Mendick and Francis, 2012). Francis makes the claim that teachers can reinforce this concept by their behaviour in focusing on ‘popular’ pupils, not wishing to be paying particular attention to boffins, and actively distancing themselves.

Teachers have an important influence on gender and gendered responses. Reed (2006) discusses the significance teachers’ responses have to gender through their interactions with young people, “the way in which classroom processes are active in the construction of and sustenance of this.” Reed recounts from her work how teachers can have difficulty working with boys. “Models of how to work in an emancipatory way with girls do not easily transfer across the gender divide” (p. 44).

Skelton and Francis (2009: 118) drawing from a large number of studies conclude that how masculinity is constructed, which has been shown to be important in a secondary school setting, could be having a negative impact on school performance and be impacting on not just those boys who are exhibiting this type of hegemonic masculinity but also on others, and is arising from the “relational constructions”, and suggest it is one of the reasons for the “gender gap” in attainment.

3.5.3 Classroom policy and feminist solutions

With the crisis of masculinity discussed earlier in this chapter the response was ‘re- masculinisation’, to redress the balance of what had been seen as feminisation of schools and schooling. However, this response did not acknowledge the complexity of gender and gender identity: diversity of masculinities (Epstein 1998; Davison and Frank, 2006) and the complex interplay of gender and schooling (Simpson, 1996).

Policy that highlights the importance of considering young people as individuals rather than by gender, and the restrictions that can exist for young people if gender is considered simply as either feminine or masculine, is a positive step to meeting the needs of all (Davison and Frank, 2006). However, this raises some challenges. Kenway (2004, cited in Forde, 2008) raises the question of how this poststructuralist view of gender identities can be considered in a school in addressing the needs of young people, whilst at the same time providing a structured, practical curriculum.

Forde (2014) in her critique of addressing gender in the classroom discusses three different pedagogical responses: gender ‘neutrality’, gender ‘sensitivity’ and gender ‘friendliness’. As Forde explains, to have a gender neutral environment is where gender plays no part, with the assumption that gender is not recognised as a factor in the lived experiences of young people in a classroom setting. The previous two sections would suggest that young people do live in theclassroom with gender being part of their lives as learners. It also ignores the power relations that exist arising from hegemonic masculinity. The ‘female’ or gender friendly environment is suggesting that one gender is set against the other. Liberal feminists focused on a girl friendly approach with equal access to all areas of the

curriculum and removing gender bias in pedagogy and the curriculum, with a strong focus on equal opportunities. This was in contrast to radical feminists who were more concerned with how girls were treated and their outcomes and how these were influenced by social structures. This resulted in a girl centred approach. The direction of these feminists was to challenge patriarchy in the system and focusing more on oppression of girls and women than equal opportunities (Skelton and Francis, 2009).

In contrast, a gender sensitive environment has been considered by some, for example Davies (1997) with the development of pedagogies that do not focus on gender difference, with pupils treated as individuals with individual needs and desires, as well as recognition and valuing difference (Skelton and Francis, 2009). To have this gender sensitive

environment is one where gender is considered in practice and interactions, where relevant, but with the cautionary note to have an awareness of not having gender duality and

stereotypical responses, reinforcing gender difference. Mendick (2005: 218) raises the issue of consideration being given to pedagogy, with gender sensitive classrooms to engage both boys and girls with the variety of gender identities that exist. Scantlebury et al. (1996) also illustrate the positive impact of teachers using this gender sensitive approach, and with their interaction in classrooms. However, it must be stressed again that this is not all boys and all girls. Considering individuals is important and boys and girls should not be seen as

homogeneous groups.Forde (2014: 375) concludes

This construction of gender in a gender-sensitive approach places the

audience/reader in a critical role. Thus, in a classroom, teachers and students can begin to appreciate both the possibility of multiplicity in behaviours and attitudes while at the same time understand the operation of hegemonic discourses including those that underpin policy, curricula and pedagogy which reify narrow definitions of gender appropriateness.