Strasbourg, 23 March 2001

EG/ED (2000) 13


“A new social contract between women and men: the role of education”

organised jointly by the Steering Committee for equality between women and men (CDEG) and the Education Committee (CC-ED)

Palais de l’Europe (Room 2) Strasbourg 7-8 December 2000


TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.................................................................................................................................7 Opening address by Mr Hanno Hartig Head of Media and Equality Department, Directorate General of Human Rights.....................8 Valuing equality and diversity Co-education for a better integrated society: the challenges of an education designed to achieve gender equality - report by Ms Teresa PINTO (Portugal)...........................................10 Valuing equality and diversity - report by Ms Elena PRUS (Moldova)...................................24 Building new identities Teachers' behaviour and building pupils' identities - report by Prof Dr Agnes DE MUNTER (Belgium)..................................................................................................................................29 Sex-based harassment in schools - taken for granted or a pedagogical challenge? - report by Ms Elina LAHELMA (Finland)................................................................................................36 Issues of gender (in)equality in research in Hungary - report by Ms Annamaria DUDIK (Hungary)..................................................................................................................................44 Promoting democratic citizenship Promoting Democratic Citizenship - report by Ms Mihaela MIROIU (Romania)...................49 The role of schools - report by Prof Dr Carol HAGEMANN-WHITE (Germany)..................59 Reports of the Working Groups................................................................................................65 Conclusion by Ms Isabel ROMÃO (Portugal), General Rapporteur........................................73 Appendix Programme................................................................................................................................88 List of participants....................................................................................................................90

The Council of Europe The Council of Europe is a political organisation which was founded on 5 May 1949 by ten European countries in order to promote greater unity between its members. It now numbers 43 European states.1 The main aims of the Organisation are to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and to develop common responses to political, social, cultural and legal challenges in its member states. Since 1989 it has integrated most of the countries of central and eastern Europe and supported them in their efforts to implement and consolidate their political, legal and administrative reforms. The Council of Europe has its permanent headquarters in Strasbourg (France). By Statute, it has two constituent organs: the Committee of Ministers, composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the 43 member states, and the Parliamentary Assembly, comprising delegations from the 43 national parliaments. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe represents the entities of local and regional self-government within the member states. The European Court of Human Rights is the judicial body competent to adjudicate complaints brought against a state by individuals, associations or other contracting states on grounds of violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council of Europe and Equality between Women and Men The promotion of equality between women and men, seen as a fundamental human right, is the responsibility of the Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CDEG). The experts who form the Committee (one from each member State) are entrusted with the task of promoting co-operation between member States and stimulating action at the national level, as well as within the Council of Europe, to achieve effective equality between women and men. To this end, the CDEG carries out analyses, studies and evaluations, proposes practical instruments, organises projects, defines strategies and political measures, and, where necessary, frames the appropriate legal instruments. For further information on activities concerning equality between women and men, you may contact: Division Equality between Women and Men Directorate General of Human Rights Council of Europe, 67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 88 41 23 39; Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 36


Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaidjan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

4 The Council of Europe and Education The European Cultural Convention establishes the framework for the Council of Europe’s work on education, culture, heritage, sport and youth. To date, 47 European States have acceded to it and take part in the Council’s work on these subjects (the 43 member States of the Council of Europe, as well as Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Holy See, Monaco). The Council of Europe’s programmes on education and culture are managed by the Council of Cultural Co-operation (CDCC). It is assisted by four specialised committees on education, higher education and research, culture, and the cultural heritage. The Council organises major projects on school, higher and adult education; pools ideas, experience and research; promotes links and exchanges and develops new partnerships and networks; publishes practical studies and handbooks for policy-makers and educators; co-operates with other European institutions and non-governmental organisations. For further information on activities concerning education, you may contact: Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education Directorate General of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, Environment Council of Europe, 67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 88 41 26 29; Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 06/27 88

5 INTRODUCTION For some years, the Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CDEG) of the Council of Europe has pointed out that there is a need to take stock of the situation concerning gender equality in the context of education. Policies in this field were often initiated in the seventies. These may no longer be adequate, especially when taking into consideration that society has changed considerably. The main problems identified twenty or thirty years ago may no longer be relevant today, whereas new issues worth considering have appeared. The European Ministers responsible for equality between women and men, meeting in Istanbul in November 1997, recommended that the CDEG and the Education Committee of the Council for Cultural co-operation join forces to promote gender equality education and non-stereotyped education at all levels of the education system. A number of strategies were also proposed to governments in the field of training and education in order to promote equality in a democratic society. In 1997, the CDEG set up a Group of Specialists on future priorities, strategies and working methods in the field of equality between women and men. The group looked into a number of selected areas and gave examples of achievements, obstacles and innovative strategies. One of the areas chosen was education and the group particularly recommended the setting up of a group of experts on education and equality between women and men. The Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education has broached the subject of gender equality in education in the past, and certain projects have contained aspects dealing with gender equality, for instance “Learning and teaching the history of Europe in the 20th century in secondary schools” and “Education for democratic citizenship”. The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly has also acknowledged the importance of gender equality in education and adopted a recommendation on this subject in 1995 (Recommendation 1281 (1995) on gender equality in education). Following information contacts between the CDEG and the Education Committee, a small group of experts met for the first time in September 1999 to discuss what form a joint activity could take. It was agreed that, as a first step, a restricted working seminar should be organised, which would provide an opportunity to have in-depth discussions, stimulate public debate, propose recommendations for policy-makers and identify future activities in the field that could be undertaken by both Committees. The main aim of the seminar was to take stock of the situation as regards equality at school and the changes in the overall context it belongs to. For two days, some 35 experts discussed questions such as valuing equality and diversity, building new identities and promoting democratic citizenship. On the basis of this stock-taking, the seminar reached conclusions on proposals for future action for policies in this field. The Seminar will be followed up in the near future by the setting-up of a group of experts on gender mainstreaming in schools.

6 Opening address by Mr Hanno Hartig Head of the Media and Equality Department Directorate General of Human Rights Ladies and gentlemen, It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the Council of Europe today. Over the next two days, you are going to discuss two subjects that are closely interlinked and whose importance deserves underlining: equality between women and men, and education. At the Council of Europe, the two subjects are dealt with by two separate committees, the Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CDEG) and the Education Committee. Aware of the importance of education issues, the CDEG, for its part, has already begun looking at the subject. It did so at the highest level, at the European Ministerial Conference on Equality between Women and Men in Istanbul in 1997. The ministers stressed the need to develop gender equality education and non-stereotyped education at all levels. It is essential to create an environment in which both girls and boys can develop their full potential from the earliest age. More recently, at the end of October this year, the Equality Division organised an information forum on national policies in the field of equality between women and men, which looked more particularly at the human rights of girls and young women. During the discussions of the four specific themes covered – violence, sex education, socialisation and participation in society – the role played by the education system and teachers was constantly underlined. I urge you most strongly to examine the conclusions of the forum, which are available here in the meeting room, and to take as much account as possible of them during your discussions. You also have at your disposal a report published by the CDEG on future priorities for equality between women and men, which includes a chapter on education and looks at outcomes, obstacles and innovative strategies in this area. I am very pleased that the committees responsible for equality and education have decided to join forces to take stock of the situation of gender equality in the context of education. Policies in this area are often old and the significant and rapid changes taking place in European societies mean that the time has come to look at them again and consider their relevance at the dawn of the third millennium. The equal right of both sexes to education is now enshrined in legislation throughout Europe. It is also generally acknowledged that attitudes, social conditions and cultural pressures often pose obstacles to equality and that the education system must promote the positive acceptance of equal opportunities. Overall, girls now achieve the same education levels as boys, and in many countries they actually significantly outperform their male counterparts. Why, however, are these results not visible on the employment market? It has to be said that the subjects leading to highly paid and prestigious professions with good prospects for advancement are still male preserves. Those are some of the key issues you will be asked to consider over the next two days. The discussions will be organised around three sub-themes, which will be examined by working

7 groups. The first stage will be to look at the issues from the viewpoint of teachers and ask what role they can play. To what extent can they encourage not only the educational success but also the personal fulfilment of both girls and boys? It will then be necessary to consider the issues from the point of view of young people in schools: what kind of relationships do they have with their schools, their families and the community? How are the different demands placed on the two sexes dealt with? Lastly, the issues will have to be considered from an overall perspective, from the angle of contributions to democratic citizenship, future developments and educational culture. In order to have in-depth discussions and stimulate debate, we decided to limit the number of people taking part in the seminar. The aim is to exchange ideas and thoughts and have informal yet concrete discussions. You are here as experts in the fields of equality and education, and you are asked to take stock of the issue of equality in schools, put forward recommendations and identify activities that the two committees could undertake in this area in future. We plan to follow up your discussions with practical action: a Group of Specialists on equality and education will be set up in 2001 as part of the work programme of the Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men. The CDEG will take account of your conclusions and recommendations when deciding the terms of reference of this new group which will, of course, involve other Council of Europe bodies and committees in its work. Over the next two days, you are going to examine all of these issues and propose future activities or directions for policies in this area. Your proposals on work to be done by the Council of Europe will be examined with the greatest of interest. Allow me now to welcome you once again and wish you a successful seminar.

8 “Co-education for a better integrated society” The challenges of an education designed to achieve gender equality Report by Teresa Pinto (Portugal) Foreword Sub-theme I “This sub-theme will focus on teachers and the teaching profession and include the following areas: initial, continued and lifelong teacher training, teachers’ values and self-evaluation, the role of teachers in relation to gender equality issues, the ways girls and boys learn and pedagogic practices adjusted to that diversity, working with similarity and difference in the classroom, dealing with violence and conflicts, encouraging girls and boys to excel.” (Explanatory note to the seminar, paragraph 10). “Each sub-theme should be dealt with by taking into account the following crosscutting dimensions, not forgetting the gender perspective: i. ii. iii. valuing private and public life; recognising social and cultural differences; peace-building and combating violence. (Ibid., paragraph 13.)

How to develop a pedagogy that values equality and diversity, both in what concerns teacher training and pedagogic practice? How do teachers work with similarity and difference in the classroom? How can teachers encourage both boys and girls to excel? How is the role of the teacher evolving and how can it be characterised in relation to gender equality issues? How can initial, continued and lifelong training prepare teachers to deal with similarity and difference in the classroom and to encourage girls and boys to excel? In what way can initial, continued and lifelong training contribute to the self-evaluation of teachers?” (Appendix to the programme for the seminar.) Introduction 1. Two short explanatory notes on the title chosen for this report:

“Co-education for a better integrated society” was the slogan adopted during the 1999/2000 school year by the transnational project Co-education: from the principle to the development of a practical approach, which was co-ordinated by the Portuguese Commission for Equality and Women’s Rights (the government body for equal rights and opportunities in Portugal) and subsidised by the European Commission under Programme IV for equality

9 between women and men. It seems to me that the association of the idea of co-education, meaning education aimed at promoting equal opportunities for girls and boys, and the - one might say Utopian - prospect of a society that is better integrated in terms of gender equality in tune with the character of this seminar. Under the above-mentioned project, which was aimed at incorporating equal opportunities into education, a multidisciplinary network of specialists in equal opportunities, education and teacher training from four countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy and France) was set up. The project teams have been working together since 1998 to design and disseminate teaching material and use it for basic teacher training. As the activities and results of this project are relevant to the theme under discussion, I shall refer to it throughout my paper. Clarification of the term “gender equality”: the report by the Council of Europe Group of Experts on An integrated approach to equality between men and women stresses that “gender equality opposes gender inequality and not gender differences” and that it makes it possible to “turn differences and diversity to account”. As Manuela Silva (a member of the Group of Experts) put it: “gender equality is an objective shared by women and men, as real people, in respect of the definition, protection and promotion of human rights and the building of a freer, more democratic society that has greater responsibility for its own future” (SILVA, 1999:57). 2. A study of the topics and questions mentioned in the Explanatory Note and the Appendix to the Seminar Programme under Sub-theme I, “Valuing equality and diversity”, (which I quoted in the foreword) led me to organise what seemed to me to be the key elements proposed. The diagram below is a personal interpretation of the proposed framework for discussion of this sub-theme:






This diagram suggests two ways in which these issues could be approached: a general discussion of the issues, designed to highlight the fact that the principle and reality of diversity can also be included in models illustrating the various concerns in the fields of education and equal opportunities; a study of the individual problems raised by each issue, based on information, analyses and conclusions that I have selected from among the results of research and projects, in particular the above-mentioned Co-education project. Given the objectives of this seminar, I shall try to contribute to the debate by outlining and discussing the problems raised by a number of issues and indeed a number of concepts, rather than propose stock replies to the subjects to be studied.

11 In so doing, I shall divide my paper into three parts: 1. 2. 3. 1. Academic success/excellence and gender equality; Considerations on co-education; Basic and in-service teacher training. Academic success/excellence and gender equality

I shall begin by an overall study of the diagram (given in the introduction) of the subjects proposed in the documents provided. As I see it, the issues form a sequence that begins with the real situation regarding girls and boys, in other words, the issues raised by their genuine differences and diversity, in relation to equal opportunities issues. This leads to the need for a teaching method which incorporates equal opportunity considerations, taking account of the need to enhance both equality and diversity, and which will, in turn, help to provide teachers with values that serve as a guide through basic and in-service training which is inextricably linked to lifelong education and constant self-assessment by the teachers themselves. The academic success of boys and girls is the main concern and, therefore, the goal of the sequence I have described. In my opinion, the fact that in most European countries girls are more academically successful than boys is our underlying concern. In other words, this model can lead us to consider the level of success according to gender as the central issue of inequality between the sexes and, as a result, move our attention away from girls to boys. In this connection, I wish to quote a study co-ordinated by Madeleine Arnot (cf. Council of Europe report on Equality between women and men: priorities for the future, 1999), whose most significant finding was “the current primacy [in the United Kingdom] of ‘improving boys’ achievement’ projects; […] out of 96 named projects, only three were specifically targeted at girls” (Ibid., p. 16). Although in Portugal girls’ academic success is likewise confirmed by statistics, boys’ lack of academic success has not (at least not yet) become the dominant concern in equal opportunity issues. In this context, and in order to launch the debate on girls’ and boys’ achievement, I should like to emphasise the social importance of academic success and excellence in relation to gender equality. It should not be forgotten that although girls today are more academically successful than boys and more of them go to university, the relationship between qualifications and the job market is still very weak. Statistics also show that women are under-represented in political and economic decision-making and that they are generally less well paid than men, even when they choose to work in traditionally male sectors of employment. In Portugal, for example, there is a high percentage of women students in natural sciences (60.1% of registrations and 67.9% of qualifications awarded) and mathematics and computer science (50.5% of registrations and 52.3% of qualifications awarded). Academic success and the diversification of the subjects chosen for higher education are therefore far from guaranteeing women’s social success. However, I share the belief that the education system cannot simply put the responsibility for this problem on the shoulders of the other social sub-systems, but, on the contrary, should recognise that it has a specific role to play in the process of deconstructing a supposedly neutral masculine, hegemonic paradigm which discriminates against women and, indeed, men. It is nevertheless striking to see that, in Portugal, the question of equal opportunities in education has not yet led to any significant political measures. As the accent has been put on academic achievement in the narrowest sense (and I am leaving the question of access to

12 schooling aside), the illusion has been created that the problem of unequal opportunities now concerns mainly boys. And yet the various aspects of gender inequality in schools are well known, and I shall only refer to a few of them here, taking Portugal as an example (cf. ARAÚJO, 1998; HENRIQUES, 1994a; HENRIQUES, 1994b; CIDM, 2000): the stereotyped gender roles relayed in teaching materials used in schools and their effects on the development of the identities of young people, girls and boys alike; the apparent absence of women in school curricula, especially in core curricula; the effects of supposedly neutral language on the development of male and female identities; academic choices and the dichotomy between girls and boys in upper secondary education - girls are predominant in the arts (70.9%) and classes preparing for higher education (56.8%), whereas boys are in the majority in technology (56.4%); women’s choices lead to professions that are less well paid, more precarious and less socially prestigious. Taking account of this situation, Helena Araújo and Fernanda Henriques stressed that democratic education was actually only really concerned with the reasons for success or failure, and that insufficient attention had been paid to the necessarily triangular relationship between success, personal fulfilment and the development of genuine citizenship (ARAÚJO and HENRIQUES, 2000, p. 144). It can therefore be stated that as long as the dual issue of success/failure remains at the heart of the education system’s concerns, the system will continue to look inward, widening the gap between academic achievement and social success. In this context, it is worth referring to the contributions of the report on Gender mainstreaming (Council of Europe, 1998), which states that the endorsement of mainstreaming is a fundamental strategy for seeing gender equality as a new approach that enhances complementarity and partnership between women and men in the sustained and humane development of society and democracy. I shall now return to the concept of “academic success”, as the incorporation of mainstreaming into the study of the educational process widens this notion (cf. PINTO and HENRIQUES, 1999). Pierrette Bouchard and Jean-Claude Saint-Amant set out three aspects that are inherent to this concept, namely: academic success, which means attending school and obtaining the relevant qualifications; educational success, which is the result of the school socialisation process and refers to the passing on of attitudes, the inculcation of behaviour and values and interaction in schools; it is largely determined by the hidden curriculum; social success, which takes account of the relationship between school education and a person’s place in society and his or her power to influence that society (cf. BOUCHARD and SAINT-AMANT, 1993).


One cannot truly talk of success without considering the need for these three aspects to converge the incorporation of this triple concept of success in the gender mainstreaming strategy makes it possible to place the idea of educational achievement at the heart of the education system’s concerns, and therefore see it as the possible goal of the sequence shown in the diagram at the beginning of this paper. Discussion of the inclusion of the notion of gender equality in the concept of educational success could lead to a new definition of academic success that takes account of the wider problem of social success and, as a result, helps to link the education system with social issues generally by giving it a fundamental role in the pursuit of social change.

13 2. Co-education After stressing the importance of consistency, when it comes to designing an educational policy which recognises gender equality, between the criteria which govern academic success in terms of qualifications and the true value which society attributes to them, I propose to study the work of the transnational project Co-education: from the principle to the development of a practical approach, in which teams from Portugal, Spain, Italy and France participated and to which I have already referred. This project was launched following the observation that the principle of equal opportunities for girls and boys, fundamental in developing the values essential to the effective exercise of citizenship, was far from being common practice in education systems. A study of the actual situation shows that although mixed schooling has been a bonus as far as equality is concerned, it is based on the simple coexistence of the two sexes in schools rather than on an education policy and educational practice aimed at changing the social relations that develop between the sexes in the process of socialisation and the building of male and female identities. Co-education is based on the principle of assimilation, in other words, the subordination, on the grounds of equality, of the female education model to the male education model through the elimination, for example, of subjects and skills connected with the spheres of private life, caring and human relationships. By refusing to recognise differences and diversity, the male model has become the universal, supposedly neutral model. In such a context, it could be said that co-education encourages the preparation of boys and girls for their unequal social positions (cf. MOSCONI, 1989; PINTO, 1999). The teams participating in the Co-education project therefore affirm that in order to overcome the inadequacies of mixed schooling, thought should be given to how co-education can be made a model for the development of equal opportunities. To quote Nicole Mosconi, “If the partners in the education system wish to establish truly democratic co-education, they must not only found it on the theoretical assertion of freedom and equality for all and everyone’s right to schooling, they must also set it ethno-political targets for transforming current relations between the sexes and the resulting sexual identities […] If we want mixed schooling to become genuine co-education, it must offer individuals of both sexes the opportunity to get to know one another, talk to one another and share experiences ‘so that in thought and deed, women and men can at last forge frankly cordial relationships’. And it must be recognised that co-education that is aimed at achieving a positive, non-alienating transformation of relations between the sexes remains largely a pipe dream.” (MOSCONI, 2000). The aim is not to define a single means of organising co-education. Neither is mixed schooling a strategy that meets with a general consensus, given, for example, the fact that girls are more academically successful, or the disparities between the sexes as regards the subjects studied at school and the professions chosen. In this context, some research and a number of projects have highlighted the advantages and drawbacks for girls and boys alike of single-sex schooling. For the moment, this remains a minor concern in Portugal, although it is worth mentioning the simulation exercises conducted under the ARIANNE project (cf. AAVV, 1998: 107-115), in which students were put in single-sex and mixed schooling situations. The experiments did not lead to any clearcut conclusions, but they did underline the complexity of the relationship between academic achievement and the academic and career choices of girls and boys, and mixed and single-sex education. I shall nevertheless refer to the work done in this area by Christine Morin of the

14 Co-education project team at the IUFM (teacher training college) in Lyon. She has undertaken to do further research on the identity-building strategies and academic performance of girls and boys in the field of mathematics, which, as we know, is considered in several countries to be a male-dominated subject and a stumbling block when it comes to careers and vocational guidance. Following an experiment in which 232 fourth-year secondary school pupils from mixed and single-sex classes were asked to solve 54 mathematical problems, the author stated that the boys in mixed classes obtained significantly better results than the boys in single-sex classes. In other words, mixed schooling improves boys’ performance. However, it would appear that in the long term, girls’ performance is only slightly influenced by the gender composition of their class. In this case, mixed schooling clearly benefited the boys, but not the girls. Boys were noted to be highly sensitive to the make-up of the class, whereas girls were totally indifferent to whether or not boys were present (MORIN, 1999: 34). This issue requires further study, taking account of various single-sex and mixed situations in the school as a whole and in individual classes, in a range of subjects, and alternating between single-sex and mixed groups in studying a given subject. With reference to the widespread belief within the education system that boys are better at mathematics than girls, three inter-related aspects should be highlighted: mathematics has come to be seen, at least in a number of countries, including Portugal, as an indisputable key to social success and, as a result, an instrument for social selection; in most countries, girls tend to choose academic studies and careers which do not require more than a basic knowledge of mathematics; most research clearly shows that girls and boys do not achieve the same results in mathematics.


In another study under the Co-education project, Nadja Acioly-Regnier sought to establish the extent to which it was possible to assess the differences between girls and boys in both the learning process and the acquired level of skill in mathematics (ACIOLY-REGNIER, 1999: 15). After analysing the weight of social mechanisms for reproducing cultural models in individual learning, the author states that the results of her study show how teachers’ prejudices lead maths teachers (regardless of their sex) to expect different levels of achievement of boys and girls. This tends to consolidate inequality through a perverse effect known as the Pygmalion effect. For example, the number and type of questions asked by the teacher varies depending on the sex of the pupil. This phenomenon is all the more perverse in that it is completely unconscious (Ibid., 17). The example of mathematics, which combines the effect of the image of this subject in schools and the social environment with that of ideas on femininity and masculinity, leads us to the question of the importance granted by teachers to exclusively, or almost exclusively, imparting facts to the detriment of the emotional and social aspects of learning. Another aspect of this problem is expressed by the disparities in the academic and career choices of girls and boys, and this brings us to another issue that requires study. According to two studies conducted in Portugal, in choosing their careers, girls place greater importance than boys on the criteria of job satisfaction and usefulness to society (cf. PINTO, 1987) and family life, including motherhood (cf. HENRIQUES, 1994b). The results of another study conducted in Brazil on men and the choice of a career as a primary school teacher show that they choose this career very late in their academic life, at university, and the decision is therefore a completely

15 conscious one, whereas women make the same decision much earlier on the grounds that teaching is a women’s profession (cf. CATANI et al., 1998). I tend towards the idea that vocations are based on social and cultural considerations connected with a person’s gender, rather than towards the belief in the existence of natural differences. In fact, the social predominance of a homogeneous human population made up of two groups (organised into stereotypes and hierarchies), males and females, is the result of a socio-cultural constraint of gender and its ensuing application to each of the two sexes. The recognition of the similarities and differences between girls and boys, and women and men since teachers and pupils, as a group, comprise members of each sex and exhibit the social relationships that develop between the sexes - is a prerequisite for designing a new cultural and educational model. It is essential that further research should be conducted in order to understand the sociocultural processes which determine the differences, or, to be precise, the dichotomies, between boys and girls if new criteria for designing co-education that offers equal opportunities are to be developed. In other words, we must “re-invent the co-educational system and revitalise it, considering that Co-education and Equal Opportunities go hand in hand, in the context of the dialectic between identity and difference, the self and others” (PINTO and HENRIQUES, 1999: 26). With regard to developing gender-equality teaching based on the dual issue of the similarities and differences between girls and boys, I should like to end this part of my paper with a number of questions put by Teresa Vasconcelos of the Co-education project team at the Lisbon ESE (Higher College of Education) on co-education from the very beginning of schooling: “However, our infants’ schools, kindergartens and even crèches are places of equal citizenship, given that little girls and boys are brought together in a single activity room […] How do we help each child to build an identity? How do we help little girls and boys to build their identities together through interaction? […] How do we establish a counterpoint to the models which, from a child’s earliest age, are inculcated by their families? Shouldn’t little boys engage in cooking or cleaning activities (they do them so well!), or help with the upkeep, tidying and decoration of the communal activity room or playground? Shouldn’t little girls take part in more competitive games or open-air, physically energetic and mechanical activities? When will they be able to engage in genuine scientific, mechanical and functional research by taking apart old household electrical appliances, radios, tape recorders, television sets, and so on? Shouldn’t little girls, under supervision, learn how to handle and use screwdrivers, hammers or bit-braces? Why shouldn’t little boys be taught sewing or embroidery? How much attention do we pay to the models given in the books and games we choose? […] Genuine co-education should begin at as early an age as possible. We must not minimise small children’s potential for asserting themselves as little citizens with rights and duties, who are capable of learning to say “I” (in the feminine or the masculine) at a very early age, babbling a “we” that genuinely conveys equality and shouldering individual and collective responsibilities.” (VASCONCELOS, 2000: 3) These questions lead us to look at teacher training. 3. Basic and in-service teacher training

16 Basic and in-service teacher training today lies at the heart of the problem of changing educational methods. It is therefore vital that it should encompass gender equality issues. To be more specific, and with a view to gender mainstreaming, gender equality must be taken into account in designing and building teacher-training models. It therefore seems to me essential to draw attention to what Annik Houel has said on this subject: “Opposition to coeducation has nevertheless had the advantage of moving the debate away from children and on to teachers’ attitudes and focusing on the ways in which they behave. Teaching circles are obviously the first testing ground, to be used not only for conducting research, but also for applying research findings and, therefore, for trying out equal opportunity curricula.” (HOUEL, 1999: 81). As regards designing a model for teacher training that fosters equal opportunities for women and men, I support the view taken by Madeleine Arnot, who considers that the concept of critical practitioner - one of the three concepts she has defined: the guarded practitioner, the reflective practitioner and the critical practitioner - is the most effective in encouraging equal opportunities for boys and girls, as it leads to a type of teacher who can consider himself or herself as a contributor to social change, while recognising that education raises social challenges connected with change, but also with the reproduction of social patterns (cf. ARNOT, 1997). In this context, particular attention should be drawn to the following: 1. The importance of introducing two components into training:

Specific training in co-education and equal opportunities: a historical and sociological approach to the subject can help teachers to become aware of its relevance and influence in education and society at large; if the systematic analysis of this subject is made a specific component of curricula, it can be given a much higher profile and greater weight in institutional terms. The SUENS (University Seminar on Non-Sexist Education) held by the Palencia University College of Education (Valladolid University, Spain), a partner in the Coeducation project, has managed to obtain a Chair and thus formal academic approval for its activities in the field of equal opportunities in education. Gender mainstreaming at several levels: in the fields of knowledge (production/reproduction/transmission), school culture, teaching methods (including teaching material, methodology, interaction and assessment) and training strategies (cf. PINTO and HENRIQUES, 1999). 2. The importance of co-ordinating research and training. This entails:

An epistemological and methodological contribution by Women’s studies to the critical examination of dominant scientific paradigms. Some examples are: a contribution by feminist epistemologists who, starting with the notion of gender, are seeking to define concepts which make it possible to overcome dichotomies and create multiple forms of thinking which are better at revealing the complexity of the actual situation (cf. COVA, 2000); the role of qualitative methodology in the production of new knowledge, involving the commitment of the person conducting research in his or her field and the political commitment of the body which is the subject of that research (cf. ARAÚJO, MAGALHÃES and FONSECA, 2000); the exploration and (re-)interpretation of models of rationality, such as the one devised by Paul Ricoeur, in connection with which Fernanda Henriques pointed out

17 that the relation between reason and the imagination can be a useful instrument for devising a common manner of referring to women and men , making it possible to reconstruct the unvoiced aspects of our cultural tradition (cf. HENRIQUES, 2000). As far as Women’s studies are concerned, “Portugal is still in the information-gathering phase […] we are novices in all respects, and if we are to improve the quality of our work, it is vital that access to foreign bibliographies should be made easier and that the best works should be translated and manuals, anthologies and articles published” (COVA, 1998:322). If the relevance of the contribution made by Women’s studies to a new way of thinking and to scientific output is recognised, the development of this subject must be promoted and its academic legitimacy upheld at national and European levels. Co-ordination between researchers and practitioners, that is to say between the academic world and teachers. This co-ordination could replace feminist research on education, given “the institutional role of schools in terms of social and political structure and curriculum, although knowledge and the transmission of knowledge are only a marginal concern of feminist research today” (ARNESEN, 2000: 132). The contributions of the critical aspects of this research seem to be crucial to the development of a curriculum, teaching methods and, therefore, training that produces teachers who are prepared to innovate. Coordination between researchers and teachers also become necessary when one broaches the concept of professionality and, therefore, the question of professional skills in education, which lies at the heart of teacher training today. In Portugal, the INAFOP (an institute founded in 1998 to accredit teacher training at national level) is in the process of defining the professional skills required of teachers. The Co-education project team at the Lyon IUFM, starting with the idea “that ‘professionality’, which has theoretical and practical aspects, certainly covers technical skills, but also includes communication with others and affectivity”, has questioned the relevance of the link between professional educational skills and gender on the basis of research on the gender problem” (ACIOLY-REGNIER, FILIOD and MORIN, 2000: 8). Setting up networks of teacher-training, gender and equal-opportunities experts at national and European levels: the results of this aspect of the Co-education project are positive, as the multidisciplinary and transnational character of this network, made up of about fifty specialists from fourteen institutions in four European countries, has encouraged active co-operation, particularly in the production of teacher-training material and the sharing of experiences and the results of research and projects on equal opportunities, gender issues and teacher training. I would emphasise that the production of teaching material must be encouraged as, without adequate tools, gender equality cannot be included in teacher training. These networks can be supported by setting up Internet sites and databases on current research and projects and existing material in this field. 3. It is important that teacher training should include strategies to foster learning processes that can successfully involve the learner in the learning processes, through critical self-analysis and an analysis of the socio-cultural context to which he or she belongs (cf. PINTO and HENRIQUES, 1999). Training should therefore enable teachers to become aware of themselves and their experience of life both as individuals and in relation to their choice of profession. “This means incorporating the first phase of the acquisition of appropriate skills into a period of self-analysis with regard to the teacher’s own identity, whether male or female, and his or her chosen values and level of awareness of the different ways of portraying and interpreting images of men and women and their roles in present-day society” (BOZZI and De MARCHI, 1999: 29). In this framework, teachers’ personal histories and

18 experiences can be used as a fruitful methodological approach in training, which “makes [them] think about the way in which citizenship is founded on the dichotomy between the public and the private […]” (ARAÚJO and MAGALHÃES, 1999: 34). Along the same lines, several Co-education project teams have been working on drawing up theoretical and methodological guidelines for teacher training in this field (cf. ARAÚJO and MAGALHÃES, 1999; FILIOD, 1999). The study of the weight of gender stereotypes in the teaching profession and the presence and influence of gender stereotypes in education could be a crosscurricular component of teacher training enabling the teacher’s role in the teaching-learning process to be dealt with as an issue in its own right (cf. NETO et al., 1999). Another acrossthe-board approach that could, in my opinion, be taken is training teachers to develop a critical awareness of language, which, “just like any other social construct or practice, is influenced by history and power structures” (ABRANCHES and CARVALHO, 1999). Strategies that do more to promote gender equality should also be included in teacher training. With this in mind, another Co-education project team maintains that “creativity can be considered as a factor making for equal opportunities where gender issues are concerned […] ” (MONGE, ROSÁRIO and CAÑAMERO) 1999: 16) and has prepared a small dictionary containing essential references for conducting an activity based on practices which stimulate creativity. 4. It is important that time and means should be made available at all levels of the education system, including teacher training, for regular self-questioning, discussion and sharing personal experience and knowledge in order to raise awareness, in connection with the different aspects of life, of issues connected with creativity, hands-on experience and caring for others, for which there are no academic or social models. In Portugal, we are only scratching the surface, so to speak, in this field. According to the information provided by members of the Co-education project team at the CISEM (the Centre for Innovation and Educational Experimentation in Milan, Italy), the projects carried out in Italian schools that had the greatest effect on training in how to raise the awareness of girls and boys were those on education in caring, for boys, and in developing attention and assertiveness, for girls. 5. It is also important that gender equality should be part of all education policies, including those concerning teacher training, particularly with regard to the legal framework. Although the legal situation varies a great deal from one European country to another, the Portuguese example shows that there is a lack of rules governing the principle of co-education and equal opportunities. Consequently, the work carried out in the field by teachers and teacher trainers in a number of schools, university education departments and university teacher-training colleges has not yet been adopted as national policy (cf. PINTO, 2000; ARAÚJO and HENRIQUES, 2000). In my opinion, research should be conducted at European level either to identify existing legal measures in the field of education and gender equality, or to determine how effective this type of legislation is in each country, in order to design strategies for gender mainstreaming in education policies. Conclusion The ways and means of bringing about changes in teacher training in order to integrate gender issues must be based both on further theoretical and methodological research, and on designing strategies to develop educational and training attitudes that help to build professional identities which make it possible to train citizens who have a spirit of solidarity, are co-operative and are aware of similarities while respecting differences.

19 With regard to the possibility of introducing genuine co-education, which, as emphasised by Nicole Mosconi, whom I quoted earlier, still remains largely a pipe dream, I should like to apply the notion of a dual approach, suggested by Manuela Silva, to the problem of gender mainstreaming in co-education: “the goal is Utopian but the approach is pragmatic; in other words, it entails designing methodology and tools for achieving the ultimate aim.” (SILVA, 1999: 47). Bibliographical references AAVV (1998), Manuel de références sur l’égalité des chances et dimension du sexe, Brussels, European Commission. ABRANCHES, Graça, CARVALHO, Eduarda (1999), Linguagem, poder, educação: o sexo dos B, A, BAs, Lisbon, CIDM. ACIOLY-REGNIER (1999), “Les mathématiques et le sexe: à propos des effets des variantes socio-culturelles de pratiques d’enseignement - apprentissage sur la réussite scolaire et sur les projets professionnels des élèves”, in Milieux Scolaires et Questions de Sexe: éléments de réflexion pour la pratique d’enseignement, Lisbon, CIDM, pp. 13-19. ACIOLY-REGNIER, Nadja, FILIOD, Jean-Paul, MORIN, Christine (2000), “Sexe et compétences professionnelles: perspectives de construction d’outils de formation pour les enseignant(e)s”, Bulletin Coéducation, nº 1, Lisbon, CIDM, p. 8. ALARIO TRIGUEROS, Teresa et al. (1999), Identidad y Género en la práctica educativa, Lisbon, CIDM. ARAÚJO, Helena Costa (1998), “O Masculino, o Feminino e a Escola Democrática”, in TRIGUEROS, Teresa Alario et al. (coord.), Hacia una pedagogía de la igualdad, Salamanca, Amarú Ed., pp. 21-40. ARAÚJO, Helena Costa, HENRIQUES, Fernanda (2000), “Política para a Igualdade entre os sexos em Educação em Portugal. Uma aparência de realidade”, ex aequo, nº 2/3, pp. 141-151. ARAÚJO, Helena Costa, MAGALHÃES, Maria José (1999), Les récits de vie. Les perspectives biographiques, les femmes et la citoyenneté, Lisbon, CIDM. ARAÚJO, Helena Costa, MAGALHÃES, Maria José, FONSECA, Laura (2000), “Interrogando as metodologias qualitativas na sua contribuição para o campo educativo”, in Coeducar para uma sociedade inclusiva/Coéduquer pour mieux vivre ensemble. Actas do Seminário Internacional, Lisbon, CIDM (in press). ARNESEN, Anne-Lise (2000), “Relações sociais de sexo, igualdade e pedagogia na educação no contexto europeu”, ex aequo, nº 2/3, pp. 125-140. ARNOT, Madeleine (1997), “Gender equality, critical reflexion and teacher training”, in NETO, Félix, et al. (org), Igualdade de Oportunidades e Educação. Formação de Docentes, Lisbon, Universidade Aberta, pp. 53-73. BETTENCOURT, Ana, CAMPOS, Joana, FRAGATEIRO, Lourdes (1999), Education à la Citoyenneté, Lisbon, CIDM. BOZZI TARIZZO, Gisela, De MARCHI, Diana (1999), Orientamento e Identità di Genere: la relazione pedagogica, Lisbon, CIDM. CATANI, Denice, et al, “Os Homens e o Magistério: as vozes masculinas nas narrativas de formação”, Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 1998, 11 (1), pp. 5-22. CIDM (2000), Portugal Status of Women. 1999, Lisbon, CIDM. Council of Europe (1998) - report: Gender mainstreaming. Council of Europe (1999) - report: Equality between women and men: Priorities for the future.

20 COVA, Anne (1998), “L’enseignement de l’Histoire des Femmes dans la Péninsule Ibérique”, in SOHN, Anne-Marie, THÉLAMON, Françoise (dir) L’Histoire sans les femmes est-elle possible?, Rouen, Perrin, pp. 313-323. COVA, Anne (2000), “Uma abordagem sobre o contributo da História das Mulheres para os Women’s Studies”, in Coeducar para uma sociedade inclusiva/Coéduquer pour mieux vivre ensemble. Actas do Seminário Internacional, Lisbon, CIDM (in press). FILIOD, Jean Paul (1999), "Observations sociologiques sur la féminisation du métier d'enseignant", in Milieux Scolaires et Questions de Genre: éléments de réflexion pour la pratique d’enseignement, Lisbon, CIDM, pp. 21-30. HENRIQUES, Fernanda (1994a), Igualdades e Diferenças, Porto, Porto Editora. HENRIQUES, Fernanda (1994b), Projectos de Vida, Projectos de Aprendizagem, Lisbon, CIDM. HENRIQUES, Fernanda (2000), “Imaginação e conhecimento. Explorando a concepção de racionalidade de Paul Ricoeur”, in Coeducar para uma sociedade inclusiva/Coéduquer pour mieux vivre ensemble. Actas do Seminário Internacional, Lisbon, CIDM (in press). HOUEL, Annik (1999), “Contextes scolaires et problématique de sexe: les enjeux de la mixité”, in Coeducação: do Princípio ao Desenvolvimento de uma Prática. Actas do Seminário Internacional, Lisbon, CIDM, pp. 75-82. MONGE, Maria Graciete, ROSÁRIO, Maria José do, CAÑAMERO, Gisela (1999), La créativité dans la co-éducation: une stratégie pour le changement, Lisbon, CIDM. MORIN, Christine (1999), “Présentation de quelques facteurs de variation de performances des filles et des garçons dans le cadre scolaire”, in Milieux Scolaires et Questions de Genre: éléments de réflexion pour la pratique d’enseignement, Lisbon, CIDM, pp. 31-37. MOSCONI, Nicole (1989), “La mixité dans l’enseignement secondaire: un faux-semblant?”, Paris, PUF. MOSCONI, Nicole (2000), “La mixité scolaire: socialisation différentielle ou éducation à l’égalité?”, in Coeducar para uma sociedade inclusiva/Coéduquer pour mieux vivre ensemble. Actas do Seminário Internacional, Lisbon, CIDM (in press). NETO, António, et al. (1999), Estereótipos de Género, Lisbon, CIDM. PINTO, Maria da Conceição Alves (1987), “Escolha de curso e características de trabalho gratificante”, in A Mulher, o Ensino Superior, a Investigação Científica e as Novas Tecnologias, Lisbon, CCF, pp. 41-50. PINTO, Teresa (1999), “Caminhos e encruzilhadas da Coeducação”, ex aequo, nº 1, pp.123-135. PINTO, Teresa (2000), “Igualdade entre Mulheres e Homens na Educação: Portugal no contexto Europeu”, in TOLDY, Teresa M., CARDOSO, João C. (orgs), A Igualdade entre Mulheres e Homens na Europa às portas do século XXI/Equality between Women and Men in Europe: at the gateway of the 21st Century, Porto, Ed. Universidade Fernando Pessoa, pp. 155-172. PINTO, Teresa, HENRIQUES, Fernanda (1999), Coeducação e Igualdade de Oportunidades, Lisbon, CIDM. SILVA Ana da et al. (1999), A Narrativa na promoção da igualdade de género. Contributos para a educação pré-escolar, Lisbon, CIDM. SILVA, Manuela (1999), A Igualdade de Género. Caminhos e Atalhos para uma Sociedade Inclusiva, Lisbon, CIDM. VASCONCELOS, Teresa (2000) “Co-éducation depuis le plus jeune âge”, Bulletin Coéducation, nº 1, p. 3.

21 Valuing Equality and Diversity Report by Ms Elena PRUS (Moldova) The two terms which form the subject of our plenary session, equality and diversity between women and men, are not alternatives. Although a distinction may be drawn between them for the purposes of the presentation, it is a somewhat artificial one. The two terms must be taken together: the equality and diversity of women and men are viewed in relation to one another. This interdependence could serve as the starting point for our discussion. The history of civilisation is a dialectic of gender relations. Today, equality between women and men is the result of an age-old model of complementarity. The changes that have taken place in recent decades concerning women’s position and role in society have altered the traditional view of gender differences. Ultimately, the female identity crisis has led not only to women’s liberation, but also to that of men. What is taking place is not so much a revolution in social customs as a change in, and questioning of, the independence of the sexes, for which many are not yet prepared. The role of education in this field is of paramount importance. From the point of view of the practice of parity, most sectors (the economy, education, politics, the family, etc) are marked by the presence of a gender imbalance. Gender discrimination is sustained through a patriarchal mentality which promotes double behavioural, ethical and social standards and, by implication, gender inequality. Gender inequality is sustained by the existing system of gender roles and the respective stereotypes. It is quite obvious that any remodelling of these stereotypes and any improvement in the way gender parity is developing will not come about immediately or “on demand”. It is a complex process in which initial and further training and lifelong education each have a role to play. The educational sphere is a key indicator of changes in society. The success of educational forms is due largely to the involvement of women, who traditionally form a majority in this field. Some 20 years after the start of the United Nations Decade for Women (1976-1985), there is no longer any doubt that women are on the global agenda. Although words have been translated into tangible advances, these remain precarious and the fundamental change which many were hoping for has yet to be seen. This is the conclusion reached by the men and women working for gender equality. It may be noted that awareness of gender issues has increased. All over the world, women have acquired a higher profile – whether as doctors or engineers, in national parliaments and village councils, and especially in schools, as teachers and pupils. However, basic statistics show that women still form a majority among the world’s poor and illiterate, constrained as they are by male-dominated traditions and religions. Education is a sector of public activity which seeks to ensure the quality of gender relations. Their complexity and heterogeneousness are due to the low level of gender awareness and gender education. The massive influx of girls into the education system since the beginning of the century has been a remarkable development in terms of the right to education. Girls were for a long time considered to be lacking in ability, but they now achieve outstanding results. They “beat boys at all four levels of the education system”, explain

22 Christian Baudelot and Roger Establet in “Allez les filles!” (Edition du Seuil, Paris, 1992)”; at primary school (age 6 to 11), fewer girls are required to repeat a year; in lower secondary education (age 11 to 14), fewer girls are directed towards short courses of study; in higher secondary education (age 15 to 18), girls have better results in the school leaving examination (they account for 57% of passes); and at university, their admission rates are still higher. Sex stereotypes weigh heavily on girls’ career choices, orienting them towards less prestigious occupations and areas traditionally regarded as “female”: literature, the arts, and social work, an area whose prestige is declining steadily. Girls tend to underestimate their abilities in areas traditionally associated with men, such as maths, physics, technology and research of all kinds, and this makes them feel very uncertain about committing themselves to a career in any of these areas. Teachers should perform a vocational guidance function and seek to influence the gender categorisation of subjects and careers, and should encourage girls to overcome their uncertainties and study for careers in more prestigious branches. Teachers should give thought to the issue of mixed-gender schools: this should be seen as an objective and not as an established fact. Mixed-gender schools, which have been compulsory in France since 1975 under the state system and are to be found throughout western Europe, enable the two sexes to get to know one another and to be treated in the same way. It has been observed, however, that mixed-gender education may prove harmful to girls in terms of scholastic achievement. It has been noted that, in mixed-gender schools, the dynamics of the class varies according to the gender of the pupils. It is often organised around the dominance of the male group. Boys tend to monopolise space, particularly visual and auditory space: they take up space and speaking time, they are unruly and they make fun of girls, who react with attitudes of withdrawal. Generally speaking, girls take their role as pupils more seriously: they are more consistent, more meticulous, more disciplined, and more assiduous, whereas, in a maths exercise, for example, the only thing that matters to a boy is the result. Boys tend to be more spontaneous. These two forms of power in the classroom and corridors have consequences in terms of their social effects: the “domestic” power of women and the “political” power of men. The (sometimes unconscious) attitudes of teachers have a definite influence. Observation of teachers in their classrooms shows that, in practice, despite their categorical denials of any discrimination on grounds of sex, they systematically give preferential treatment to boys. For instance, about 75% of the speaking time which pupils are allowed goes to boys. It has been shown that teachers interact more with boys, question boys more often than girls, and give them more time and advice. It is for this reason that boys learn to express themselves, assert themselves and challenge authority, while girls learn to restrict themselves in their exchanges with teachers and to take up less space both physically and intellectually, in other words to have lower self-esteem. In the light of these obvious facts, teaching methods must be geared to giving girls greater confidence in their abilities, encouraging them in their choices and plans for the future, and convincing them of the importance of their success. If they encounter difficulties, they must be given guidelines and supervised in their work. As a result, girls will learn to express themselves, assert themselves, challenge authority, take decisions and assume responsibilities. Teachers should become better acquainted with the girls in their classes and their problems, give them a higher profile and hold them up as examples. Schools must therefore become a

23 place in which girls can be free and self- confident, and assert themselves on the strength of their scholastic success. Girls must be taught to be ready to compete with boys. Inequality and discrimination against women in education (unequal access for women to all forms of education, teaching careers, educational management etc) and in the world of work (salaries, responsibilities, unemployment, insecurity, sexual harassment, etc) are a deterrent to girls. The low profile of women and the almost complete absence of women in managerial positions persist in higher educational establishments. The problems related to discrimination are generally of an informal nature, making them difficult to pinpoint. These problems should form an area of study for educational managers in the context of ongoing training and lifelong education. The predominance of women in the teaching profession (especially at primary level) raises the issue of a pro-female bias which is not conducive to the forming of the male character. Ways should be found of encouraging men to take up teaching careers in nursery, primary and secondary education (changing the public image of these professions, raising salaries, etc). Patriarchalism is reflected in curricula, university courses and especially school textbooks in terms of a neutral content behind which one can sense a male outlook and a neglect of typically female problems: pregnancy, motherhood, sexual harassment, marginalisation, pornography, anonymity, etc. School textbooks should convey an image of women as active participants in their country’s history and economy. The experience and contribution of women should be included in the curriculum for a whole range of subjects. Tendencies to distinguish between male and female goals and contents in education may be overcome through extra-curricular activities aimed at reconciling male and female interests and devising subjects for practical lessons and presentations. Education must be oriented towards a change in traditional values. Pupils should be encouraged to enter fields in which men and women work together. Intellectual, moral and aesthetic education should support this process. Efforts to combat such discrimination should be transdisciplinary and address the issue not only in the context of education but also in that of women’s participation in social, political, cultural and family life. Education for private life and non-sexist education should be included in the curriculum for various subjects (especially in the social sciences field). Above all, a specific component on the gender dimension should be included in curricula. Similarly, attention should be paid to the use of non-sexist language. The vocabulary of the French language should be taught as an open system for coining a feminine form in maledominated professions: “rectrice”, “doyenne”, “chercheuse”, “chirurgienne” etc. The world today is facing an identity crisis, which includes a gender crisis. It is axiomatic that, in the current period of history, women are required to make a much greater effort than men. Self-assessment of teachers tends to be organised along gender lines. Here again, women and girls seem to be less differentiated. Women have difficulty in representing themselves, in defining themselves as individuals, in respecting other women, etc. Sociological studies show that girls (and especially women) tend to underestimate their “resources”, their actual and potential ability to influence the solving of their own problems. Various methods can be used to study the respective value systems of women and men. Among these, the most widespread are: the aggregative method (collecting facts and

24 compiling a mosaic table) and the casual method (detailed examination of individual, atypical facts which have led to a change in psychology and behaviour). Psychological tests and surveys make it possible to gain a better understanding of women’s and men’s respective personalities, characters, priorities and tastes, and their views on gender relations. Evaluation in this particular context should focus above all on communication and teamwork skills, community activity, ability to co-operate, etc. Support should be given to the initiatives, activities and participation of the various bodies which help people to become more aware of their assessment by organising training courses for pupils, students, teachers, etc. Information and advisory services specialising in the problem of self-assessment could be set up. Mention should be made of the poor co-ordination between education, vocational training and working life. When they enter working life, women have a higher standard of education than men, but with age they lose their potential because, owing to their family responsibilities, they are unable to improve their qualifications. Further training and lifelong education should focus attention on this aspect. Violence towards girls and women is still a major problem. Much remains to be done in the area of preventive measures, care and rehabilitation. Measures to prevent violence cannot be fully effective without the provision of information and the inclusion of such measures in education systems. Better assimilation of the notions of gender equality and respect for human rights makes school children less inclined to fall victim to such phenomena as violence based on unequal relations between men and women, between the abusers and their victims. Information on the risks incurred by children and young adults in the area of violence should be disseminated as widely as possible and a special effort should be made to reach persons outside the mainstream (children, adolescents and young adults who are no longer in the education system). If conflicts are to be resolved, data on the intellectual, cognitive, informational and personal spheres must be improved. One of the immediate tasks will be to set up psychological consulting centres to deal with problems of tension, pressure, competition, anxiety etc, which would take into account the difficulties girls face at school. Specific penalties should be included in school regulations and university charters for those found guilty of sexism and sexual harassment. The minimal role played by girls and women raises the issue of how their status can be improved at school and the contribution that can be made by feminist research. Research in this field must be followed by application of the findings in the area of personal and interpersonal relations. It would be useful to organise workshops, round tables etc to discuss ways of developing more harmonious relations between the sexes. This will help to reform the education system by promoting gender equality and diversity in line with current attitudes.

25 Teachers’ behaviour and building pupils’ identities Report by Prof Dr Agnes de Munter (Belgium) I shall begin by specifying which aspects of identity-building we are dealing with. I shall then show how teachers’ behaviour can influence this identity-building and go on to discuss the results of research which shows that teachers’ behaviour does indeed have an influence on identity-building. Lastly, I shall present a number of ways in which teachers could behave in order to have a positive influence on pupils’ identities. Such behaviour is essential if pupils’ images of themselves are not to be damaged and a social contract is to be drawn up between men and women. First of all, which aspects of identity-building are we dealing with? Human beings wonder about their identity. Adolescence is the time when they particularly try to define themselves. Adolescents are able to distinguish between what they are and what they could be. They are capable of introspection and self-analysis. This helps them to discover their identities or discover who they are. It leads to an assertion of the self. In order to find out who they are, young people ask themselves three questions: 1) about their actual personal identity: Who am I? 2) about their optative identity: Who do I want to be? 3) about their given identity: Who do people think I am? It is natural that teenagers, who are capable of formal and operational thought, should see themselves from these three perspectives. They can use these three images to formulate all kinds of hypotheses, which they then confront with new situations. Young people proceed with this confrontation and interpret the way in which others - their parents, teachers, members of their own age group - react to them, and they try to understand what these people expect of them. These are indeed the three aspects of a young person’s identity. The important thing is to see that identity refers to people’s image of themselves, but it also refers to the image that people have created of themselves under the influence of the people around them, a barely conscious influence. This last point is a very important factor in education. Which of a young person’s experiences can influence the building of his or her identity? Experiences of failure and teachers’ expectations can influence a pupil’s image of himself or herself. But this image will also be fashioned by the reasons which a pupil or a teacher may give in order to explain a success or failure. I shall begin by speaking of the effects of experiences of failure on pupils’ image of themselves. Empirical research (Helmke, 1991; Eshel and Klein, 1981; Entwishe and Hayduck, 1981) has shown that children entering primary school have a positive image of themselves, which is still fairly rudimentary and rather unrealistic. This image has been formed by the child’s previous experiences at home or at nursery school. Starting from the second or third year of school, pupils begin to have a more or less realistic image of the meaning and implications of their school results. For the first time, they are aware of their

26 “academic” image, that is to say their image of themselves as pupils. This definition of self gradually takes form during adolescence as cognitive training develops. Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance (1957) explains how a teacher’s behaviour can influence the answers a pupil gives to his or her questions in order to define himself or herself (Who am I? Who do I want to be? Who do people think I am?). According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, inconsistency or imbalance causes tension in the human mental system and this tension leads to behaviour by which one tries to reduce, eliminate or prevent the dissonance observed. On the other hand, when there is a certain consonance between a pupil’s self-image and the manner in which he or she is assessed by the teacher, the pupil will consider it quite normal, as the assessment confirms the image that the pupil has already formed of himself or herself. In the reverse situation, when assessment is perceived negatively, consonance is lacking and the pupil’s self-image will evolve by imperceptible degrees. The pupil will lower his or her target level of achievement in an attempt to increase consonance and, at the same time, there is a risk that feelings of inferiority, depression and inadequacy will set in. A person’s self-image is “adjusted” when he or she experiences, among other things, failure. What the pupil sees as a failure is the consequence of the way in which he or she interprets feedback from the teacher as corresponding or not with his or her self-image. According to the theory of needs, when an educational climate is not positive, pupils’ social needs for support are not met, and this gives rise to feelings of incompetence, distress and finally a negative self-image (Veerman, 1992: 58). Experiences of failure aside, the academic self-image is influenced by what other significant persons expect of the pupil. I shall now show how a teacher’s expectations can influence a pupil’s self-image. An expectation is an assessment, conscious or otherwise, of a pupil, following which the pupil is often treated in the way in which he or she has been assessed without the grounds for that assessment being questioned. Furthermore, the pupil is supposed to behave according to what is expected of him or her (self-fulfilling prophecies). The pupil behaves as if the teacher’s ideas and expectations were correct, thus confirming those expectations (Good, 1980: 80). In this context, one can speak of Pygmalion effects (Babad, 1982: 459). Pupils adapt their behaviour and adjust their self-image to suit teachers’ expectations. The pupil’s self-image is adjusted once he or she has considered the question “Who do other people think I am?” The well-known results of the research conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) provide a good illustration of these Pygmalion effects. This research involved telling pupils in two classes that one class was made up of bright pupils and that the other was made up of not so bright pupils. In actual fact, there was no difference in the level of the pupils. At the end of the year, the “bright” pupils achieved better results than the “not-so-bright” pupils, despite the fact that they all had the same level of ability. This showed that the teachers influenced the performances of the pupils in the two classes.

27 To conclude this section on experiences that can influence identity-building, I should like to deal with the reasons given by the pupil and the teacher to explain a success or failure in the light of Weiner’s attribution theory (1980: 347). Weiner formulated a theory in which he describes the reasons used to explain why a task has met with success or failure and the effects of these attributions on expectations for future success and on self-image. One of the hypotheses that Weiner (1971) put forward was that four reasons are generally given to explain why a given task has been performed successfully or unsuccessfully. These are the pupil’s ability, effort, the difficulty of the task and luck. If success is attributed to the pupil’s ability, his or her self-image will be influenced positively. If, on the other hand, success is attributed to luck, the pupil’s self-image will be negatively influenced. Results of research which shows that teachers’ attitudes can influence identity-building I shall begin by presenting the results of research on male and female attribution behaviour in the classroom and go on to speak of research on interaction between teachers and pupils. The attribution behaviour of pupils and teachers Research (Ross and Fletcher, 1986: 90; Fiske and Taylor, 1984: 54; Frieze, 1980: 57) has shown that when a boy performs a task successfully, both pupil and teacher are more likely to attribute his success to his ability, and less likely to attribute it to luck or the fact that he made an effort. This has a positive influence on the boy’s self-image. However, when a girl meets with success, it is more likely to be attributed by the pupil and the teacher to luck or effort. This attribution has a negative influence on the girl’s self-image. Investigation of the interaction between teachers and pupils We have seen that a pupil’s self-image can be modified as a result of feedback from teachers and their expectations of the pupil. These factors both come into play when a teacher asks a pupil a question. Asking questions is a basic element of social interaction in the classroom. Depending on the type of question a teacher asks a pupil, he or she will begin to understand what the teacher expects of him or her and the way in which the teacher gives feedback. Van der Kley (1980: 179 et seq.) identifies seven ways of asking a question. Three of these in particular influence pupils’ self-image: “in-depth” questioning, “Who knows the answer?” questioning and “second-time-round” questioning. In-depth questioning gives pupils an opportunity to “show what they can do”. By continuing to question the same pupil, refusing to put the next question to someone else, the teacher gives that pupil the feeling that he or she believes in the pupil. This feeling that he or she is trusted strengthens the pupil’s positive self-image. “Who knows the answer?” questioning is like a lottery in which everyone, in theory, can take part and the lucky winner can try to give the right answer. If the wrong answer is given, or if the answer is incomplete, the question is passed on to another pupil. In most cases, however, teachers do not proceed in this manner: they choose pupils who, they believe, will give the right answer. Those pupils’ self-image will be strengthened as they know that they have been chosen because the teacher expects them to know the answer.

28 “Second-time-round” questions are questions that are put to a pupil after another pupil has already given the right answer. The pupils who are asked these questions simply have to repeat the answer that has already been supplied. This manner of asking questions is interpreted by pupils as meaning “This teacher does not believe in me. I can only repeat what somebody else has already said.” This weakens the pupil’s self-image. Research (Van der Kley, 1980; Sterringa, B., Petit, C. and Schakenraad, W., 1990; Dolle-Willemsen, D., 1997) has shown that teachers are selective in their method of questioning pupils. “Second-timeround” questions are used extensively with pupils from disadvantaged social backgrounds, partly because their teachers want to give these pupils a lot of attention, and partly because they do not expect them to be intellectually very gifted, which is why they proceed with this method of questioning. But this leads to the pupils’ self-image being weakened. On the other hand, pupils from more privileged social backgrounds are given more “Who knows the answer?” type questions, as their teachers have a high opinion of their intellectual ability. This strengthens their self-image. It has also been noted that teachers select their methods of questioning according to whether they are dealing with girls or boys. Boys are asked more “Who knows the answer?” questions whereas girls are asked more “second-time-round” questions. One of the reasons why teachers choose different methods of asking boys or girls questions is that they are influenced by certain stereotypes and attribute poor performances by girls or boys to different causes (Fennema, 1996: 76; Clark and Trafford, 1995). Teachers expect boys, rather than girls, to answer a question correctly, which is why they give boys more “Who knows the answer?” questions. If a girl cannot answer a question, the teacher puts it down to a lack of ability but, since it is believed that girls are prepared to work hard, the teacher feels the need to encourage them by asking them “second-time-round” questions. Teachers do not realise that they are basing their different questioning methods on stereotypes. Nevertheless, the result is that boys develop a more positive academic self-image than girls. What can be done to help teachers behave in a way that has a positive influence on their pupils’ identity-building? A psychological and social study (Nuttin, 1999: 421) has shown that individuals predictably build hierarchies of preference or rejection based on certain visible characteristics (stimuli), such as a person’s sex and/or his or her socio-economic background. Neither the reasons for these preferences, nor even their very existence, appear to reach conscious level. This suggests that teachers are not aware of the fact that they ask boys different questions from girls, or that they expect different things of them and give them a different sort of feedback. This is why it is important to make teachers aware of the ways in which they put questions and give their pupils feedback. It is vital that teachers’ awareness be raised in this area to avoid damaging pupils’ self-image. Pupils whose self-image has been weakened experience feelings of distress and ambivalence. One of the harmful consequences of these feelings of distress is that the pupils are less open and become more withdrawn, making social communication difficult, following which they do not face up to responsibilities which they are nevertheless capable of taking on. Therefore, during teacher training and in-service training, and in the media, attention should be clearly drawn to the importance of the effects on pupils’ identity-building when teachers are selective in the manner in which they question their pupils, do not provide proper feedback and let their behaviour be influenced by unsubstantiated expectations.

29 In order to prevent teachers and pupils from judging one another on the basis of certain subconscious stereotypes, more importance should be placed on ethical judgment in teaching. If people make judgments in an ethical manner, they will face up to their responsibilities, since they will act according to the principle that they “must not do other people wrong”. This method of judging should be taught explicitly and therefore included in school curricula. The structure of ethical judgment differs from the model of theoretical judgment that education offers pupils. The theoretical model is based on a major premise, which sets out an absolute value, and a minor premise, which sets out the practical circumstances from which an appropriate conclusion is to be drawn (relativism). Learning to make ethical judgments presupposes that pupils are taught to use their freedom of judgment and exercise their responsibility in this respect. This means that they should not only be taught (as regards content) what is right and what is wrong, but also (as regards form) how to make a judgment and how to justify it. Pupils must be made aware of the fact that one has to make choices. This is a continuing process in which one has to consider and assess judgments that have already been made. The aim is to radically enhance the value of human freedom. Here are a number of points to which attention could be drawn: No judgments should be based on a single criterion. A norm or ideal cannot be established on the basis of race, gender, religion, culture or social background. Judgment as a “synoptic” approach, in other words, account should be taken of the fact that the different aspects or sectors of society are tightly interwoven, and of the ambivalent nature of each of these aspects or sectors. A synoptic (or synoptically legitimised) action does not seek to promote a single aspect (my point of view), but endeavours to achieve a shifting balance between the various aspects. This quest for a constantly changing balance requires continuous thought and judgment. If Eric is annoying Mary, as a teacher I must make Eric realise that he is behaving unfairly towards Mary. At the same time, I must try to understand why Eric is annoying Mary. He and I must try to find a solution together. Developing the ability to put oneself in someone else’s shoes. This entails explaining to pupils that the way in which we judge others is always (implicitly) influenced by the existing socio-cultural “model” or “ideal” (which results in a judgment based on a single criterion) and this frequently leads us to hurt them (often unintentionally). We must teach our pupils not to be blind and how to see the other person’s true identity. They must learn to see other people as “faces”, as Levinas puts it, and not as examples of one or other particular group. As soon as one begins to “feel” the oppressive effect of one’s attitude towards others (or way of thinking or judging), one can be encouraged to take a more “ethical” approach in one’s relations with other people. For many people, the absence of a system of absolute values creates a need for a feeling of security, a need to “identify” with something, which, so to speak, protects them. It

30 takes courage to judge the dominant criteria for establishing values and discard them. Courage is what should be taught to children and young people. Education in courage involves strengthening their abilities and self-confidence so that they can challenge (unjust) power structures and dominant attitudes and behaviour. Conclusion In this paper, I have tried to show that pupils’ identities are influenced by experiences of failure, teachers’ and pupils’ expectations and the reasons that may be given by pupils or teachers in order to explain success or failure. I believe that identity can be influenced positively when teachers are aware of research that has shown that they ask certain pupils certain questions on the basis of certain conventional expectations, and that education in forming ethical judgments can help pupils and teachers not to harm others, in other words, to opt for a form of behaviour that can have a positive influence on other people’s self-image. References Babad, Elisha Y et al. (1982) Pygmalion, Galatea and the Golom: investigations of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of educational psychology, 74, nr.4, 459-474. Clark ,A. & Trafford, J; (1995) Boys into modern languages: an investigation of the discrepancy in attitudes and performance between boys and girls in modern languages. In: Gender and education, 7,315-327. Dolle-Willemsen, D. (1997) Gezien onderscheid naar sekse in het basisonderwijs. Interactie als invalshoek. Tilburg, University Press. Entwisle, DR. & Hayduck, L.A. (1981) Academic expectations and the school attainment of young children. In: Sociology of education. 54:34-50. Eshel, Y. & Klein,Z. (1981) Development of academic self-concept of lower-class and middle-class primary school children. In: Journal of educational psychology.73: 287-293. Fennema, e. (1996) Scholarship, gender and mathematics. In: P.F. Murphy & C.V. Gipps (ed.) Equity in the classroom. The Falmer Press, London, 73-80 Festinger, L; (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. N.Y.: Harper &Row. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, L.E. (1984) Social cognition. N.Y.: Random House. Frieze, I.H. (1980). Beliefs about success and failure in classroom. In: J.H. McMillan (Ed.) The social psychology of school learning. N.Y., Academic Press. Good,T.L. (1980) Classroom expectations: teacher-pupil interaction. In: J.Mc Millan (Ed.) The social psychology of school learning. N.Y., Academic Press. Helmke, A; (1991) Entwicklung des Fähigkeitsselbstbildes vom Kindergarten bis zur dritten klasse. In: R. Pekrun & H. Fend (red.) Schule und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke verlag. Nuttin, J. (1999) Sociale beïnvloeding. Toetsbaar leren denken over gedrag. Leuven, Universitaire pers. Ross, M, & Fletcher,G.J.O. (1985) Attribution and social perception. In: G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (eds), Handbook of social psychology. (3rd edition, vol 2). N.Y. : Random House Sterringa, B. ; Petit, C. & Schakenraad, W. (1990) Wie neemt het iniatief? De interactie tussen leerkrachten en leisjes en jongens. Nijmegen, K.U.Nijmegen. Van der Kley, P. (1980) Beurt en beurtverdeling als interaktionele mechanismen: over hub rol bij de realisering van milieuspecifieke selectie in een eerste klas van een lagere school. In: Gedrag. 8: 177-193.


31 Veerman, J.W. (1993) Zelfbeeld en psychisch functioneren. Kind en adolescent. 14,173-192 Weiner, B; Frieze,I., Kukla, A., Reed,L., Rest, S. & Rosenbaum, R.M. (1971) Perceiving the causes of success and failure. N.Y.: General Learning Press. Weiner, B. (1980) Human motivation.N.Y.: Holt, Reinhart &Winston.

32 Sex-based harassment in schools - taken for granted or a pedagogical challenge? Report by Elina Lahelma (Finland) Introduction Building New Identities is a huge theme for a short presentation. I have chosen to concentrate on one of the issues proposed: How do youngsters relate to one another? I suggest that the ways that girls and boys use language and space, and the ways that sexuality is intertwined in school processes has a crucial impact on the possibilities for young women and men to build their feminine or masculine identities. I also suggest that changing gender cultures and finding strategies to challenge sex-based harassment should be in focus. Starting from this question I suggest the importance of what we have called the informal and the physical layers of school, along with the official layer of teaching and learning (Gordon, Holland & Lahelma, 2000a).2 I draw from an ethnographic study in secondary schools (12-14 year old students) and its follow-up in which the same young people were interviewed again a few years later. The presentation is based largely on my joint work with Professor Tuula Gordon (University of Tampere, Finland) on these projects. I also refer to my study on teachers’ solicited letters concerning sexual harassment at school, which at that time (1995) was not yet much talked about in Finland (Lahelma, 1996; Lahelma, Palmu & Gordon, 2000). Gendered conflicts Educational research and teacher education are largely focused on the official teaching and learning processes that take place in schools. Intertwined with these processes, more or less hidden from the teacher, other agendas take place, sometimes invading the official, sometimes staying apart. Informal invasions of the official school regularly take place using the physical layer of the school: space, time, voice, movement and embodiment. In our ethnographic study (eg. Gordon, Holland & Lahelma, 2000a, 2000b and 2000c; Gordon & al., 1999) we have observed a variety of ways in which gender is implicated in these informal practices: girls and boys might make gender difference poignantly by sitting in gendered groups and avoiding the other gender; they might challenge each other verbally or physically, they might emphasise same-gender bonding and cross-gender aversions by physical actions, and they might demonstrate heterosexual interest, curiosity or fears in various ways. But they might also float to mixed groups in safe ways; frequently there are situations in the classroom and during breaks when gender seems not to be a relevant divider (c.f. Thorne, 1992). Sometimes it is difficult for an observer to interpret what is going on in the informal agenda. Below is an example from a lesson in the 7th grade (13-14 year old students). In this class, a group of four active and talkative girls, Henna and Marjaana in the centrum, was constantly challenged by some of the active and talkative boys. These girls also used to talk back, and often they initiated confrontations themselves. Teachers seemed to get annoyed with the recurrent disturbance, and, according to our observations, were more strict towards the group of girls than towards the boys.

By the official school we refer to teaching and learning, the curriculum, pedagogy and formal hierarchies. The informal refers to interaction among teachers, among students and between teachers, students and other staff, including informal hierarchies. The physical refers to spatiality and embodiment, including space, time, movement and sound/voice. These layers are intertwined in the everyday life of the school; the distinctions between them are analytical, and we do not see them in a hierarchical, clear cut way.

33 Henna protests - why does the teacher ask Juuso after he has shouted (...) Henna shouts, teacher asks her not to shout. Lasse shouts again grumbling "Henna is wrong!", "Henna is shouting!" Marjaana shouts, teacher says laughing: "Do not scream!" In the following Juuso screams "because they also [girls] scream". Henna: "Teacher, come now and take this ink paperball from Lasse." Laughing, Lasse acts as if he will throw something. Teacher: "Henna, do you want to change place" [so that Lasse cannot tease] Henna changes place (...) Soon Henna shouts: "Teacher, he tries to throw again!" Henna and Lasse argue across the room, Lasse playacts throwing. Henna: "If my pullover gets dirty you must go and buy me a new one from France!"[Henna has a new pullover] Informal relationships were not separated but invaded constantly the official teaching during this lively lesson. Henna, who wanted to achieve in the official school as well, protested because Juuso was allowed to answer although he did not raise his hand. The teacher did not reply. Juuso’s and Lasse’s reactions to Henna and Marjaana were obviously initiated by the teacher’s comments on the girls ‘screaming’ and ‘shouting’. Juuso and Lasse confronted the active girls by using voice (commenting loudly, ridiculing) and embodiment (pretending to throw something); with the result that limited Henna’s use of space. The teacher, who had a good sense of humour and was very much liked by all students, tried to keep the situation from escalating, using Henna’s flexibility. In the interview a few months later, Henna mentioned that she was irritated by some of the boys who “always interfere with other people’s business”. She continued: “It’s as if you weren’t allowed to say anything at all. You should just be quiet and not be yourself.” However, when I interviewed Henna and Marjaana a few years later in the follow-up study, both of them reflected that they have positive memories about these kinds of ‘fights’ with Lasse and the other boys. There might be a sense of nostalgia, like there often is in memories, but it also seems that the strong support that these girls received from each other helped them to interpret such situations not as harassing but situations that cheered up the monotonous lessons. (see e.g. Gordon, Holland and Lahelma, 2000a, 2000b; Hey, 1997). Some other processes that were not as visible as the constant disputes between these young persons were, however, regarded as harassing. In another class that we followed, all the girls were very quiet and some of the boys occupied much of the voice, time and space. One of the girls was Hille, who did not have close friends in the class. In our observations she was recounted often to be alone, but not marginalised. When I interviewed her a few years later she told me that one of her male class mates had teased her in secondary school: Hille: Elina: Hille: Elina: Hille. I don’t know whether he meant it as a joke, or whether he was serious. Well, I think he was joking, but sometimes it really disturbed me, because it was practically every day. You mean the whole of secondary school? Well, maybe not the whole of secondary school, but kind of every now and then. Do you want to say who he was? No!

Elina: Hille:

34 Okay, you need not tell. What did you think about it? What kind of thoughts did you have, how did you react on it, did you have, kind of, any means to answer to it? Well, if I was quiet, then he didn’t bother to continue, and finished, so that was it. Then, later on, I was kind of, I don’t care about the damned bloke, I can’t stand him either.

This continuous teasing remained hidden from those of us who observed the class, and it seems to have remained hidden from the teachers. Taru, another girl in the same class, participated in the interview together with Hille; she said that she had not realised it either. Hille never told anyone, and even in this interview, a few years later, she did not want to reveal the name of the boy to me or to Taru, although she spoke rather openly about her own feelings. Now Hille had grown up to be a rather independent young woman who knows what she wants and suggested that she would not let the boys rule any more, and the one who teased her “would hear”. Sex-based harassment The examples above suggest the fine line between play and teasing or harassing behaviour. For teachers, harassment is not easy to see, and the young people involved might also have differing interpretations in different situations. Above I have recounted situations when female students have been teased by male class mates; our research data suggests that some of the boys were also teased from one lesson to another, both by other boys (see eg. Tolonen, 1998) and by girls. In this paper, however, I concentrate on gendered conflicts and sexist comments and argue that these, especially, are easily taken for granted in schools and not always recognised as harassment. Jane Kenway and Sue Willis (1998) use the word sex-based harassment for both sexual and sexist harassment. The latter includes insulting references to girls as a whole or to certain groups of girls, name calling or subtle physical intimidation such as blocking the way or invading personal space. It is often called ‘teasing’ - but it is sex-based, that is, it is directed at girls largely because they are girls. There is evidence of girls harassing girls and boys, and male bullying of males. Kenway and Willis argue, however, that sex-based harassment directed at males by males and that directed at females by females, is commonly in terms derogatory to females: for example, boys are called ‘sissy’, girls are called ‘slut’. In our interviews, students repeatedly suggest that calling others names is just for fun, or in the heat of the moment - it is not seriously meant and should not be taken so. However, some others suggest situations when this is meant to hurt; and sometimes situations which are meant as jokes are not experienced as such. According to the young women that we have interviewed, calling a girl a ‘whore’ may mean different things:
• • •

it does not mean anything, it is just an expression, you can even use it to a friend as a joke; it is used when you are mad at somebody, and it means the same as stupid; it is used for those girls who have sexual relationships with many boys.

Whilst some of the girls said that they do not mind such name-calling, others said that it would hurt them really very much if someone were to call them such names. Accordingly, girls are vulnerable and can be insulted any moment by sexist comments. Sex-based harassment acts as a form of social control, and hence has material effects on all girls and

35 women, including those who have not Willis, 1998). experienced it personally (c. f. Kenway and

Some of the young boys’ vulnerabilities, on the other hand, are in the possibility to be called ‘queer’ (‘homo’ in Finnish) which can, similarly, be a joke or a general insult. But it can also be an insult in which the boys’ masculinity is questioned. Boys are not harassed because they are boys but because they are the wrong sort of boys. This kind of sexual harassment builds differences between boys, between masculinities, in which heterosexual masculinity is at the top. Sexist comments, then, constitute a way of maintaining and policing gender boundaries (see e.g. Connell, 1995; Larkin, 1994). They also demonstrate male power; the impact of hierarchies based on hegemonic masculinities may be easily forgotten by teachers and other professionals in a situation where (some) boys’ failing in academic terms is emphasised in the educational discussion (eg. Epstein & al, 1998). Sex-based harassment is not easily regarded as a gender issue by teachers. It is often seen as a part of normal relationships, an ‘adolescent mating dance’ (Kenway and Willis, 1998, 108). Teachers in our research schools sometimes interpreted disputes between girls and boys in these terms, as evidence of heterosexual attraction. For example, when discussing Henna’s and Lasse’s disputes, some of them suggested that Henna fancies Lasse - which was not her interpretation. Gendered conflicts are, moreover, often regarded as self-evident in schools. During a lesson when some of the boys were all the time commenting on the doings of some of their female class mates the teacher commented, jokingly: “This is how the strong Finnish women are growing: they survive being teased!” What can teachers do? Schools are sites in which sexualities and sexual identities are developed, practised and actively produced through daily routines (Epstein and Johnson, 1998; Kehily and Nayak, 1996). Some of the lessons are overloaded with sexuality. Teachers are aware of this: “everything that points to these themes makes them giggle”, says one of them. Although teachers are aware of the constant presence of sexuality in school, at least in Finland it is rarely discussed in the context of teaching or learning, or in teacher education; it seems to be almost a taboo. Relations and enactments of power that are involved are seldom questioned. Sex education - when it exists, does not address sexual harassment. Some of the boys' harassing behaviour is often taken for granted in secondary school because of the ‘difficult’ age (Aapola, 1997), as the following extract from a teacher interview suggests: Drawings of sexual organs of course appear or they can even be modelled out of blue tack and stuck on the wall, and then all these hints. Like making these female sexual organs, and drawing pictures of breasts. This teacher did not seem to be annoyed by this and did not consider that female students might regard these kinds of pictures as offensive. In her interview with high school girls, June Larkin (1994) discussed the ways in which harassing behaviour of males at school was normalised. The girls in her study identified three factors that contributed to it: the frequency of that behaviour; the way it was interpreted by others, particularly the male harassers; and the fact that the topic of sexual harassment was seldom, if ever, discussed at school.

36 One of the teachers who wrote to me was herself upset by the behaviour of some boys in her class. She carried out a questionnaire with her students on whether they found boys’ sexist comments insulting. Below is an extract from her letter: I was really surprised that only one out of twelve (eight girls) answered yes. Poor girls! Are they so submissive to this twisted model of communication that they can’t even be angry? Or has their sexual identity not started to develop yet? Or have these smart and nice young women already ruled boys out of their lives? What should we, female teachers, be like so that our girls would become leader types, brave and spirited in addition to being these “wonderful schoolgirls”. Sometimes teachers - those who wrote to me and those whom we interviewed in the ethnographic study - considered it wiser to adopt an attitude of neutrality when they confronted sex-based harassment. It is possible that picking on derogatory comments emphasises a difficult situation, giving further vent to negative views. In practice, however, bypassing negative comments communicates to students that such language is acceptable. Some teachers say that they take up issues of sexism and harassment when a suitable situation occurs, for example when students use sexist language. Our observations suggest that sometimes teachers did do that, but there were also numerous occasions when they did not. Constant ‘fooling around’ of some boys upset some of the girls (and also boys) whom we interviewed in the study, even when this behaviour was not particularly sexist; it limited other students’ possibilities to study, and to use space and voice. Students used to prefer teachers who could keep control in the class room (Gordon, Holland & Lahelma, 2000a; Lahelma, 2000). Auli, at the age of 13, argued: Well, in general it’s just boys who spoil everything. Everything is ruined when they start to fool around over there... It depends on the teacher who lets them fool around. ... then I told her that you should shout louder, you must hit your fist on the table! At the age of 18 her memories of secondary school were rather anguished. When the rest of the young women and men looked back to their years in secondary school in our interviews, many of them commented that teachers did not often react to sexist or racist insults or address situations when somebody was bullied. Some of the interviewed youngsters felt ashamed when they remembered their own behaviour towards a fellow pupil; they thought that secondary school teachers should have talked about these issues. Many of the teachers agreed. Subject teachers in Finnish secondary schools are, however, “always in a hurry to cover the syllabus and to get on”, as one teacher argues. She regrets that even when there are interesting themes to discuss, she feels that there is not enough time. Situations when some of the students - or the teachers themselves - are harassed are not easy, and teachers find it difficult to alter their agenda and to shift to sex education. There are, however, examples when such a strategy might have been effective in tackling sexism and harassment, like in the following extract from a letter by another teacher (Lahelma, Palmu & Gordon, 2000): "The pupils looked up, from photocopies I had taken from dictionaries, definitions for the words “whore”, “prostitution”, and “pimp”. They were then written on the

37 blackboard and discussed in the class. the subject again." I was listening. There was no need to take up

This type of approach is, however, haphazard. If teachers rely on opportunities for reflective discussion developed on the basis of negative comments or deeds by students, then these questions are discussed in the context of problems, and specific students may be the main focus. Moreover, as I have suggested earlier, harassing situations tend to take place when teachers do not see them, and even when they are visible, it is impossible to know when an incident hurts and when it does not. A whole school policy is essential for dealing with these issues. The principle that students must not address other people - their teachers and their fellow students - in humiliating, sexist, or harassing ways is something that each teacher should take responsibility for. This is an important general aim for education and one that has its impact on how much leeway young women and men have in school to build their gendered subjectivities. I want to share with you a memory from a Californian school that Tuula and I visited some years ago. We participated in a meeting for the young children who were starting in this school the following autumn. Consideration for others was clearly expressed by the deputy head in her speech where she expressed the principles of the school: "Everyone is to respect every other person. This means: 1) 2) 3) You are to call a person by his or her name. Everyone has a right to personal space. [Illustrates that space with her hands] . We respect people’s personal property.

If you do those three basic things we will have a great and wonderful school." After a short visit we cannot say what the impact was of this declaration in this inner-city state school with lots of nationalities, in an area with huge social problems. I took this example, however, in order to suggest that respect for other people’s autonomy is an important issue that should be taken in account before, not after, something negative happens. It is a gender issue, and it is an issue of social justice in more general terms as well. How about the boys? In this presentation, I have suggested that along with the teaching and learning in the official school, it is important to pay attention to relationships between students in the informal school, and the interlinking of informal to physical school: how the use of space, voice, time, movement and embodiment is granted to all students, or curtailed by sex-based harassment and other kinds of teasing. Today, when we address gender equality in schools, we often have to answer the question “How about the boys?” Actually, public discussion on boys’ poor results as an educational problem started in Finland as early as in the eighties (Gordon, Lahelma & Tarmo, 1991), in some other countries much later (see e.g. Arnot, David and Weiner, 1996 and 1997; Yates, 1997; Epstein & al, 1998; Kenway & Willis, 1998). I am not going to discuss this question in this paper; we certainly do have it on the agenda in this seminar. But I suggest that it is important to think about boys and masculinities in schools.

38 Referring to David Jackson (1998), who challenges the ‘boy debate’ I argue that men and women need to keep on addressing power inequalities but also need to learn how to work together to change the conventional gender cultures of schools. For some of the boys, this certainly means dealing explicitly with their academic underachievement, and developing classroom strategies that counteract the received idea that it is not cool to work hard at school. It also means critically investigating some boys’ investments in media images of heroic manliness. It means gendering the discussion and non-violent practices connected to boys’ everyday aggression and bullying. Within the arena of boys’ sexualities it means questioning heterosexual boys’ attempts to score and feel powerful as a way of hiding their fears of failure. Challenging macho cultures can also mean noticing and changing the ways some boys use sexual harassment to gain power over girls and sidelined boys. References Aapola, Sinikka (1997) 'Mature girls and adolescent boys? Deconstructing discourses of adolescence and gender', Young, No 4, pp. 50-68 Arnot, Madeleine & David, Miriam & Weiner, Gaby (1997) Educational reform, gender equality and school cultures. In: Cosin, Ben & Hales, Margaret (eds.) Families, education and social differences. London and New York in association with The Open University: Routledge. Connell, Bob (1995) Masculinities. Polity Press, Cambridge. Epstein, Debbie, Elwood, Jannette, Hey, Valerie and Maw, Janet (eds) (1998) Failing Boys? Issues in gender and achievement, Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia. Epstein, Debbie and Johnson, Richard (1998) Schooling Sexualities. Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia. Gordon, Tuula, Holland, Janet and Lahelma, Elina (2000a) Making Spaces: Citizenship and Difference in Schools, London: Macmillan & New York: St. Martin’s Press. Gordon, Tuula, Holland, Janet & Lahelma, Elina. (2000b). 'Friends or Foes? Interpreting relations between girls in schools', in Geoffrey Walford (ed.), Genders and Sexualities. Studies in Ethnography in Education, Vol. 3. Gordon, Tuula, Holland, Janet and Lahelma, Elina (2000c) 'From pupil to citizen: A gendered route', forthcoming in Madeleine Arnot and Jo-Anne Dillabough (eds), Gender, Education and Citizenship: An International Feminist Reader, London: Routledge. Gordon, Tuula, Lahelma, Elina, Hynninen, Pirkko, Metso, Tuija, Palmu, Tarja & Tolonen, Tarja (1999) 'Learning the routines: professionalisation of newcomers in secondary school', Qualitative Studies of Education 12(6). Gordon, Tuula & Lahelma, Elina & Tarmo, Marjatta (1991) Gender and Education in Finland - Problems for Research. Nordisk Pedagogik 4/1991, 210-217 Hey, Valerie (1997) The Company She Keeps: An Ethnography of Girls’ Friendships. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press. Jackson, David (1998) Breaking out the binary trap: boys’ underachievement, schooling and gender relation, in Epstein, Debbie, Elwood, Jannette, Hey, Valerie and Maw, Janet (eds) (1998) Failing Boys? Issues in gender and achievement, Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia. Kehily, Mary Jane & Nayak, Anoop (1996) '“The Christmas Kiss”: sexuality, story-telling and schooling. Curriculum Studies, vol. 4, no. 2. Kenway, Jane & Willis, Sue (with Jill Blackmore & Leonie Rennie) (1998) Answering Back. Girls, Boys and Feminism in Schools. Routledge, London and New York.

39 Lahelma, Elina (1996) 'Vallan haastamista? Opettajien kokemuksia oppilaiden sukupuolisesta häirinnästä'. (Challenging Power? Teachers' experiences on pupils' sexual harassment) Kasvatus (The Finnish Journal of Education) 27(4), 478-88. Lahelma, Elina (2000) 'Lack of Male Teachers - a Problem for Students or Teachers', Pedagogy, Culture and Society Lahelma, Elina, Palmu, Tarja & Gordon, Tuula (2000) 'Intersecting Power Relations in Teachers' Experiences of being Sexualised or Harassed by Students', forthcoming in Sexualities, Larkin, June 1994. Walking through Walls: the sexual harassment of high school girls. Gender and Education Vol.6, No.3, 263-280. Thorne, Barrie (1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in Schools. Buckingham: Open University Press. Tolonen, Tarja (1998) '“Everybody at school thinks I am a nerd.” Schoolboys’ fights and ambivalence about masculinities,' Young 6: 3.

40 Issues of gender (in)equality in research in Hungary Report by Ms Annamária Éva Dudik, Hungary In this presentation I aim at giving a review of the research topics present in Hungary that concern gender equality in education. In the first part of the presentation I wish to review research concerning the learning environment, whilst in the second part I concentrate on educational achievements and how young females think of their future careers. It has to be noted that the first part is considerably shorter, due to the shortage of research in this area. In the final part of the presentation I attempt to point out some of the key questions that need further thinking, discussion and research in this topic, and especially more honest discussion among professionals in education, i.e. teachers, youth workers, school administration. Studying environment and gender 1. Bullying and harassment There is virtually no research conducted in or about Hungary concerning bullying and/or harassment in schools. In a recent thematic issue of a journal of sociology that focused on aggression among young people, sexual harassment in schools was not at all mentioned, and no research could be found for this issue (Educatio 1994:4). Bullying in schools in the whole issue is portrayed as a phenomenon primarily effecting boys, and though acknowledging that sexual harassment is a problem to be researched and discussed and one that has a larger impact on the lives of girls, this topic appears only in the review section of the issue. Research and public debate on aggression towards women is already an accepted research topic in the Hungarian gender or women's studies, concentrating mainly on domestic violence. There is virtually no public discussion, however, on the extent to which young girls are exposed to sexual harassment in schools, be it verbal or physical, how these experiences affect the "learning environment", what sort of messages young girls receive with the mediation of violence, how teachers react if and when they notice an act of harassment, or how the language of sexual violence fits into or conflicts with the general communication patterns of the school. 2. Gender roles and/or women presented in the curricula and text books Another area of primary importance concerning the learning environment is studying the curricula and the text books. The last in-depth research on the representations of gender in school curricula and in text books was conducted in the mid-seventies by Judit H. Sas, who examined the primers from this point of view. She found that the stories of the primers presented a dominantly male world for the children; there were not only more men and boys in the primers than women and girls but it was also characteristic of the texts that more men than women were portrayed doing every sort of social activity (in work, in the streets, in production, being occupied with culture, or studying), and in the case of work twice as many men were presented than women. There is only one exception from this general rule: the activities related to the family, where women dominated the texts and images. Women are primarily and dominantly portrayed as mothers and as belonging to the sphere of the home, taking care of the family. When the personality of the characters is considered, the readers also face a dominantly male world: the most significant difference between the presentation of the two genders is that boys and men had much more definite personality traits, and they had

41 characteristic personalities. In the case of women and girls the personalities were blurred, and if they did have some sort of a personality structure, it naturally contained the traditional female personality traits. (H. SAS 1988: 214) The analysis is especially interesting considering the fact that in the seventies in Hungary it was already typical for women to have paid jobs, and – according to the time budget research of the period – the pattern of sharing domestic labour was beginning to change towards a more egalitarian model, even though it was far from yet reaching it. A more recent study examined the set books and the textbooks of the elementary school curriculum (Czachesz & Lesznyák & Molnár, 1996), and found that among the writers of the set books we can find only male authors, and also that these books concern themselves exclusively with the lives, the thoughts and the feelings of boys. Females lives and lived experiences do not appear at all in any of the set books, unless these experiences are love, care or worry felt towards one of the male characters. The same research also concerned textbooks written for children, and found that though the above mentioned invisibility of girls and women is not characteristic of textbooks, it is primarily due to the facts that the adults present in the textbooks are mostly mothers and female teachers. Studying the illustrations (since Hungarian grammar is gender neutral) they also found that in the majority of cases the first person singular refers to a male character, encouraging the feeling that the active narrator, the one who experiences is male. The most interesting result of the research, however, is that the patterns of gender representations found in the mid-seventies have not changed a bit: in the nineties women in the textbooks are still preoccupied with housework and child-rearing, while males are active, the ones that have characters and personalities, and those who leave the household for their job. We can come to a tentative conclusion that school and studying environments differ to a great extent with regards to gender, and to the detriment of girls, in Hungary, however, there is little up-to-date research that could support this claim. There is an unquestionable need to study this issue, which has to be undertaken in order to have a clearer picture of the career plans and future plans of young women, which is a more frequently and more thoroughly researched topic. Achievements, future plans and gender 3. Over-fulfilment of requirements A study concentrating on the early stages of women’s higher education in the history of education (between 1880 and 1945), Viktor Karády pointed out that women generally overfulfilled the requirements of higher education. He proves that women in the given period had higher qualifications when they applied for universities or colleges, i.e. went to better high schools and had higher earlier academic achievements than their male peers. The difference survived within the higher educational premises as well: female university or college students had better grades, used the libraries more often and studied more subjects than their male colleagues. Moreover, women possessed more cultural capital in terms of the skills and knowledge that were accessible through extra-curricular activities as well: they spoke more languages, more women played some instruments than men, and women were more active in visiting high cultural events, such as the theatre or concerts. (Karády 1994: 181-3) In a recent study conducted by the Youth Research Group of the Institute of Educational Research3 among first year university students of economics and law (which are presently two of the

The research was co-ordinated by Kálmán Gábor, and conducted in the academic year of 1998/99.

42 most prestigious and sought after faculties in Hungary) similar patterns were found concerning the cultural capital of young women and men accepted to these faculties (Gábor 1998). Though there are as many girls as boys today in higher education, even in these elite faculties, it is still observable that girls make more effort to get into these elite faculties: significantly more girls have state language exams, participated in academic contests during their secondary school years, had better grades, and acquired more cultural capital than boys. The reasons behind this phenomenon are difficult to trace, especially because research on the gendered aspects of the school environment is so lacking. On a hypothetical level the reasons can reach from the conception of the field of humanities as female (in the case of acquired cultural capital), to an early effort to compensate for the gender-based hidden or explicit discrimination in the filed of work, to an effort to prove competence in an environment that may continuously, though often with the means of meta-communication, question this competence. 4. Young female identities – career, family and life-plans The issue best researched within this field is how women use the acquired qualifications, i.e. what are their plans for the future concerning the labour market. Education and the school environment undoubtedly have a great role in shaping these expectations, though it also has to be noted that the influence of the family and the mass media can by no means be neglected in this respect. Studying life-plans can give us a picture of these issues. An article by Olga Tóth based on research conducted in 1994 draws our attention to the fact that the traditional gender roles have survived to a large extent in Hungary, and in some areas of the life plans, such as career plans and having a job, we can see the strengthening of the traditional gender roles (Tóth 1995). She draws our attention to the fact that, as compared to the data of 1988, if given the chance, less women would opt for a full-time job after having children, and the decrease in favouring this option is even more tangible in the case of men when they were asked if they would like their wives to have a full-time job after having children. The vast majority of women and men said that a women living with her family should not work in a full-time job after having children, allowing it only after the children have already left their families of origin (1995: 73-4). Although the question is for the most part hypothetical, since there are not many opportunities for part-time jobs and most families cannot afford to live without the income of both adults, the answers do reflect a general attitude that relegates women with children to the role of the mother and housewife almost exclusively. Other data concerning attitudes from the same research asking about the possible motivations a woman could have for having a paid job also support this view. The majority of both men and women agreed with the statement that “It is inevitably disadvantageous for a child under six if her/his mother works”, coupled with strong agreement with the statement that the family itself suffers from the mother’s full-time working, and also strong agreement with the statement that women desire above all to have children and a family (1995: 77-83). Gender research in Hungary stresses that, though the propaganda and the mass media of the state socialist period emphasised the emancipation of women, it meant emancipation in the field of work, and only partially in that area, too, preserving the vertical and horizontal gender segregation of the labour market. This had, however, little or no impact on other aspects of life, and especially little on the norms and values of everyday life. The often quoted emancipation of women did not include gender roles, i.e. how society related to women and men, and which behaviours were accepted for them.

43 Mainly concerned about the questions of career and the family, in a recently published study, Mária Neményi and Anna Kende compared two generations of women (Neményi & Kende, 1999), who were brought up in highly educated families in Hungary. The elder generation, born one or two years after the end of the Second World War, spent most of their lives under state socialism, and were in the middle of their adult careers when the political and economic changes took place in 1989. The younger generation, on the other hand, were in their teens in 1989, and were still at the beginning of their careers in 1997, at the time of the research. They spent most of their education and work years in the new world after communism. The researchers were interested in the social construction of femininity and, more importantly, how women lived out their gender, their female identity. They found that there were some very important attitude differences between the two generations. They pointed out that the dilemmas of balancing work and career on the one hand and having a child and a family on the other are more conflictual for the younger generation. They found that this dilemma is often a matter of choice for the younger ones between the two life tracks, while for the elder generation it was more a matter of trying to solve the problems of living with the ‘double burden’. The researchers actually group the elder generation according to how they reacted to the dilemmas of career and family. They stated that the three groups they found among the interviewed women can be generalised as three typical life courses for women under state socialism. One of these life courses is what they call ‘egalitarian’, which includes women who pursued careers in professions that are usually not considered ‘feminine professions’ (e.g. architect, entrepreneur) and who themselves stated that the key of their success in their work was that they could find the best balance between family and work. The other typical life course they found is what they called ‘subordinated’, denoting women who, according to their own judgement, subordinated their individual career to the family, to their children. The counterpoint of these women are the ‘independent’ ones, who concentrated predominantly on their career, almost entirely neglecting the other role in the family. Their individuality was in the centre of their life course. In the case of the younger generation (the ‘potential daughters’ of the elder generation) the dilemma of career and family so central in the lives of the elder generation meant a more conflict-laden choice between the two, where young women feel that they have to make a choice between concentrating on their careers or on their family lives. The choice does not only mean a choice between the two priorities but also a choice between two sharply contrasting value systems and life courses (Neményi & Kende 1999: 132-3). The difference is that for the women of the elder generation the ideal life course was the ‘egalitarian’, even if they considered themselves to be in the ‘subordinate’ position, whilst the younger generation did not plan to build a balance in their lives between the two but concentrated on choosing between them. The researchers claim that the primary reason behind this shift is that the daughters saw how difficult it has been for their mothers to cope with the ‘double burden’, to meet the expectations of both areas of lives, and that the mothers themselves were ambivalent about the rightness of their choices, filled with guilt feelings about neglecting one or the other aspect of their lives, which is palpable all through their self-told life stories. In times when a society experiences this kind of shift towards a more contrasting double world of work and career, the responsibility and role of education in paying attention to gender differences is especially unquestionable. Encouraging learning environments, curricula that would take into consideration the lived experiences of young women as well, pedagogical

methods equality.




44 undoubtedly can play a role in helping gender

However, though we know quite a lot about how girls and boys study, what their academic results are, and what their future plans are, very little is known about why and how these gender differences evolve. Without paying sufficient attention to this field, no measures can be taken to facilitate gender equality, and to allow true decisions to be taken by girls. This especially concerns research on the studying environment. Also, it is not enough if research is being undertaken, the results have to be discussed within the field of education in the widest possible circles. Public debate within the teaching profession concerning the development and application of differentiated teaching methods for girls and boys is yet to begin, as well as efforts to raise awareness about these issues in terms of the practicalities of teaching. References Czachesz, Erzsébet & Lesznyák, Márta & Molnár, Edit Katalin. 1996. “Lányok és nők a kötelező olvasmányokban, tankönvekben”, (“Girls and Women in Set Books and Textbooks”), Educatio Autumn: 417-430. Educatio. 1994. Thematic issue on “Aggression” 1994:4 Gábor, Kálmán & Dudik, Annamária Éva. 1998. Kikből lesznek az egyetemisták? (The Recruitment of University Students). Research Report. Manuscript, Budapest: Hungarian Institute for Educational Research Hadas, Miklós, ed. 1994. Férfiuralom. (Male Dominance). Budapest: Replika Kör H. Sas, Judit. 1988. Nőies nők és férfias férfiak. [Feminine Women and Masculine Men.] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó Karády, Viktor. 1994. “A társadalmi egyenlőtlenségek Magyarországon a nők felsőbb iskoláztatásának korai fázisában,” (“Social Inequalities in Hungary in the Early Stages of Women’s Higher Education,”) In Hadas 1994: 176-195. Neményi Mária and Anna Kende. 1999. “Anyák és lányok” (“Mothers and Daughters”), In Replika April: 117-141. Tóth, Olga. 1995. “Attitűdváltozások a női munkavállalás megítélésében (“Attitude Changes Concerning Female Paid Work”), Szociológiai Szemle 1: 71-86.

45 Promoting democratic citizenship Report by Ms Mihaela Miroiu (Romania) This report and the suggestions for public policies refer to Romania. They are all based on two main pieces of research: the project “Gendering Education” (1999-2000), supported by the Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna (SOCO project) and Gender Barometer applied on a national scale, co-ordinated and financed by the Open Society Foundation in August 2000 on a representative sample of Romania’s population4. The basic problems to be addressed in the following pages are: − How is the issue of the women-men partnership in the public and private sphere treated in Romania? − What are the basic principles of girls’ and boys' education in order to ensure adequate training to enable them to participate in decision–making processes as well as playing an important role in all the domains of social life (here, in the private sphere and the public sphere, which includes professional life)? − How does school train for equal opportunities in term of careers, decision-making, etc? − What are the education policies to be encouraged in order to promote the democratic citizenship in terms of gender partnership? A. How does the Romanian population see gender partnership in the public and private sphere?

The first school of democratic participation and socialisation within the values of justice and participation is the family. Partnership in the private sphere provides the foundation for partnership within the public sphere. The family is the first "school of justice and fairness". If we look beyond the figures indicating the gender discrimination at the level of women’s active participation in the exercise of political rights (i.e. local administration councils, Parliament, Government), figures indicating a constant participation of 4-5%, we surely find motives and beliefs concerning the population’s opinions of gender relationships in terms of participation. This is what we may call, bearing in mind the results of Gender Barometer, the symbolic patriarchy of Romanian society in the private sphere, transferred as a real patriarchy in the public sphere. This accounts for the way in which the division of participation is structured based on the allocation of authority in the private sphere, and in terms of career opportunities, status and political participation in the public sphere. The results of the barometer 1. Partnership in the private sphere A proportion of 85% of domestic work is undertaken by women, as well as 67% of child care (note that women represent almost half of the Romanian labour force). On the other hand, it is the belief of the population (in a proportion of 67%) that these tasks have to be performed by women. One possible explanation is the allocation of symbolic power in private life: 83% think that the man is the head of the family, 78% that the woman must follow her husband, 70% that the men have to be the main bread-winners, 61% that the woman is the mistress of

I was one of the coordinators of both of these research projects.

46 the household (in terms of budget decisions). Asked an explicit question “who must rule in one’s family”, the gender equilibrium is more balanced: 61% say that gender is not important; or that the family has to be ruled by men: 32%; or women: 4%. Only 5% of Romanian families declare a constant partnership in domestic activities and daily decisions in the private sphere. 2. Partnership in the public sphere In terms of the descriptive indicators, women are in charge of institutions, firms, are members in local administration councils, parliament and govern in a proportion of under 5%. What is public opinion of the way things should be? Most of the population (52-55%) believes that gender is not an issue for those who run businesses, or are members in various local or central councils (although there is a preference for men, on average 40%, versus 4-5% for women). On the other hand, women are preferred in parent councils in schools (24%) and almost rejected in parish councils and in the position of President of the state (3% women, 77% men and for 20% gender has no importance). The explanations offered by the research subjects do not refer to women’s capacity for running, for taking responsibilities in business and politics but, as shown in the results of the barometer, they are conceived in terms of women’s domestic work and rearing children. Another important reason is men’s interest in not being in open competition with women (65% of the answers given by men). 3. Education within the family In Romanian families, the values encouraged as virtues for girls and boys are the following: girls are brought up so that they obey and work hard (i.e. submissiveness and industriousness) (53-46%). Education for autonomy and freedom of choice represent only 8-16%. Boys are brought up in respect for discipline and industriousness (61-35%) while autonomy and freedom of choice represent an almost double proportion, compared with girls (16-24%). Therefore, education in terms of democratic citizenship (decision-making, self-assertion) and participation is low, with significantly lower values for girls). 4. Students- the most gender emancipated category In terms of gender equity, the barometer shows encouraging figures in students and young people (18-26 of age). Their evaluations reflect an increased awareness of gender discrimination. In terms of normative behaviour they are more gender balanced. They are the avant-garde of gender partnership. Among the adult and aged population, in those with primary and secondary education, as well as in the rural population, the gender conservatism is overwhelming. The Gender Barometer clearly indicates that the level of education is the main cause of gender asymmetry and discrimination. This implies the conclusion that, besides the other types of public policies necessary for balancing women and men’s participation, those addressing education bear a heavy long-term significance.

47 B. Does the present education contain promoting democratic citizenship? premises for a gender-based partnership in

The gender partnership among students has an explanation in their experiences: both genders are still under parental care and their roles are very similar as students. Is school a good training ground for future maturity characterised by gender partnership in private, professional and public life? In order to offer some answers to this question I will use a small-scale piece of research: Gendering Education. This focused on the issues of: open and hidden curriculum in education, officials’ opinions (from the Ministry of Education, Inspectorates, school directors, primary and secondary school teachers, students) on the gender dimension of education5. We focused on open and hidden aspects of sexism in the following areas: teachers’ and students’ gender awareness, differences in the evaluation of girls and boy's educational progress, the perception of discrimination in textbooks, the curriculum for teacher's training, career orientation. The main conclusions of the research are the following: 1. At the level of research papers, we can easily speak about gender blindness as a form of curricular sexism. 2. Education for gender issues does not exist as a prominent concern at the level of initial training for primary and secondary teachers. If several courses implicitly approach issues related to sexism, gender discrimination, equal opportunities, etc., this is only done accidentally. Curricular objectives do not include such issues. The law on Education and the curriculum does not include education for private life in a coherent and explicit manner. 3. Education for democracy is mainly covered within the framework of the discipline Civic Culture (from the third year of primary school until the first year of high school). Among the alternative handbooks for such discipline, just one has an explicit policy on equal opportunities for women and men. 4. Having graduated from a hyper-feminised school, the female-graduates of teacher training colleges and upper secondary schools will start their career with a major handicap in dealing with gender issues in the classroom. The chances are that they should help promote a more friendly learning environment for girls, educating in a very coherent manner, in conformity with the values taught in the family. They should expect higher performances in mathematics and technical sciences from boys, and in humanities from girls. Evaluation is done in the girls favour (for “feminine values” read “conformity and discipline”). 5. Some educational activities are segregated (75% of the teachers declare that they practising such segregation). a. Soft sports with a low competitive aspect for girls, strong competitive sports for boys.


The poll was carried out on a group of 5 experts from the Ministry of National Education, 43 local experts, deputy-inspectors and, for primary education, 176 teachers from primary schools and 309 pupils from secondary and primary schools.

b. c. d.

48 Technical education is oriented in its practical aspects through industrial work for boys and manual work for girls (mainly to help them as house-keepers). Sex education is still segregated. Students are more gender balanced concerning their future careers and roles (74,7% declare that men and women can have any career and role) in public life, but the majority of teachers declare that they influence their students for different careers and roles (67%): − Careers only or mainly for boys: hardware specialists, politician, theologian, architect, mechanic, pilot, officer, policeman, judge, guardian. The main reasons are that these careers involve courage and risk which are "male virtues". − Careers mainly for girls: nurse, social worker, baby-sitter, air-hostess, secretary, librarian, psychologist, civil servant, accountant, hair-dresser, model, sailor. The main reasons are that these careers involve care, attentiveness and the sense of beauty which are merely "women's virtues".


Many of the answers from inspectors, directors and school teachers lead to the idea that the orientation of education for the private sphere and for the public sphere must be gender biased, not bi-gendered or gender-balanced. Democracy and justice are values for the public sphere, not for the private one. The most common activities organised for girls are: dress-making, knitting, housekeeping, sex education and training for rearing children. For the boys, the specific activities are: training to take initiatives, technical abilities and software, competition, so call: "training for becoming a real man".


7. Women teachers themselves consider that girls are more weak and helpless, more exposed to violence (physical or symbolic) and it is better for them to be less exposed to the aggressive side of public life (117 among 135 school teachers). 8. The cumulative effects of ignoring gender issues in the curriculum, education plans and teaching materials are dangerous, as they could produce at the level of marginalised groups unwanted effects such as the self-fulfilling prophecy. They generally reproduce a cultural model saturated with prejudices and sexist attitudes (many of them are implicit, less visible, but nevertheless harmful). 9. In sum, at the level of teacher training, a genderised educational model is proposed and promoted, of the reactive type, centred on conservation rather than emancipation. "To be just like everybody else" - i.e. to learn quietly, submissively, in an uncritical manner the gender stereotypes and ideologies, seems to be the main educational message concerning gender issues in initial teacher training. Gender democratic citizenship is promoted as a matter of principle, rather as a gender-blind equality. This may explain why, after 9, 12 or 16-18 years of partnership as students, men and women become as adults non-partners in their access to decisions, professions, positions, economic power and private roles.

49 Bibliography and materials used for the report: The Gender Dimension of Education (project financed by the Institute for Human Sciences SOCO, Vienna) Coordinators Mihaela Miroiu, Doina Stefanescu, Bucharest, 1999-2000 Barometrul de gen (Gender Barometer), Open Society Foundation, Bucharest, Romania, and Gallup Organization, August 2000. Coordinators: Mihaela Miroiu, Renate Weber Barzea, Cezar (coord) (1999) Romania. Educatia de baza. Raport National 1999. (Romania. The basic Education. National Report, 1999), Bucharest: Metropol Cerghit, I., Radu, I.T., Popescu, E., Vlasceanu L. (MNE) (1999) Didactica. Manual pentru clasa a Xa scoli normale (Didactics. Texbook for the the 10th grade), Bucharest: Editura Didactica si Pedagogica Ghica, Vasile (1998) Ghid de consiliere si orientare scolara pentru orele de dirigentie. (Guide for school and career orientation for the school counseling courses) Bucharest: Polirom Grunberg, Laura (1997) “Stereotipuri de gen in educatie: Cazul unor manuale de ciclu primar.” ("Gender stereotypes in education: a case analysis of several primary education textbooks"), Revista de Cercetari Sociale, (The Review of Social Research) no. 2, Bucuresti Grunberg, Laura (1999) “Access to Gender-sensitive higher education in Eastern and Central Europe: Reflections from the CEPES-UNESCO Project on “Good Practice in Promoting Gender Equality in Higher Education”, Higher Education in Europe, vol. XXIV, no.3 Grunberg, Laura and Miroiu, Mihaela (coord) (1997) Gen si educatie (Gender and Education), Bucharest: Ana Jucu, Romita B., Panaisoara, Ion Ovidiu (1999) Formarea personalului didactic – raport de cercetare (The initial training of teaching staff – research report 1), Bucharest: Ministry of National Education Korka, Mihai (2000) Reforma invatamantului de la optiuni strategice la actiune (The Reform of Education from Strategic Options to Implementation), Bucharest: Punct MEN (1999) Curriculum National. Planuri cadru de invatamant pentru invatamantul preuniversitar, ("The National Curriculum for Primary and Secondary Education") Bucharest: MEN Miroiu, Adrian (coord), Pasti, V., Codita, Cornel, Ivan Gabriel and Mihaela Miroiu (1998) Invatamantul romanesc azi: Studiu de diagnoza. (The Romanian Education Today: A Diagnosis), Bucharest: Polirom Sincan, Eugenia; Padureanu, Victoria and Molan, Vasile (1994) Indrumatorul Invatatorului pentru aplicarea programelor scolare la clasele I-IV, (The Primary School Teacher’s Guide for Implementing the Education Plans for the I-IV Grades), Bucharest: Sigma

50 Appendix Suggestions for gender policies in education The political context is favourable, the Ministry of National Education registered the most advanced level of implementing the aquis communautaire of all the governmental agencies. We can highlight obvious conservative processes as obstacles to gender democratic participation: − feminisation at the base and masculinisation at the top of education; − the absence of education for private life and partnership; − gender segregation in creating manual skills for boys and girls and in their professional orientation; − the weak participation of women in public life; − the maintenance of old-fashioned myths of masculinity and femininity in textbook texts and illustrations. A. The objectives of gender policies in education for democratic citizenship

Short-term objectives: − The elimination of gender discrimination in educational practices (in sports, sex education, practical workshop activities as well as manual work and technology classes, in school and career counselling;) − The sanctioning of the persons responsible for blocking the access of Roma girls to secondary education, and the promotion of integration measures of Roma girls in special classes or schools for girls if the Roma tradition is too strong. Most Roma girls are forced to give up their education once they graduate from primary school when they reach the age of fertility (marriage for the girls in the traditional Roma communities is at the age of 12-14). Medium-term objectives: − The introduction of education for private life as an objective in education law; − Changes in the curricula and education plans that will promote gender partnership; − The training of primary, lower and upper secondary school teachers for the implementation of equal opportunities strategies. Long-term objectives: − The balancing of gender structure of teaching staff; − The balancing of gender structure in education management; − Androgynous practice in education; − Gender partnership in education for private and public life; − The elimination of latent discrimination, of potential sexist practices and approaches in the teacher training process.

51 B. 1. The content of gender policies Gender awareness and the sanctioning of gender discrimination in education − The incorporation of a Gender and Education module in the curriculum of upper secondary teacher training schools, of Departments for teacher training and in the process of training the trainers, or the inclusion of gender issues in the following courses: Pedagogy, School psychology, Sociology of education; − The implementation in educational institutions by the M.N.E. of the recommendations concerning the official addressing norms that use the right feminine and masculine formulas, for pupils, students and teaching staff, as well; − The setting-up in the Ministry of National Education of a Department for nondiscriminatory education, that will include a Commission for non-sexist education. 2. a. Policies concerning the teaching staff: the diminishing of the feminisation at base and masculinisation at top Teaching staff is feminised at the basic level (primary and secondary education) and masculinised at the top level (university education and education management). Measures should be adopted to increase the number of men in primary and secondary education and to decrease the number of female teachers in primary and secondary education; The Ministry of Education should actively promote the above-mentioned policy, also with a view to generating positive action for young men to follow teaching careers in pre-school, primary and secondary education; The introduction of a “Numerus clausus” of a minimum 40% for boys/girls admitted to upper secondary teaching training colleges; Changes in the salary policy of the M.N.E. in order to stimulate the occupation of positions in primary and secondary education; For women to be more present at the top of the decision pyramid a promotion policy of women in decision-making positions should be promoted. Dealing with students: directions for an androgynous (bi-gendered) education policy − Boys should be encouraged to undertake care activities and girls competition and leadership training; − The elimination of gender discriminatory treatments in evaluation; − Confronting the cultural pressures the boys face, we should insisted that boys’ education also takes into account the ethics of care and responsibility and of justice in the family; − Confronting the cultural pressures faced by girls: pressure towards femininity understood as dependency, protection and weakness, towards the use of their bodies for illegal earnings, towards accepted anonymity and the monopoly of household responsibility and child rearing. The education of girls in the spirit of autonomy, freedom of choice, ethics of rights, justice, self-development and selfassertion should be insisted upon; − The rejection of boys’ and teaching staff’s prejudices that boys are more intelligent then the girls, as well as the stereotypes that the girls get better results due to their

b. c. d. e. 3.

52 attitudinal superiority (responsibility, submissiveness, obedience). The positive features should be developed for both genders. 4. Non-sexist strategies of evaluation

To oppose effectively gender imbalances, the evaluation process should measure the ability to use the learning outcomes in different contexts: − the measurement of the students’ ability to perform complex assignments such as dealing with dilemmas, resolution of conflicts, community participation; − the reduction of homework in favour of evaluation activities performed in the classroom; − respect for justice and merit as central values in comparing students’ school behaviour; − the positive appreciation of initiative; − marks for “Good Behaviour” should be replaced with an evaluation of behaviour according to other elements besides conformity discipline, or school attendance. 5. Curricular policies: the elimination of the “hidden curriculum” that promotes gender conservatism and the creation of a curriculum oriented towards mutual appreciation and partnership education

The most important part of gender stereotyping is explicitly achieved through textbooks and, implicitly, through curriculum and education plans. − The inclusion of non-sexist education as a curricular objective; − The elaboration of a non-sexist education guide for the authors of curricula, education plans and textbooks (with themes, illustrations and pictures, enhancing women’s contribution to culture, using models of women’s professional achievements and also men’s models of equal involvement in private life and partnership in public life); − The formulation and enforcement of gender correctness standards for publishing houses printing textbooks; − The initiation of students from upper secondary teaching training colleges, as well as those attending courses at teacher training departments, in gender topics, as well as the implementation of communication and evaluation strategies that encourage gender neutral education; − Planning of practical skill development activities, to stimulate both technical abilities for girls and household abilities for boys. 6. Education for gender partnership in private life

The Ministry of Education must initiate the modification of the Law of Education so that the inclusion of gender partnership and education for private life should be a main educational objective with the others. If the Law includes such objectives, it would become part of any subject that might have such a component, including the “sciences”. Any school curricula of a subject should be formulated so that it explicitly includes themes on education for private life.

53 We recommend the inclusion in the school curriculum of the following topics which can increase democratic and responsible citizenship in private life: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Biology: topics on ecology and protection of the environment; Anatomy: topics on pathology, prevention of illness, healthy eating, hygiene, sexuality and family planning, birth, abortion and contraception; Physics and Technology: topics on the operation of home appliances, including the possible risks of their incorrect use; Chemistry: themes on the use of chemical substances in daily life, the risks implied by their use, including drug abuse (this would call for an interdisciplinary approach using notions from Chemistry, Anatomy, Psychology and Civic Education); History: topics on the history of private life and life styles with a specific accent on the local community; Physical education: programmes on pregnancy and more specifically on exercises that are to be used during pregnancy for the ease of labour; learning physical exercises for babies and small children; exercises for the prevention of obesity and also self-defence courses; Economics: topics on domestic management and administration of the family budget; budget planning, income taxes and revenues, the rights of taxpayers; Psychology: all topics should be oriented towards the understanding of the individual’s personality. It should also include elements of social psychology with a specific accent on the formation and de-structuring of ethnic, racist, and gender prejudices, on xenophobia, on ageism and also prejudice towards persons with specific physical disabilities; as well as topics concerning antisocial and deviant behaviour. One of the main goals will be to raise consciousness about personal life crisis, traumas and situations of transition; Philosophy: analysis from a philosophical perspective of abortion and euthanasia; Religion: topics on couple reciprocity and responsibilities, education of small children and assistance for suffering persons or those in need; Ethics: family relationships, divorce, widowhood, one-parent families; institutionalised children, friendship and neighbourhood relationships, rape, sexual harassment, prostitution, pornography, paedophilia, and family justice.

7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

At the level of School Inspectorates 1. 2. 3. Introductory classes in gender issues, within the larger framework of further training programmes organised for the teaching staff by the county School Inspectorates in cooperation with specialised NGOs; Organising workshop and seminars for School Inspectors focusing on the outlining of strategies for the dissemination and monitoring of equal opportunities policies through non-sexist education; Introducing into the School Inspectorates’ established framework of evaluation of teachers’ activities a specific mark/qualification for the monitoring and practical accomplishment of equal opportunities policies. This measure will discourage sexist approaches and discrimination both for teachers and school inspectors.

54 At the level of the Ministry of Education 1. 2. 3. 4. Forbidding explicitly the segregation of school activity for gender reasons, in theoretical and practical courses as well; The Ministry of Education, together with the School Inspectorates and the specialised NGOs should promote an awareness-raising campaign of equal opportunities and nonsexist education, with parents, teachers, pupils/students as target groups; Establishing a specific department in the M.N.E. for non-discriminatory education, and a Commission for non-sexist education and equal opportunities; The M.N.E. should recommend adequate courtesy, communication and behaviour norms, in order to prevent sexist discrimination in official relations within schools, Inspectorates and the Ministry, in official documents and official communication.

55 Promoting democratic citizenship – the role of schools Report by Prof Dr Carol Hagemann-White (Germany) In today’s world, it often seems as though youth may know more about the future than their parents and teachers. They grasp the workings of information technology and its potential far more quickly, explore and adapt to its possibilities while the generation of their parents is still trying to make new skills fit old values and needs. They have grown up in a globalised economy and media culture with subcutaneous knowledge of the limits to traditional decisionmaking power within any country: to them, it may seem improbable that voting any political party into government will shape the future significantly one way or the other. (This does not mean, however, that they have no ideals or interest in social justice or a good society, but rather that they put their trust in community-level activity with concrete actors rather than in abstract ideals and large collectives.) And on a personal level, the traditional organising concepts for planning an individual future – a vocation or profession on the one hand, marriage and the family on the other – have both become fragile and lost credibility as foundation stones - if but wisely chosen - for a predictable and rewarding life trajectory. Anything may happen, and frequently does, to interrupt or redirect the pathway entered upon, to cause a life plan to crash. Is it not, then, foolish to imagine schools preparing girls and boys for the future, as if the older generation still held the secret of survival or success? Indeed, of all of the topics in this meeting, this one – promoting democratic citizenship and preparing young people for the future – is least likely to attain its aims within a model that understands adults as having superior knowledge that they should impart to children. Here, if anywhere we need approaches to learning in which youth and adults in schools work out together how participation, involvement in significant changes and personal development might look like in the future. Knowing, as we do, that gender inequality is one of the most fundamental obstacles to a peaceful and participatory society in which differences and social cohesion interact in synergy, we must understand the project of education for equality to be at the core of education for democratic citizenship. This has implications for schools on four levels: on our understanding of the aims of education, on the content of what is taught, on the form or methods of instruction, and on the interrelationships between schools and the surrounding society. In discussing these I will try to illustrate with brief examples of good practice. 1. In modern, industrialised Europe schools have been understood to exist for the purpose of instructing boys and girls to function effectively as adults in an economy based on literacy, mathematics and technology, and division of labour. High ideals of the aims of education have been described with eloquence, but again and again, when it comes to resources and regulations, these ideals are treated as optional additions to the “core curriculum” based on economic utility. Although it can be shown that gender inequality is costly, wasteful of valuable human resources and destructive of human potential, short-term thinking still prevails; schools are regarded as a kind of factory expected to produce whatever qualification profiles seem needed this year in response to the immediate needs of employers and administrations. Such expectations recur with ever-new content, despite the well known fallibility and weakness of prognosis, for the needs of today will have changed before the generation beginning school actually enters the labour market. Moreover, whenever concerns or discontent occupy public debate, schools are called upon to produce solutions: spread

56 computer literacy, prevent racism and right- wing violence, improve the national average level of mathematical skills, give young people knowledge of the economy – again, it is as if we were dealing with a factory that only needs to be re-tooled. Against this background, it seems invaluable to incorporate broader and deeper aims of education into law, rather than leaving them to the vagaries of the shifting demands of interest groups, parties or media pressures. The commitment to achieving gender equality should be firmly anchored in whatever statutory framework defines the goals and tasks of public and publicly subsidised schools. For example, in the state of Lower Saxony in Germany, the educational law has a preamble entrusting schools with overall goals of democratic citizenship, and specifically to educate for peace, for healthy living, for ecological responsibility, for gender equality, for European and intercultural awareness. These are overarching tasks not restricted to any subject area of instruction. One consequence is that future teachers are now required to take four courses that address these issues, if possible in an interdisciplinary way. These courses may be offered in any field (for example, biology, languages and literature, music or sports), or they may be taken as part of the required study of education or of psychology. In my education department, a large proportion of courses integrate these overarching goals into basic requirements, teaching fundamental concepts and methods with a focus on gender equality, or on European studies, ecology or peace. As these goals, if taken seriously, must of necessity overlap in reality, so do they also intermingle during teacher training. We still have much work ahead of us to educate university teachers in the classic disciplines that they, too, are obligated to integrate a gender perspective (as well as intercultural, ecological and peace-promoting aspects) into the centre of their field. The first reaction to the 1997 regulations requiring such courses was a demand for additional staff to teach these issues, as if they were not part of the “real work” of scientific research and teaching. I am confident, however, that many colleagues can and will learn that the most basic aims of education for a fully democratic and non-violent society with a sustainable economy are neither marginal to science nor tasks for specialists only. 2. In following this train of thought we arrive at the question of the content of what is taught in schools. Here, the pressure in recent years has been great, - renewed in every difficult phase of economy or politics and often in election campaigns, since playing on parents’ fears and wishes for their children is a powerful strategy for winning votes – to cut back the frills and luxuries and concentrate on what employers are presumed to expect of school leaving candidates for jobs. The content of what is taught in schools derives, in this view, from a well-calculated mix between the scientific logic of core curriculum subjects and the practical uses to which skills and knowledge will be put at the workplace, seasoned with a nice blend of traditional virtues such as neatness and compliance. This is a profoundly inadequate prescription for the future. It can be said that we are just emerging from what has been called the mechanical age. Whether one chooses to call the emerging society Post-Fordist, post-industrial or post-modern: Far-sighted experts agree that the economy of the future will not need subordinates and specialists so much as people capable of thinking flexibly and cooperating creatively. Indeed, high-level management seminars today focus on re-orientation to creating organizations that trust people and value imagination and independent initiative rather than regulations, instructions and control. How

57 much more the transformation to a more truly democratic society calls for participation and innovation! What do these changes imply for education? The curriculum of modern European schools evolved out of the presumed educational needs of boys for what was traditionally considered their primary roles as breadwinner for the family and citizen in public life. Throughout historical changes in these roles, the premise for inclusion in subject matter was, in a sense, compensatory education: schools are expected to teach what is not learned “naturally” from the immediate environment (family, peer group, direct observation, and today the media). Since schools defined and channelled access to full citizenship, women’s struggle for equal rights centred on access to this same schooling. The introduction of co-education involved, for the most part, girls and women adapting without question to an education that had been created for implicit needs and expectations of masculinity. The traces of this history are still evident. For example, since boys are socialised to be physically active, to practise wild and noisy play, in the early grades schools devote much attention to teaching children to sit still and develop fine motor skills. Girls easily have the advantage of boys with respect to these demands, and teachers find them easier to handle. Often they solve discipline problems by seating a girl between two unruly boys. The other side of the coin is that girls, having been socialised towards quiet play and fine work with their hands, might need to learn many of the things that boys seem to have “naturally” such as the energetic use of space, teamwork in competition and challenge, experience in testing boundaries and exploring new territory and a certain amount of physical courage and daring. Or (simplifying again for the sake of brevity) if girls in early adolescence are indeed more interested in, and more knowledgeable about people and boys more interested in things, perhaps education should be teaching girls to appreciate and understand the working of things, and boys to understand more about people. Schools need to think about how such skills and experiences define the subject matter of their curricula, and how the content of education could be brought to a better gender balance. More profoundly, the norms of masculinity with their one-sided orientation to the public sphere must be re-evaluated, and education needs to address the unequal power between the sexes and the gender division of labour in the workplace and the home. This is often misunderstood as a call for new, special subjects and instructional units. In 1993 in Vienna, the Austrian minister of women’s affairs Johanna Dohnal and the minister of culture and the arts Rudolf Scholten presented an “Enquete” on girls’ occupational choices to a forum of international experts. In the closing session, when a representative of school administration took the floor to discuss implementation, he agreed with the need to do more, but warned against asking too much of schools: already, schools are expected to take time out from their regular curriculum for concerns such as health promotion, peace education, intercultural tolerance – is it fair and reasonable to add to this list? Such alarmed reactions result when the concept of an overarching education for democratic citizenship and social cohesion is not fully understood. We do not need more and more separate space for special subjects, but reconsideration of the entire school curriculum. What possible logic can justify that schools, supported as they are by the resources of all people in society, persist in neglecting the importance of private life to all of society, the prime need for cooperative skills and interpersonal responsibility in a world without preordained “breadwinners”, the imperative that everyone contribute to social cohesion both outside and inside employment if we do not want to face a dramatic crisis of care work, the pandemic of gender-based interpersonal

violence that will only increase if prevention define anew what schools should be teaching.

58 is left to the “private” sphere? We need to

3. Since these challenges cannot be met by merely adding on instructional hours, this brings us very quickly to the question of how teaching should take place. Understanding and actively shaping social change, participation in decision-making require a strong selfconfidence and social skills that must be nurtured and brought to fruition during the formative years of education. Their single most important prerequisite is teaching that stimulates student enthusiasm and fullest possible active involvement. That is, schools must practice in the education process what they hope to achieve as its outcome. Rather than adding courses on family caring to courses on technology, education must overcome thinking in narrow compartments, one following the next during each school day. The most effective path to changing what is taught is changing how it is taught. Educators have long seen this link and sought ways to put it into practice. Early in the last century, for example, Celestine Freinet in France, Maria Montessori in Italy or Alexander O’Neill in England, to name only a few - explored widely differing ways to organise learning around student activity. Thus, we know a great deal about how education can integrate different kinds of learning in cooperative projects that encourage initiative, stimulate a desire to acquire specific skills and knowledge and relate learning to living, but these experiments have not transformed schooling overall. As Scott and McCollum wrote in 1993, looking back over more than 20 years of research on school improvement, “creating sex-equitable environments in classrooms requires more than changing the behaviour of individual teachers…understanding how school cultures evolve and change holds the key to lasting school reform.” Successful change must either accommodate or reshape “the accustomed ways of believing and behaving” that are at the core of school culture. To exemplify how this might be done, I have chosen an example of a German school with a long tradition of gender equality: the Helene Lange gymnasium in Wiesbaden was the first school in Germany to graduate a young woman with the Abitur. Today it is a public comprehensive school for the first ten grades, which has undergone a profound transformation through a whole-school development policy. Innovative leadership was central to this change. At the core of education are projects that pupils choose and carry out over weeks or possibly months; many of these involve construction, artistic decoration and/or the use of computer technology as well as acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to produce a result that is useful or informative for others. Instruction in classic subjects such as mathematics or languages of course still takes place, but seems to be understood as a necessary adjunct to the project activities, rather than projects being a temporary respite from the usual discipline. For this to be possible, both the building of the school and the organisation of teaching had to be changed. Over some years, storey by storey, walls were torn out and large spaces for multiple use created; all doors are always open. At the same time, rituals have been introduced, such as a special hand gesture with which anyone who finds the noise level too loud can ask for quiet, usually with success; thus, discipline is no longer a matter of teachers’ authority but of democratic courtesy and respect for others. On each floor of the school, a team of about 10 to 12 teachers is responsible for the entire grade, and team teaching is the rule rather than the exception. Time is available for this because so much learning takes place in independent projects. This school did not grow as a specific gender equity project, but in observing the actual group work it is evident that an increase in gender quality enters the picture almost automatically

59 (although it is, perhaps, not an accident that the innovative school director who pioneered these changes and negotiates them with the city is a woman). In project work, existing skills of boys and girls are valuable to the group, and skills lacking need to be acquired; within a democratic school culture, this is a framework for compensatory education to the onesidedness of gender socialisation. In team teaching, men and women work together on an equal and respectful basis and model gender-equal cooperation for the students. And after a third-world project evolved into real partnership with a school in Nepal, the school came to feel that it was incompatible to depend on poorly paid immigrant women coming in to clean the school each morning, and decided to take over the cleaning themselves: we see boys running vacuum cleaners and wiping tables as a matter of course and a self-evident part of daily life. With the money saved from delegating the removal of dirt to the poor, the school was able to pay a professional actor and director for intensely serious theatre projects with the pupils, in which learning about literature, thinking about social issues and more profound understanding of people become part of the school curriculum. All of this relates to skills, attitudes and knowledge for private life, but it occurs – thanks to the open-door and openspace policy as well as its inclusion in the curriculum – in a shared and semi-public environment. Students are learning, without ever being “taught”, that empathy, sharing the daily work of living, and cooperative interaction are necessities of life and no merely private concern. 4. Not every school can pursue such a comprehensive policy of change; it may be equally valuable to begin, instead, with the links between schools and the larger society. Here, it seems useful to choose an arena of action where society’s leaders have sufficient basic insight and the will to overcome specific “glaring problems” of gender inequality and carry this into the schools. Depending on the country or region, the stage of political and public discourse, and the available actors, this might be economic inequality and the feminisation of poverty, a rapidly sinking birth rate where women are caught between participation in the labour market and non-existent services of child care, or a gender disparity in health and wellbeing and the commitment to a “healthy city” programme in the broad sense defined by the WHO. My example of good practice comes from Spain, where recent years have seen considerable efforts to address and overcome violence against women, such as increasing the number of shelters (from 129 in 1997 to 243 today), or creating specialised “woman-friendly” police stations. In the past school year, within a broad government-supported campaign, schools throughout the province of Valencia carried out workshops to educate students about gender-based violence. Accompanied by awareness-raising activities in the media such as an initiative of popular musicians and performing artists against violence against women, these workshops had as their theme “gender concord”, and the challenge was encapsulated in the question “Can we achieve a world without violence?” Framing the project in this way invited and encouraged boys as well as girls to participate in overcoming violence as a shared task, while giving full scope to the realities of domestic violence, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation and violence against women in armed conflict, The school project was linked visibly and explicitly to a public political commitment both of the Spanish government and that of the province, and in such public statements it was clearly emphasized that there can be no end to gender-based violence without full gender equality, and conversely, no gender equality is possible without ending violence against women in all its forms. The link between political and social efforts towards real change and education in schools was also expressed when both worked towards the international day of combating

60 violence against women (November 25, 2000). While the city and province of Valencia supported the Queen Sofia Centre for the study of violence in hosting the first World Women’s Forum on Violence, the students in school workshops worked to develop their vision of overcoming violence for public presentation on the eve of the Forum. The workshops were, therefore, not merely hours of instruction, but opportunities to practice democratic participation with real impact. From their vision of peaceful gender relations the young people formulated a “decalogue” of commandments or principles for achieving their vision. These begin with the call for education to non-violence from earliest childhood, include equal sharing of housework and child care between both partners, eliminating all discrimination against women at work, and rejecting images of women as a sexual object for men, as well as use of the law: denouncing concrete examples of violence or abuse, and outlawing female circumcision throughout the world. It is noteworthy that these young people also include – on an equal level of importance for overcoming violence – building gendermixed groups to learn cooperation and mutual respect, and shared decision-making between women and men on the basis of respect for dissenting opinions. Clearly, they see a need for developing cooperative skills and understanding between the sexes, and see this as an integral part of ending violence. On November 22, students from throughout the province were invited, with their teachers, to a highly publicised ceremony where the workshop project and its evaluation was presented. Here, young people not only had the opportunity to present and explain the results of their workshops to prominent representatives of politics and society, but were assured that the government is committed to implementing their call for action. Their teachers were called forward and honoured as well as the public figures, and the ceremony was followed by a party for and with the students. In this, the young people were recognised publicly as crucial agents of social change; their part in democratic citizenship is not some time in the future, when they have learned enough, but today, and in the very process of learning they are also teaching us all that gender violence calls for the participation of each and every member of society regardless of age. In taking on the challenge of designing change, the girls and boys moved forward with their teachers on the path towards gender equality, and we can be confident that this will not be without impact on the school culture. 5. Summary

For all age groups and in all regions of Europe, schools can become an arena for overcoming gender inequality, the misuse of power and violence, and discrimination against women. Different paths can lead to the same end, but efforts in this direction can only succeed if they are consistently supported by the political will to achieve gender equality, if the concept of the school as a factory and its graduates as a product is abandoned and schools themselves are encouraged to become sites of democratic citizenship in practice.

61 Report of Working Group 1 presented by Ms Annie De Wiest (Belgium) Working Group 1 was greatly enriched by its diversity: its geographical diversity, which is one of the Council of Europe’s main assets, and its diversity in terms of professional backgrounds and fields of responsibility, as it comprised government officials, teachers, academic staff and field workers. This extremely broad range of perspectives gave rise to intense discussion on a practical level. “Tour de table” We began our work by going round the table, with all those present highlighting the “flagship” projects in their country, as well as their own concerns. A special mention goes to the French representative, who described a three-year agreement between the various ministerial departments, aimed at promoting equality in the education system. We were also very interested to hear Ms Mulheims’ description of the Luxembourg project “Partageons l’égalité” (Let’s share equality), which seeks to promote equality while respecting diversity and is part of a large-scale European partnership initiative. The project’s partners include representatives of trade unions and the world of work; it relies on a network of officials whose job is to act as multipliers. Ms Romao, from Portugal, expressed her disappointment that work on equality and education in most European countries is mainly based on small-scale pilot projects and that the equality policy in this field is somewhat experimental, often having no structural impact on the education system. The United Kingdom representative made a significant comment, emphasising that her country was currently very concerned about social inclusion issues; this sometimes led people to believe that differences in social class or background, or ethnic differences, could be viewed as more crucial than sex discrimination. The Greek experts gave a lucid presentation on violence in schools, and discussed an extremely important initiative whereby a 30% quota is set for recruitment to high-level teaching posts. Our Albanian colleague mentioned the considerable problems which her war-torn country is unfortunately experiencing; like our Polish colleague, she mentioned the problem of teaching standards, which were linked to teachers’ training and pay, the latter, regrettably, being very low. Our Slovakian colleague, who welcomed us to Bratislava a few weeks ago for a Forum which covered the key issue of violence against young women, raised a worrying question: are young women always aware of discrimination against them? She also explained that in her country, women often had to choose between the “career” and “family” options, and that it was often difficult to reconcile the two.

62 Discussion topics I shall now outline the various topics which came up during the discussions. Before I start, I must apologise for not keeping to the three headings initially envisaged; unfortunately, we were unable to keep to this structure during our discussions, which reflects the fruitful nature of the contributions made. I shall therefore discuss in turn the points put forward on teaching, education and teachers, the pupil and the learner, mixed education, language and research. It will be clear from these topics that approaches may sometimes be very “macroscopic” and at other times more microscopic and locally-based – however, I feel that this is an accurate reflection of our discussions. I shall begin with education, teaching and teachers. The role of education in society is changing dramatically, as Jean-Pierre Titz made clear in explaining that the Council of Europe had recently held a major meeting in Cracow on the role of education in society, with the concept of “educational environment” featuring prominently. This leads us to consider the purpose of education and teaching in our societies, areas in which the Council of Europe currently carries out a good deal of work. Another recurring point was that education should include the idea of citizenship education. We were not so keen on the expression “civic education”, preferring to use the term “education for citizenship”. With regard to education and teaching, we also felt – as I shall explain further on when discussing stereotypes – that education is probably unable to solve all problems. We spoke a great deal about teachers, agreeing that expectations of their role these days were immense. We expect them to pass on knowledge and teach things to pupils, but we also know that their job does not stop there. They also have to communicate, to learn to be tolerant, and to instil tolerance and respect for human beings in others; we therefore talked about skills, attitudes and learning how to educate. Naturally, we looked at all aspects of teacher training. It is a huge problem and requires considerable political will. A new approach to initial and further teacher training is necessary; in particular, teachers need to be made more aware of gender issues. For example, the teaching of women’s history, as outlined in the guide available in French and English, was said to be a gender-based approach; in addition, Ms Mulheims’ documents showed us a range of possibilities. It was also argued that teachers should respond to people’s increasing expectations of them by learning to cast aside stereotypes and prejudices; Agnès de Munter strongly emphasised the concepts of listening, courage, ethics and empathy on the part of teachers. These points were made in the light of the observation that teachers sometimes have different expectations of pupils, whether girls or boys, and that these differences sometimes penalise pupils, with boys and girls alike being potential victims. Jean-Pierre Titz observed that the pressure on boys is sometimes just as great. It is not always easy for young boys to live up to the male stereotype forced upon them. We emphasised teacher training and the need to provide teachers with suitable material and to set up networks to share good practices, teaching material and experience. The idea of a

63 European competition on good teaching practice was suggested. Lastly, partnerships between teachers and parents were considered a good idea. It was reiterated that all these measures require a clear statement of political intention in the context of gender mainstreaming. In the morning, when we discussed the role of teachers, Sophie Piquet was anxious to emphasise teachers’ responsibility in alerting young women to the risk of becoming victims of trafficking in human beings. It was also stressed that international organisations such as the one which had kindly welcomed us and listened to our suggestions at the seminar have a huge influence on governments; they are in a position to drive policies forward and foster interaction between states, particularly as they can make governments take notice of what is happening at national or regional level. We then moved on to the pupil, agreeing that pupils too have their own characteristics, problems and plans. Carol Hagemann stressed the role of young people as agents of change, a view which aroused a good deal of comment and suggestion: children should be trained to take a critical look at events and to think critically, but should also be encouraged to take part in organised bodies – decision-making bodies, discussion forums or, as someone said, bodies involving equal representation. The question of classroom “leadership” skills for girls and young women was raised but not discussed in any detail; I would argue that it should be examined in relation to the teaching of women’s history. In any case, there was a consensus in the group that pupils should be regarded as individuals in their own right from pre-school level onwards. As such, they should not be seen as part of a particular group – a girl among other girls, a foreigner among other foreigners, a Muslim among other Muslims and so on. All pupils are entitled to their own identity and individuality, which brings us to the question of listening, courage and empathy on the part of the teacher. The question of mixed education was referred to on several occasions, but the group was noticeably hesitant on the subject, being unsure where to start the discussion of a topic which, it has to be said, is not an easy one. In a discussion on mixed education, there is a risk of putting forward clear-cut views; a more subtle approach is, naturally, more helpful. There are undoubtedly many advantages in mixed education, as well as a number of disadvantages; we must set out to remedy these disadvantages. We also talked about sport. Everyone bore in mind Geneviève Fraisse’s comment: girls give up maths at the same time as sport. This prompted various points on the status of sport in society: a means of personal development or a way of competing against others. We could not avoid mentioning stereotypes, discussing them in detail. Stereotypes need to be unravelled; this brings us back to the question of teacher training. Nor could we avoid discussing the role of the media in creating stereotypes. We asked who was most influential in shaping children’s identities in modern-day society. Teachers no longer bear sole responsibility; the media now play an equally important role, which needs to be taken into account. I also believe that the media should be used as a tool for promoting women’s abilities, potential, resources and talents – an approach the Council of Europe has frequently taken.

64 Lastly, the question of language was raised. The vital importance of taking the philosophical implications of language use into account in policy-making was reiterated. Our Chair placed considerable emphasis on this subject, rightly so in my opinion as language is not neutral; this important point needs to be explored further. We then spoke about new technologies, observing that they are playing an increasing role in learning and character development. It is clear to what extent these new technologies convey the dominant male values. I feel, however, that women have a contribution to make too, and that precisely because these technologies are so new, it is not too late for women to get involved if they want to. Finally – and this is my last point – we talked about the need for research which must be both a source of inspiration and a focus for our efforts and will necessarily be multidisciplinary. We also talked about imagination and creativity – this was our Chair’s final comment. I believe that research must be supported, underpinned and driven not only by a strong will, but also by imagination and creativity.

65 Report of Working Group 2 presented by Ruth Tudor (United Kingdom) I am quite sure that I will not do justice to the richness of the discussions we had in this group; I hope that my colleagues will compensate when they have the opportunity to add to and clarify some of the things that I have said. I am going to run through the main points, under the three headings. Valuing equality and diversity We started off by talking about teachers’ attitudes to achievement. Broadly speaking there was consensus that teachers think that girls do better because they work harder; boys do not do as well because they are lazy, however they are extremely clever. The implications of this very powerful hidden message is that women are not perceived as being really successful and this was seen as something very damaging to society. Instead, the focus is on male achievement and therefore we are ignoring in our debates the fact that achievement is gendered and that gender equality must be part of the achievement debate. This was not the case in at least two countries – Finland and the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom the focus is on academic success of boys rather than gender equality. This narrow focus on academic success and the view that boys underachievement is the real concern also leads to other assumptions. For example: are women teachers a problem in schools? This idea that boys don’t do as well because there are not so many male teachers leads us to see women as inadequate as teachers. We then went on to talk about diversity, and here we were distinguishing between men and women – men and women as different to each other – but we also started to talk about diversity within the two groups, ie what diversity there is within the male world, and what diversity there is within the female world. The point was raised that men are not offered such diverse role models perhaps as women, and that this lack should be made up. What does it mean to be a 'caring and gentle' man? What does it mean to be a man who is “different” to the traditional role? Because there is a lack of diverse role models for men, the point was made that men are often pushed back into traditional, masculine models of how they should be. Linked to this, we talked about the issue of how to get boys to talk in classrooms – something that generally girls are good at, or seen as good at. How do you get boys and young men to reflect on how their behaviour affects others? What is the role of teacher training in enabling teachers to get boys and young men to talk? Here the point was made that, when we talk about teacher education, we should also talk about continuing teacher education. It is very important that teacher education in gender equality and other issues does not stop when they teaching begins, but that teachers are offered continuing professional development so that issues like gender equality can become meaningful for them within the context of their teaching career and experiences. We also made the point that the issue of gender equality must be addressed within the whole of education and learning, not just in schools, and that has different relevance to different countries which have different traditions. In some countries, youth work has a major contribution to make. There may be different mixes and different packages that these agencies – early years education, youth work education – can offer gender equality. It doesn’t all have to happen in the same way and in the same place.

66 It was stressed that different countries have different traditions and past experiences in relation to gender. In former communist countries, the experiences of men and women in relation to each other was different to that of capitalist countries. In Bulgaria it was felt that there had been equality under communism. Within the capitalist economy, however, women were facing new problems and challenges around maternity pay, equal pay, equal rights at work which they had been protected from before by the state. Moving on to talk about teacher attitudes, the point was made that we need to recognise that teachers need to see that there is a problem around gender inequality in our society. The point was also made that this should be considered when recruiting teachers. However, we did not go on to discuss how this might be done. The point was made that schools operate within communities and that this can be a strength – some of us thought of communities as very patriarchal, but when schools work in partnership with parents and the community this can be a great boost to education for equal opportunities and one conclusion from this was that, perhaps, resources should be given to schools who do something about gender equality. We also heard an example of a Nordic project - Nord-Lilia- which was about equal opportunities and gender in teacher education. The conclusions were that training leads to greater equality and greater quality in teaching – teaching improves when teachers are trained to teach for equality, the whole standard of teaching is raised. Other conclusions from the project were that, in order to change teachers, you not only have to raise their awareness but you also have to give them knowledge and research and information which they can reflect on while they are practising teachers. It is not enough just to be aware of the issues. We talked about the challenges of motivating teachers and overcoming teacher resistance. One of the big problems was that people might have the idea that gender identity is not something which is open to change but something which is 'natural' or given. In order to achieve change, teachers needed to see gender relations as something which could be changed and that it was their responsibility. The contrast was made here that for someone who saw themselves as racist, there would not be the same attitude: “if I was brought up as a racist, I can stop being racist”. That was not necessarily the view in relation to gender identity. There was some feeling of impotence, that schools are so small compared to the media and family whose influences are much greater. On a much more positive note research shows that we do make a difference as teachers. The situation was not to be seen as hopeless! We also discussed how far schools can affect private life, what happens within people’s private lives in relation to issues of equality. Again, it may be that the impact of education is negligible but indirectly, by exposing children to other ways of being, by letting them know that there are other ways to live, other ways to organise the family, we may be making an important difference. Building New Identities On the issue of building new identities, the very big question that we started out with – “do they really want to change gender identities”? the implication was that many people found it hard to get gender equality onto the agenda in their countries because there is no real commitment to change, unlike issues such as multiculturalism. The point was made that gender equality education must start where young people are at. It must make sense to them in their lives, it must seem to be meaningful and relevant and young

67 women and men must be able to leave their classrooms and return to their families and be able to make connections between their education and their experiences at home. Otherwise, the impact of education for gender equality will be very low. We talked about the concept of 'entitlement' of young people in relation to the issue of gender equality to an education that really prepares them for their future life, both in the public and the private sphere, and that it is important to think what that entitlement might consist of. For example, the entitlement to be respected. This included not being sexually harassed or suffering violence. This entitlement exists whatever people’s identity may be. Young people may live in a community where identities are seen as traditional and the teacher may respect that. The entitlement is still there, to know that there are other ways of being. Teachers cannot ignore these entitlements, even if their own gender identity is not necessarily in accord. There was also the point made that we need to change the perceptions of young men and women about violence and that sexual harassment is violence, which is not necessarily the perception of young people. We talked of the need for role models in curriculum materials and we talked about the need for role models which are credible, to which young people can relate and in which they can believe. We also talked about the importance of informal relationships between young people and how these informal relationships help to shape their gender identity. However, teachers tend to see these relationships as a problem within classrooms in schools rather than as a resource which could be built on to help shape and let young people explore their identities. We talked about curriculum resources and how there could be resources in history teaching which allow girls and boys to explore the construction of gender in past societies. This often gives a safe space for them to do it, so for example analysing how the role of men and women changed with industrialisation, so that they are able to see that very often identity has a function, that the world of men and women is closely linked to the political system, and letting them make connections between that and their own political system and what sort of usefulness their role might have in their own society. The point was made here that some text books have become very good at talking about women’s roles but not about men’s and that masculinity is something which is less explored in schools, that men are seen as 'people', they are universalised more, and do not have this room to explore their identity in the same way. We talked of the importance of seeing teachers as learners too. Teachers need to be willing to see that their identity is important in their teaching practice and that they need to feel secure in their identity, because raising the issue of gender equality can challenge your own identity, and that can be quite a threatening and frightening thing to happen within the classroom. Teachers need to be prepared for this and the attitude was summed up as “I can be like this, but you should be like that” – the point was made that a lot of tolerance and humour was often needed as shown in the publication “It’s fun to be nice”. Teachers need a certain disposition to do these things well. They also, like young people, need safe spaces to explore these issues. They need to be encouraged to take risks. It is harder to take risks if your esteem as a teacher is low. Teachers need to be supported – they cannot do these things on their own, in isolation. Promoting Democratic Citizenship

68 Our third session today dealt with democratic citizenship. It was clear from this discussion that the issues are very different in the different countries and that we cannot necessarily generalise. Women do not have equal access to education, this is not a reality throughout Europe and also some minority groups in some countries do not have equal access to education. There were also some transferable aspects, for example the Spanish Project on violence in Valencia could be adapted to address the problem of trafficking in human beings in Bulgaria, to empower young girls. We talked about the relationship between the local and central, how participation has to happen locally, that it cannot be something which is imposed and what implications this has for centralised and authoritarian education systems. How can we ensure that participation does happen locally? In some countries there is a contradiction, a tension between initiatives for democratic citizenship being imposed by a very authoritarian centralised education system – what implications might that have for the success of citizenship? We discussed the importance of political will for equality. This needs to exist and needs to be integrated into education as in the Spanish example. The law, although it cannot make people equal on its own, gives a crucial framework to work within. The suggestion was made that, if laws exist in a country and conventions exist within the European Union for equality, then teacher trainers should be made aware of this as part of their course. This is something that the Council of Europe could do, to provide these materials. The point was made that citizenship is not gender free but gender does not always form part of the citizenship discourse. The question needs to be “What does it mean to be a female citizen”, for women to be seen as citizens and to see themselves as citizens. One of the positive things that could be done here would be to produce curricular materials that recognise women’s contribution to society, so that women’s contribution is not invisible but can be seen within, for example, history text books. We also made the point that maximising participation increases academic achievement, which can be a good “carrot on a stick” for some people. Children are citizens. They need to participate and have power now, this is active, not something that is going to happen in the future – it is “not something that can be taught, but must be caught”. It is important to give children real power in order to make it meaningful to them. Finally, we talked about the interaction between teacher’s attitudes at local level and central initiatives. If teachers are already keen to address these issues and their awareness is high, then they will welcome equal opportunity policy and resources. If teachers’ awareness is not high, and they are not sympathetic, then all the initiatives in the world will not necessarily make a difference.

69 Conclusions by Isabel Romão, Portugal General Rapporteur Why do we need a new social contract between women and men? The on-going struggle to improve women’s lot, and the abundant legislation in place at national and international level to ensure equal opportunities have, in practice, failed to achieve sufficiently rapid progress. Serious disparities in fundamental areas continue to exist between the two sexes. These compromise human rights for both women and men, including the right to participate fully as equal partners in all aspects of life. These disparities also have consequences for our societies, which are consequently too often deprived of women’s contribution in the public arena, and men’s contribution in the private sphere. These disparities eventually result in various forms of dysfunction that impact on women’s and men’s lives, and will tend to be perpetuated unless we succeed in bringing about a change in the relationship between women and men and in involving men into the struggle. Consequently, it is necessary to take steps to overcome gender inequalities and give practical form to a new social contract between women and men. The fact is, it is no longer enough to combat discrimination or fight for power-sharing between the sexes. We must ask what may be lost if women and men do not become involved in building a democratic society, and what kind of democracy does not ensure balanced participation by its two main components. It is clear that the existing gender model or social contract has proved inadequate in responding to collective needs and must be replaced by a new contract that can produce a society based on partnership and the equal distribution of rights and responsibilities between women and men. Such a contract would be inclusive, but would be based on both sexes’ contributions, reflect their respective needs and be capable of restoring their full rights as citizens. This model aims to build a society in which women and men will participate more equally in all spheres and will share family responsibilities, work and power. In short, a new model, capable of meeting the needs of contemporary women, men and society. As was emphasised several times during the seminar, this is a political issue. What is education’s role in the process of building a new social contract between women and men? In recent years we have witnessed a significant increase in the standard of education reached by young women and girls and growing numbers of young women in higher education. The existence of mixed-sex education in many countries and the improvement in women’s general position with regard to education are resulting in a situation where we frequently confuse these facts with a genuine democratisation of education.

70 However, whilst acknowledging the importance of formal equality, we cannot forget that it still serves to legitimise the disparities between women and men with regard to vocational guidance, training, employment, participation in society as a whole and, in particular, decision-making; it ascribes these disparities to a natural imbalance in gifts and skills, dependant on sex or social group, and perpetuates them. Schools do not exist in isolation from the society around them: they transmit that society’s models and, since society is characterised by discriminatagainst and domination over women, these models are inevitably repeated in schools. Accordingly, the absence of formal discrimination is insufficient to guarantee that the school system is a vehicle for de facto equality. The process of social change must be speeded up, and schools can be powerful agents for change. It is only by promoting genuine co-education throughout the education process that we can achieve equality between girls and boys and prepare them for the future and their role as full citizens. This prompts us to consider the role of teachers and teaching. As mentors, or as models with whom pupils identify, teachers can become agents for perpetuating systems that practise gender-based selection or agents for social change. We need to involve schools and the various participants in the educational process in combating stereotyped images of femininity and masculinity, so as to enable each individual to make real choices: this involves learning new roles, based only on each human being’s individuality, for the purpose of greater and better participation by women and men at all levels of family, professional and social life. A comprehensive pedagogical challenge This task cannot be viewed as a supplementary subject, that might or might not be covered by the school depending on interest, time, financial resources, or the goodwill of all those involved in the educational process. It is a comprehensive teaching challenge which must be taken up by all who wish schools to be places that enable girls and boys to enjoy genuinely equal opportunities for participation in society. This is not a question of creating new school subjects, but rather of developing a new approach to teaching, integrating these new objectives at all levels, in all contexts and in all subjects, each of which will enable various aspects of this issue to be covered and which, taken together, will contribute to a through reappraisal of current and future female and male roles and the exercise of democratic citizenship. “Gender blindness” No-one will wish to change until they have felt the need for change, analysed the underlying reasons for this need and created the circumstances for change. But teachers often believe their teaching is neutral. They must therefore be enabled to “reformulate the universal model presented to them as neutral, but which is impregnated by gender”.

71 Accordingly, our primary objective should be to encourage teachers and pupils to think, and to make them aware of their role as agents for change. Valuing equality and diversity Equality between women and men is a requirement for justice, democracy and respect for human beings. However, we frequently forget that these human beings are women or men. Accordingly, they are not neutral. Women and men are equal beings, but are not identical, just as women’s and men’s realities are not the same, with differences existing within each sex. Respect for equality implies respecting these differences not ranking either higher than the other. The way in which each society perceives and treats women and men, assigning them different roles, results from a social construction of gender. This social construction not only impacts on women’s and men’s lives, it also influences how institutions operate. The school institution is no exception. We frequently hear that “our education system does not discriminate. In fact, it helps girls more, since they do better than boys in school and account for the majority of those completing higher education every year”. Teresa Pinto has reminded us that this question of girls’ success, sometimes considered the “central question of inequality between the sexes” can lead to educational systems focusing their efforts on “improving boys’ results”, rather than ensuring sustainable success for girls in terms of their transition from school to working life and their “participation in political and economic decision-making”. In other words, ensuring that their academic success is reflected in social success, and thus helping to reduce the gulf between these two forms of success. The fact is, education systems rarely discriminate formally between young people as boys and girls. In many countries, schools are mixed and both the curricula and teaching standards are the same for both sexes at all educational levels. Simultaneously, however, schools obliquely and subtly replicate traditional models for attributing social roles and depictions of masculinity and femininity. By drawing attention to the process of school socialisation, Teresa Pinto helps us move beyond the over-simplistic discourse of academic success or failure, and adds a third dimension to our analysis, namely the concept of educational success. Discussion and research on integrating gender equality into educational success could become key elements in re-defining academic success in terms of social success and in helping the education system assume its role in bringing about social change. Indeed, many elements influence academic socialisation. They were amply emphasised by Elena Prus, and have been raised time and again during the seminar: Teaching materials, particularly school textbooks, which Annamaria Dudik has also studied, contain several kinds of sexist distortions, such as stereotyped values and images of femininity and masculinity. These hidden messages are transmitted via the language, illustrations and subject-matter that is used or omitted, and are rarely challenged. Several countries have carried out research into the school textbooks used for different teaching levels and subjects.

72 Research shows that textbooks are fairly conservative and often out-dated in terms of reality. Their characters tend to be characterised in a stereotyped manner – female characters are fragile, passive, submissive, while there is a strong preponderance of male figures, characterised by sharper and stronger personality traits. Girls and women are portrayed as objects rather than subjects, in private rather than public contexts, with no identity of their own – X’s mother, X’s sister, X’s wife…. History teaching is based on men and their military exploits and conquests, and women’s presence and contribution become invisible. In language teaching, the authors selected are frequently male novelists or poets, with their particular view of reality and experience. The effects of these sexist distortions, even unintentional, are inevitably reflected in the image that pupils build of themselves and the depiction of the group to which they belong. It is therefore essential that teachers analyse and challenge textbooks, and find ways of overcoming the sexist distortions that they contain. Particular attention should be paid to drawing up and selecting textbooks. Teachers’ behaviour and expectations are a source of unequal treatment for young girls and boys which must be recognised and corrected, even if it is often unconscious and involuntary, at least initially. Teachers do not usually believe that they treat girls and boys in their classes differently and are accordingly surprised to discover that they do not communicate with girls and boys in the same way. At most, they may also recognise that they discipline boys and girls differently, and are more likely to punish boys than girls in the same circumstances. They may also admit that they sometimes give boys more time and attention, but this is because boys make themselves heard more often, speak to the teacher more frequently and cause more trouble if they are not given immediate attention: girls tend to disrupt the class less. Teresa Pinto cites the example of mathematics to illustrate the “Pygmalion effect”, i.e. how maths teachers’ differing expectations with regard to girls and boys could lie behind girls’ lack of success in this field, “considered in many countries as an indisputable key to social success” - and consequently to social progress. This is a subject area which girls opt for less frequently than boys and in which they are less successful. It is therefore important for teachers to analyse their expectations and behaviour with regard to both sexes and to understand that these factors influence their relationships with pupils of each sex, and even pupils’ success. They should be aware of the patterns of interaction that they establish with each sex, bearing in mind that the quantity and quality of teacher attention that each pupil receives will necessarily have an effect on his or her identity, behaviour, confidence, self-esteem, the learning process and academic success. These comments are especially relevant with regard to technical and scientific subjects. Classroom organisation and unequal distribution of tasks between boys and girls. Classroom decoration, especially for the youngest age-groups, frequently includes posters showing children in stereotyped roles, organised games often pit girls and boys from the same class against each other, toys are reserved for girls or boys, girls and boys are encouraged to take part in different activities or to play an active role in the tidying and up-keep of classrooms and playgrounds. It goes without saying that family habits do not always facilitate the task of teachers wishing to influence the tide of events.

73 School organisation reproduces the traditional patterns in the sexual division of labour and social roles: the clearest example is the fact that the teaching staff are unequally distributed by gender at each level and in each area of education, and the imbalance between the total number of women in teaching and their representation in school management positions and in management posts in Education Ministries. Academic curricula and subjects target girls or boys. Whether or not these are formally differentiated for each sex, practice shows that segregation often occurs. For example, home economics and less competitive sports are reserved for girls, whilst technical work usually linked with manufacture and the more competitive sports are more frequently associated with boys. In many countries, segregation of girls takes place subtly, through curricular development in various subjects – via the subject-matter taught, which ignores women’s knowledge and interests, and via the methodological approaches and language used, which sometimes make it difficult for girls and boys to identify with the subjects under consideration. A study of school options by sex, particularly where scientific and technical subjects are concerned, is revealing. Teaching curricula are not developed in a way that would break down sexist social and professional representations. Teresa Pinto drew our attention to research confirming that this is not a problem of mixed or single-sex education. Single-sex education would appear not to affect girls’ performance. The question of single-sex v. mixed education needs to be studied further. Accordingly, particular attention should be given to curriculum content, especially curriculum development, laying greater emphasis on the emotional and social dimensions of learning, seeking to implement changes in how these subjects are taught and their image, so that more girls are attracted to them and are guaranteed a greater chance of success. Girls’ and boys’ preferences with regard to teaching and learning styles should also influence the curriculum. Adapting subject-matter to meet humanistic concerns and including the social implications and human applications of science and technology as an integral part of these programme might be ways of helping to increase girls’ interest in these areas and their success in them. So long as the sciences are viewed as the study of conceptual structures, and technology as the study of skills for controlling and dominating the environment, with no need to establish any kind of emotional link with the subject, these areas of study and training will attract more boys. Indeed, we even believe that a more humanist approach to the sciences and technology could help reverse the academic failure shown by pupils of both sexes in these fields, and generate greater interest in them. A technological culture should be developed from the first years of school education. This would mean making technological training an integral part of training for basic and primary education teachers. However, academic curricula could also be a starting point for changing attitudes and mentalities. If the challenge is to be successfully met, this activity must be integrated into all aspects of teaching practice, and discussion of these themes should not be dissociated from the regular teaching programme. Languages, history, mathematics, etc, are all opportunities

for teachers to refer to distinct aspects of the approach to the problem.

74 issue, each contributing to an overall

In considering diversity in study methods, we should not overlook diversity in cultures and traditions, particularly with regard to minorities, as Mihaela Miroiu reminded us. Consequently, teachers should above all be aware of their potential role in perpetuating and in changing mentalities and attitudes. This brings us to a question that has been central to our discussions throughout the seminar, namely teacher training. This is a decisive factor in promoting teaching innovation and teacher trainers are key figures in ensuring that equality is integrated into educational practice. Training should enable teachers to analyse the whole of the teaching process and school organisation from the perspective of gender, equality and diversity. It should also contain elements enabling them to identify and combat various forms of demonstrable sexism in schools, to react when faced with discrimination and to help pupils to identify it. Integrating a gender perspective into teaching practice presupposes that initial and inservice teacher training is based on the “critical model”, which recognises that education reflects the social construction of gender and influences it in turn. It requires awareness of this models’ intrinsic educational and social implications. Accordingly, it is essential to include consideration of the issues of gender, equality and diversity in curricula and programmes for initial and in-service teacher training. Study plans for initial and in-service teacher training should therefore contain explicit reference to elements and “specific curricular areas” that will enable trainees to reflect on the causes and results of the traditional division of feminine and masculine roles. This means lessons that cover knowledge and analysis of gender issues and are aimed at providing specific training on co-education and equal opportunities; they should take the historical emergence of the issue into account, and help teachers to identify the social representations to which they are attached. They should also deal with the topic’s historical and sociological dimensions. Equality, diversity and gender perspective should therefore be integrated into the various areas of initial and in-service teacher training and the academic process, particularly knowledge, both in terms of its production and its reproduction and transmission; into teaching dynamics: teaching materials, methodologies, interaction, evaluations; and into the institutional culture: academic schedules and fields, leisure activities, posters, decorations. The shortage of trainers in these fields was also highlighted on numerous occasions. Accordingly, training of trainers should be developed. For teachers, however, critical self-analysis and analysis of the socio-cultural context in which they work are also key factors in correcting discriminatory practices and in “the emergence of a wide range of representations that can support a willingness to take action”. Initial and inservice teacher training should therefore lead to an analysis of their own identity and

75 involve examining and challenging their own beliefs, values, prejudices, expectations, attitudes and concepts of femininity and masculinity, both in terms of personality traits and the skills commonly associated with masculinity and femininity, and the kind of relationship they have with pupils of each sex. Analysis of co-education can, in fact, become a model for developing equal opportunities, relegating the debate on single-sex v. mixed education to a secondary level. If we succeed in achieving true co-education, this issue will become less relevant. Several needs or recommendations emerge from the discussions on the first theme: adopting education policies and practices aimed at transforming social gender relations in the processes of socialisation and identity construction for both sexes. developing research, in order to understand better the socio-cultural processes that determine the differences or dichotomies between girls and boys. encouraging co-ordination between researchers and teachers, in order to further curriculum development, innovative pedagogy and teacher training that will develop their professional skills profiles so that they can take account of equality and diversity. encouraging co-ordination between researchers, teachers and political decisionmakers, so that education policies will reflect achievements and needs in the equality field. improving support for teachers, so that they can share information and exchange experiences on in-class strategies, and incorporate research findings on teaching procedures into their own practice. This should also end the isolation still experienced by those who attempt to develop equality. preparing and disseminating teaching materials for teacher training, based on the variety of ways of understanding, learning and knowing, to help teachers incorporate analysis and action for change into their teaching practice. promoting projects to enable young people to be aware of life’s various dimensions.

putting in place “multidisciplinary networks of specialists on questions of gender and equal opportunities, in education and teacher training, at national and European level, supported by Internet sites and the creation of databases on research, projects and materials in this area”. informing teachers about international agreements and trends. promoting partnership between schools and parents.

Finally, “with reference to Women’s Studies, which play an important role in renewing scientific thought and production, we must not forget (a) to take account of their epistemological and methodological contribution to critical questioning of the dominant scientific paradigms, particularly as regards teacher training, and (b) to promote their legitimacy at national and European level”.

76 Building new identities The social construction of gender moulds the collective imagination. It also moulds our way of being, resulting in the development of gender roles, and these are everywhere associated with asymmetrical and hierarchical value judgements. Masculine personality traits and behaviour are seen as superior and more socially desirable than those traditionally attributed to women. In particular, they are taken as the norm and reference. The acquisition of knowledge, models, values, symbols and sex roles that influence the construction of our identity is a process that begins at birth and continues throughout our lives. However, the most intense socialisation period is during infancy and school years, when the roles attached to gender assume their social content and become structured. It is during this period that the stereotyped ideas of masculinity and femininity can become more rigid. However, women and men have an active role to play in the construction of their gender identity, and gender relationships are open to negotiation and change. Schools should therefore contribute to this negotiation and change by helping pupils become aware of the influences exerted by adults and society in general regarding conformity with gender roles. They can help pupils to think, analyse and challenge these influences and, most of all, to exercise freedom of choice. The wide body of research and theory referred to by Agnès de Munter illustrates how teachers’ behaviour can influence the development of pupils’ identities. Experiences of failure and the reasons given for it, together with teachers’ expectations, have a bearing on the way they deal with individual pupils, influencing their self-image, behaviour, academic performance and, of course, identity. She also highlights the need for teachers to be aware of the effects of these behaviour patterns and the importance of making pupils understand that they have options and are free to challenge the models presented to them and expectations that are based on stereotyped prejudices. Accordingly, a teaching methodology should be developed that will enable pupils to “enhance their abilities and self-confidence”, so that they will be able to contradict the various forms of conditioning to which they are subjected and make “ethical judgements”. This requires that initial and in-service teacher training, and the media, pay particular attention to the impact of teachers’ expectations and communication styles on pupils’ identitybuilding and on the establishment of a new social contract between women and men. Elina Lahelma and Annamaria Dudik talked about the relationship between the sexes in schools, and reminded us of a dimension that is frequently overlooked when trying to identify the school’s role in building identities, namely, the informal and physical environment, which is just as important as the formal sphere. The way in which girls and boys use language and occupy school time and space, together with many gender-related factors, have a decisive impact on how sexuality and feminine and masculine identities develop. For girls, this refers to the teasing and harassment to which they are subjected on account of their sex. It is reflected in the insults or humiliating behaviour addressed to girls in general or to certain groups of girls, via physical intimidation or by restricting their space or time for speaking in class.

77 Young boys are also affected. Men take themselves as the norm, consider feminine personality traits and behaviour to be inferior and refuse to adopt them. They also experience the consequences of rigid and pre-conceived ideas of masculinity. This is the main reason for the bullying suffered by boys and, perhaps, for the rejection of academic success. Feminine and masculine identities are conditioned, regardless of whether boys or girls experience these forms of bullying directly. “These practices are both forms of social control aimed at maintaining separation lines between the two sexes and an expression of male power” and of masculinity’s predominance over female values. Indirectly, informal practices in classrooms and playgrounds invade formal teaching and the learning process. Teachers and other participants in the educational process are unaware of this; pupils who are not themselves direct victims of these practices are sometimes also unaware. Conflict, arguments between girls and boys and sexist comments are more likely to be considered as normal and not identified as bullying: where they are identified as such, the difficulty of changing the subject or a lack of time tends to make teachers adopt a neutral attitude. If this kind of practice is to be checked or eliminated, we cannot limit ourselves to an attitude of so-called neutrality: we must be able to alter the entire school culture, characterised as it is by gender. To do this, it is also important that the presence of sexuality in schools be discussed in the context of learning and teaching and that the topic of sexual harassment be integrated into sex education. Physical models reinforce gender construction. Once again, gender stereotypes determine the models to which girls and boys must conform, rejecting the diversity between and within the sexes and shaping self-image, identity-building, gender relationships and social integration. In seeking to conform to continually changing models of femininity, girls subject their bodies to changes that affect their identity development and frequently their health. In this regard, physical education’s influence on these models has also been noted: this is one of the areas where segregation continues to be most persistent, based on the biological differences between the sexes. Physical education lessons, sport, areas such as schoolyards or extra-curricular activities enable young people to develop co-ordination skills, persistence, initiative, leadership skills and physical strength, and also contribute to developing good health habits and the capacity for teamwork. Good physical condition also has a positive impact on intellectual and social development and on each individual’s self-image. Being able to control one’s body through mastery of a sport increases self-esteem, self-confidence and the feeling of individual freedom. However, pupils of each sex have unequal opportunities for experimenting, showing their abilities to others and enjoying positive experiences in these areas or fields. Frequently, girls continue to be relegated to a limited number of sports, which receive less support in terms of grants, equipment, subsidies and publicity.

78 This segregation reflects differing expectations, which result in distinctive treatment for the sexes. Boys are encouraged or even forced to take part in sports. They experience constant pressure to compete and win. Success on the sports field brings prestige among their friends and adult approval. At the same time, girls often receive less encouragement to develop new abilities and to take part in sports activities. They sometimes choose not to participate, for fear of not conforming to the established body image or performance ideal, with the adverse impact that we have seen on identity development and reinforcement of prejudice. In addition, we cannot overlook the fact that the most frequently shown sports broadcasts favour men and undervalue women. However, the body can also be a means of affirming one’s difference and defying the dominant norms. Alternative youth culture is an example. Language determines the structure of collective representations and our way of thinking, and contributes to building self-image. However, oral and written language is not neutral. Here again, masculinity is not only valued, but is the norm, grammar and our discourse become channels for the invisibility, subordination, and even negation of femininity. As noted above, it is therefore essential to analyse the ideological charge carried by academic texts and language. Analysis of communication forms between young people shows a rejection of or even contempt for the communication forms most commonly used by girls and women. Promotion of traditionally male communication styles forces girls and women to adopt strategies that are alien to them and that are damaging to their identity development. As we have already emphasised, the majority of our school systems are characterised by a body of knowledge that was drawn up by men and by a ubiquitous masculine model that excludes feminine experiences, interests and knowledge from academic culture. Women’s absence from historical subject matter, preparation and interpretation means that their presence and contribution become invisible, thus reinforcing their subordination. Girls and boys are also evaluated differently on the basis of gender stereotypes. Characteristics attributed to boys are valued more highly than those attributed to girls, with consequences for their evaluation. The same behaviour in girls or boys gives rise to different interpretations by teachers, both as regards discipline and academic success. The debate on this sub-theme leads us to identify the need to promote innovative projects on gender stereotypes and pupil behaviour, representations of masculinity and femininity, behaviour models for girls and boys, new identities for girls and relations between the sexes, particularly as regards aggressive and insulting behaviour, and to challenge the values attached to gender. Promoting democratic citizenship Integration of equality is essential if we are to encourage young people to adopt the values of justice and participation needed for the effective exercise of democratic citizenship, the construction of private and public partnerships between women and men, and democracy. However, this is far from being common practice in education systems.

79 The choices made by both sexes in terms of education, occupation and lifestyle are subject to strong cultural pressures based on stereotyped concepts of femininity and masculinity. These have repercussions on the distribution of family tasks and responsibilities between the sexes, the division of roles in the labour market and female and male participation in society in general and decision-making in particular. Young people are exposed to many socialisation contexts that influence their willingness and ability to participate and their understanding of the partnership that could exist between women and men. Participants at this seminar have mainly considered three socialisation contexts: the family, school and informal groups. Mihaela Miroiu showed us the close link between the way in which the male-female partnership is experienced in the private sphere and how it is viewed in the public sphere when it comes to promoting democratic citizenship. Education for democratic citizenship begins in the family. It is here in particular that children should be educated for independence, freedom of choice, decision-making, participation and assertiveness. In the longer term, however, girls’ and boys’ family socialisation, focused on what she describes as the “symbolic patriarchy” that dominates the private sphere, frequently results in actual patriarchy in the public domain. In family contexts, the values underlying the education of each sex differ profoundly: girls are educated in a spirit of obedience and hard work, while discipline, independence and freedom of choice are more appreciated in boys. The stereotypes associated with feminine roles in the private sphere have a greater impact on perceptions of women’s public role than women’s actual abilities to play a decisive role in this area. Democracy and justice are regarded as values that apply to the private rather than the public sphere. Thus, the prejudices that underlie depictions of the sexes and the values that guide their education influence how girls and boys participate. Ms Miroiu then asked to what extent schools train girls and boys so as to provide them with equal opportunities in terms of careers and participation in decision-making, and claimed that the proposed model for teacher training is reactive and focused on preservation of the status quo rather than emancipation. Indeed, education for democratic citizenship is not included in school programmes in many countries and, where it exists, is confined to a specific school-subject and does not necessarily cover equality explicitly. What educational policies should be encouraged to prepare young people to confront social changes and to promote democratic citizenship in terms of gender partnership? Carol Hagemann-White places education for equality at the heart of an education for democratic citizenship that will enable young people to respond to the needs arising from the

80 rapid changes that characterise our societies. This kind of education calls for a wide range of changes in the educational process, curricula and school culture. Firstly, equality and other key democratic concepts such as education for peace, citizens’ private and public responsibilities, diversity and intercultural relations should not be perceived as secondary: they should be present in the rules underlying education systems as objectives to be attained, and should therefore be integrated into the content of teacher training and inextricably tied in with a school’s various subjects and teaching practices. Rather than creating new subject areas and allotting them a specific amount of time, teaching procedures and methods need to be changed, and learning contexts should be promoted that make the link between school and society and life. Schools can create situations in which girls and boys are likely to learn new skills that they have not learnt from traditional forms of socialisation. For girls, these skills involve teamwork, presenting ideas, being competitive, occupying space, being daring and using new territory, all skills that are needed in public life. Boys need to acquire skills such as a greater sense of inter-personal responsibility and the attitudes, knowledge and abilities necessary in private life. Schools can train children for partnership, shared decision-making that respects diverging opinions and for their required contribution to social cohesion and justice. Carol Hagemann-White also reminds us that flexibility of thought, imagination, creative cooperation and the ability to take initiatives are important skills for dealing with changes in modern society and will be even more necessary in the future. Citizenship is a learned role. Education for citizenship, aimed at developing the knowledge and skills needed for taking action, for confronting change and for partnership should therefore be provided by schools, as a criterion for full exercise of citizenship in a democratic context. This involves acquiring knowledge about democracy, the institutions that uphold it and contemporary history, but primarily the creation of a democratic social culture. This assumes a comprehensive approach to the subject, involving schools and teaching practice; developing “projects that encourage initiative, stimulate the wish to acquire skills and knowledge and establish a relationship between learning and life”, giving priority to young people’s interests and the issues that affect our societies; and valuing learning more than teaching. These projects can be carried out as part of the multi-disciplinary curricular fields being developed in several countries. Education for citizenship involves the creation of learning contexts that enable young people to develop and exercise democratic citizenship, and acknowledgment that young people are agents for current as well as future social change. We have seen that these skills and willingness are acquired in the family and at school, but they are also acquired through informal groups – students’ associations, political and religious groups and the like - or extra-curricular activities. Extra-curricular activities provide an equal number of socialisation contexts and play an important role in this area, insofar as they enable pupils to have contact with diverse realities and experiences that go far beyond educational programmes. Being based on voluntary participation, they can tend to perpetuate girls’ and boys participation in separate activities,

81 thus reinforcing traditional images of the behaviour for each sex. most appropriate roles, vocations and

It is still common to see boys dominating in activities such as athletics, competition, school management, practical activity workshops, technology classes and computing clubs. One still frequently sees boys playing football in schools while girls support one of the teams, or boys chairing students’ associations while girls fill treasurer’s posts. In particular, we recognize the longstanding contribution that students’ associations have made to forming the political class. It is therefore essential to seek to minimise these divisions and to encourage girls and boys to participate and to learn to work together. The role of the media in constructing, disseminating and consolidating negative and stereotyped images that influence the exercise of democratic citizenship and gender partnerships was also addressed during the seminar. Here, teachers must intervene to help pupils develop a sense of distance and analysis with regard to the media. How can schools educate girls for sustainable success, or ensure their successful transition from education to the labour market? How can they educate young boys to enter traditionally feminine spheres, which are likely to develop in the future? There is a correlation between the sexual divisions of labour observed in the manufacturing sphere and in the educational sphere. The social disparities that influence the education system mean that removing premature academic options or options likely to lead to gender segregation is not enough to ensure far-reaching changes in the differences between girls and boys in terms of academic orientation and vocational choices. In the same way, mixed education or even co-education, legally instituted in several countries but not necessarily implemented, has proved inadequate for generating changes in the sexual division of labour, which is reflected in different educational and vocational guidance for girls and boys. The concepts of democratisation and mixed education seem to give women sole responsibility for their choices, and gender is viewed as a simple descriptive variable, although statistics confirm the on-going inequalities between women and men in terms of guidance, training and employment. Women are also perceived primarily as a specific group, defined essentially in terms of their family situation and reproductive role, which is commonly used to justify their difficulties in vocational integration. Research has shown that greater tolerance is habitually shown to boys’ independence and initiative and to their independence vis-à-vis socially-imposed norms, while girls are more constrained by these norms. Indeed, we believe that it is this greater conformity to school norms that enables them to adapt better to the school system, itself a vehicle for these traditions. So, how can we break this vicious circle, how can girls be encouraged to be ambitious, how can schools be changed so that they become socialisation contexts that allow everyone to reach the position in society to which they are entitled, irrespective of their sex? Mentalities evolve slowly. These objectives will be achieved only through the adoption of deliberate policy that alerts all participants in the educational process to the necessity of eliminating all forms of discrimination. This does not mean searching out discriminatory

82 intentions on the part of participants in the education system but instead looking for factors that play a key role in the wider processes of formulating vocational and educational representations, so that, once they are identified, measures can be taken to offer girls better vocational integration, in an world of technological change and unemployment that tends to affect them more. We know that preconceived ideas of what is appropriate for girls and boys and representations of the roles to be assumed by adult women and men often act as a filter, obscuring alternatives that are seen as unsuitable, and are powerful obstacles to freedom in choosing an occupation. Sexual roles often influence an individual’s interests and motivations. When the moment of decision arrives, young people are usually unaware that their aspirations, expectations and behaviour are strongly determined by gender: their choice is be limited by ideas and interests that began to develop long before school age, and is in fact the result of a long process of interiorising their present and future roles. Many wrong choices are made because the person concerned lacks self-knowledge. Aspirations, perceptions of motherhood and fatherhood, children’s needs and demands, the mother’s and father’s responsibilities and family, social and occupational roles cannot be dissociated from the discussion of academic and occupational choices. The very concept of guidance should be redeveloped, since it should go further than traditional educational and vocational guidance and focus more on building identities and developing aspirations. It is important that all young people be supported in analysing their values and motivations, broadening their horizons and contemplating a wide range of options, irrespective of their sex, and that they are encouraged to take an active part in this process. Schools, teachers, educational and vocational counsellors should therefore be able to counteract the effects of a sexist socialisation that begins well before the first years of school, by giving young people plentiful and diverse information on these subjects and promoting discussion. It is clear from examining the third theme that we should promote longer-term and more comprehensive initiatives that influence the entire school career and beyond, focused not only on attitudes but also on results. We need innovative projects on vocational teaching, academic training, extra- curricular teaching or higher education; on subject options, lessons, academic study, careers; on horizontal and vertical sexual segregation in the labour market; on ways of entering the labour market. We should also invest in teaching skills for life and for personal and professional equality. To quote Teresa Pinto again, citing the report by the Council of Europe’s Group of Specialists on Gender Mainstreaming: “Gender mainstreaming is a fundamental strategy for seeing gender equality as a new approach that enhances complementarity and partnership between women and men in the sustained and humane development of society and democracy”. I should also like to repeat that equality promotion should be an integral part of school development or improvement plans, since equality can contribute to enhancing teaching quality and joint quality of life for both women and men. I will finish by referring to a sentence from a report drawn up in the United Kingdom in 1975, which I believe is still relevant to our discussions over the past two days.

83 “Change is inevitable in our society… We can choose to bridge the gulf that exists between schools and the world that surrounds them, or choose to widen this gulf: there is no other choice”. That choice is ours.


Programme Thursday 7 December 2000 0830-0930 0930-1030 Arrival of participants and registration (in front of Room 2) OPENING SESSION (Room 2) Chair: Ms Zuzana VRANOVÁ, Slovakia Opening address by Mr Hanno HARTIG, Head of Media and Equality Department, Directorate of Human Rights Presentation by Mr Jean-Pierre TITZ, Head of the Division of Educational Policy and the European Dimension, Directorate General Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, Environment Introductory speech by Ms Geneviève FRAISSE (France), member of the European Parliament 1030-1115 PLENARY SESSION (Room 2) Working session I: Valuing equality and diversity

Presentation of reports by Ms Teresa PINTO (Portugal) Ms Elena PRUS (Moldova) 1115-1145 1145-1300 Coffee break WORKING GROUPS (Rooms 2 and 17) Discussion in 2 working groups on the theme “Valuing equality and diversity” 1300-1430 1430-1530 Lunch break PLENARY SESSION (Room 2) Chair: Ms Iphigénie KATSARIDOU (Greece) Working session II: Building new identities Presentation of reports by Ms Agnes DE MUNTER (Belgium) Ms Elina LAHELMA (Finland) Ms Annamaria DUDIK (Hungary) 1530-1600 Coffee break

85 1600-1715 WORKING GROUPS (Rooms 2 and 17) Discussion in 2 working groups on the theme “Building new identities” 1715-1800 1800 PLENARY SESSION (Room 2) Reception (Council of Europe’s “Blue Restaurant”)

Friday 8 December 2000 0930-1015 PLENARY SESSION (Room 2) Chair: Ms Nicole FADDA (France) Working session III: Promoting democratic citizenship Presentation of reports by Ms Mihaela MIROIU (Romania) Ms Carol HAGEMANN-WHITE (Germany) 1015-1045 1045-1230 Coffee break WORKING GROUPS (Rooms 2 and 17) Discussion in 2 working groups on the theme “Promoting democratic citizenship” 1230-1430 1430-1700 Lunch break CLOSING SESSION (Room 2) Chair: Ms Isabel ROMAO (Portugal) Round-table presentation of the conclusions and recommendations of the working groups Moderator: Ms Madeleine ARNOT (United Kingdom) Participants: Rapporteurs of the 2 working groups Ms Ruth TUDOR (United Kingdom) Concluding remarks by Ms Isabel ROMÃO (Portugal), General Rapporteur

86 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Albania/Albanie    Ms Shpresa RAMA, Ministria e Arsimit dhe Shkencës, TIRANA Tel: (355) 42 502 74 E-mail: Austria/Autriche    Ms Doris GUGGENBERGER, Abteilung für geschlechtsspezifische Bildungsfragen VI/2, Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur, Minoritenplatz 5, 1014 VIENNA Tel: (43) 1 53120-2820 E-mail: Fax: (43) 1 531 20-2829 Belgium/Belgique Prof Dr Agnes DE MUNTER, Rapporteur/Rapporteuse, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Départment des Sciences Pédagogue, Centre de Recherche « Femme et Education », Vesalinsstraat, 2, B-3000 LEUVEN Tel: (32) 50 822888 E-mail : Fax: (32) 50 822999 Mme Annie DE WIEST, Member of the CDEG/Membre du CDEG, Directrice, Direction de l’Egalité des Chances, Ministère de la Communauté française, 44 Bd Léopold II, B-1080 BRUXELLES Tel: (32) 2 413 2073 Fax: (32) 2 413 20 75 Secrétariat: (32) 2 413 32 25/413 32 24 E-mail: [Excusée/apologised: Mme Eliane VOGEL-POLSKY, 3 chemin des champs, B-1380 LASNE] Bulgaria/Bulgarie Mr Andrey TEHOV, Deputy Director of International Organisations and Human Rights, Head of the Department of Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2 rue Alexandre Jendov, 1113 SOFIA Tel: (359 2) 73 14 92 Fax: (359 2) 971 28 81 Croatia/Croatie Ms Vera SUTALO, Ministry of Education and Sport, Trg Burze 6, 10000 ZAGREB Tel: (385) 1 45 038 Fax: (385) 1 45 69 093 Cyprus/Chypre Ms Kalliope AGAPIOU-JOSEPHIDES, University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 20537, 1678 NICOSIA Tel: (357) 2 48 85 25/ E-mail: Fax: (357) 487979 (357) 2 48 52 35 41 Fax: (355) 42 475 72

87 Finland/Finlande Ms Elina LAHELMA, University of Helsinki/Academy of Finland, Department of Education, PO Box 39, 00014 HELSINKI Tel: (358) 9 191 28062 E-mail: Fax: 358 9 191 28073 France Mme Nicole FADDA, Ministère de l’Education nationale, Direction de l’enseignement scolaire, 107 rue de Grenelle, 75007 PARIS Tel: (33) 1 55 55 06 15 E-mail: Fax: (33) 1 55 55 29 39 Mme Geneviève FRAISSE, Parlement Européen, 64 bd August Bainqui, 75013 PARIS Mme Dominique TORSAT, Service des droits des femmes, 10 rue Brancion, 75015 PARIS Tel: (33) 1 53 86 10 43 E-mail: Germany/Allemagne Professor Dr Carol HAGEMANN-WHITE, Rapporteur/Rapporteuse, Department of Education, University of Osnabrück, D-49069 OSNABRÜCK Tel: (49) 541 969 4557 E-mail: Fax: (49) 541 969 4561 Prof Dr Birgit MEYER, University of Applied Sciences, School of Social Work, Flandernstrasse 101, D-73732 ESSLINGEN Tel: (49) 711 3974583 Fax: (49) 711 39974595 Greece/Grèce Dr Kiki DELIYANNI-KOUIMTZIS, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54006 THESSALONIKI Tel: (30) 31 997317 E-mail: Fax: (30) 31 997384 Mme Iphigénie KATSARIDOU, Member of the Bureau of the CDEG/Membre du Bureau du CDEG, Hellenic General Secretariat for Equality on the Sexes, Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation, 8 Dragatsaniou Str, 105 59 ATHENS Tel: (30) 1 3315 291 5 Fax: (30) 1 3315 276 Hungary/Hongrie Ms Annamaria DUDIK, Rapporteur/Rapporteuse, Hungarian Institute for Educational Research, Báthory u. 10, H – 1054 BUDAPEST Tel: (36) 13027749 E-mail: Fax: (36) 13027749 Iceland/Islande Ms Sigridur JÓNSDÓTTIR, The Delta Kappa Gamma Society International, Einarsnes 30, 101 REYKJAVIK Tel: (354) 552 4558 E-mail: Fax: (354) 897 0413 Ireland/Irlande

88 Dr Ann Louise GILLIGAN, Department of Education, Unit for Educational Disadvantage, St Patrick’s College, DUBLIN 9 Tel: (353) 1 8842081 E-mail: Fax: (353) 1 8376197 Lithuania/Lituanie Ms Jurga STRUMSKIENE, Head of Foreign Relations Department, Ministry of Education and Science , Volano 2/7, 232000 VILNIUS Tel: (370)2743132 E-mail: Fax: (370)2612077 Luxembourg Mme Maddy MULHEIMS, Ministère de la Promotion Féminine, L-2921 LUXEMBOURG Tel: (352) 478 5810 E-mail: Fax: (352) 24 18 86 Moldova Ms Elena PRUS, Pedagogical University, 1 rue Ion Creanga , MD 2022 CHISINAU Tel: (373 2) 52 73 24 E-mail: Fax: (373 2) 74 24 58 Poland/Pologne Mr Kazimierz SOBOTKA, Deputy Director for Research, Foundation for European Studies, European Institute, ul. Piotrkowska 262/264, PL – 90-361 ŁÓDŹ Tel: (48) 42 637 50 47 E-mail: Fax: (48) 42 637 05 86 Portugal Mme Teresa PINTO, Rapporteur/Rapporteuse, Comissao para a Igualdade e para os Direitos das Mulheres, Av da Republica 32, 1o, 1050-193 LISBOA Tel: (351) 217983000 E-mail: Fax: (351) 217983098 Mme Isabel ROMAO, General Rapporteur/Rapporteuse Générale, Commission pour l'égalité et les droits des femmes, Av. da República, 32-1°, P - 1050-193 LISBONNE Tel. (351) 21 798 3017 E-mail. Fax. (351) 21 798 3098 Romania/Roumanie Ms Mihaela MIROIU, Rapporteur/Rapporteuse, Political Science Faculty, National School for Political Studies and Public Administration, Povernei Street, 7-8, District 1, RBUCHAREST E-mail: Fax: (40) 1 312 25 35 Slovak Republic/République Slovaque Ms Zuzana VRANOVÁ, Member of the Bureau of the CDEG/Membre du Bureau du CDEG, Secretary to the Co-ordinating Committee on Women's Issues, Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic, Spitalska 4, 81643 BRATISLAVA Tel: (42 1) 7 5975 1418 E-mail: Fax: (42 1) 7 5975 1459

89 Slovenia/Slovénie Ms Milica ANTIĆ GABER, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Philosophy, Sociology Department, Aškerčeva 2, 6100 LJUBLJANA Tel: (386) 61 176 92 00 E-mail: Fax: (386) 61 125 93 37 Spain/Espagne Dra. Maria Victoria GORDILLO, Universidad Complutense, Faculty of Education, Pa Rector Royo Villanova s/n, 28040 MADRID Home tel/fax: (34) 91 533 00 94 University fax: (34) 91 394 61 09 E-mail: “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”/“l’Ex-république yougoslave de Macédoine” Ms Mirjana NAJCEVSKA, Institute for Sociological, Political and Juridical Research, ul. Partizanski odredi bb, PO-BOX 435, 91000 SKOPJE Tel: (389) 91 365 195 E-mail: Fax: (389) 91 361 282 Turkey/Turquie Prof. Dr Feride ACAR, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Middle East Technical University, ANKARA 06531 Tel: (90) 312 210 2064 E-mail: Fax: (90) 312 210 30 19 Ukraine Ms Tetiana IZHEVSKA, Director of the Department for Cultural and Humanitarian Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1 Mykhaylivska Square, KYIV 01018 Tel: (380 44) 212 81 95 E-mail: Fax: (380 44) 229 59 26 United Kingdom/Royaume-Uni Dr Madeleine ARNOT, School of Education, University of Cambridge, 17 Trumpington Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 1QA Tel: (44) 1223 332 898 E-mail: Fax: (44) 1223 332 894 Ms Ruth TUDOR, 28 Stavordale Road, Highbury, Islington, GB-LONDON N5 INE Tel: (44) 1713595139 E-mail:

90 Dr Howard WILLIAMSON, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, GB – CARDIFF CF10 3WT Tel. (44) 29 20 875 238 E-mail. Fax. (44) 29 20 874175 SECRETARIAT M. Jean-Pierre TITZ, Secretary to the Education Committee/Secrétaire du Comité de l’Education, Head of the Educational Policy and European Dimension Division/Chef de la Division “Politiques éducatives et Dimension européenne”, Directorate General IV Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, Environment/Direction Générale IV Education, Culture, Jeunesse et Sport, Environnement Tel: (33) 388 41 26 09 E-mail: Fax: (33) 388 41 27 06/27 88 Mme Sophie PIQUET, Administrator, Equality Division/Administratrice, Division égalité Tel: (33) 3 88 41 21 96 E-mail: Fax: (33) 3 90 21 4918 Mme Carole REICH, Deputy Secretary to the Education Committee/Secrétaire adjointe du Comité de l’Education, Directorate General IV Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, Environment/Direction Générale IV Education, Culture, Jeunesse et Sport, Environnement Tel: (33) 388 41 22 45; E-mail: Fax: (33) 388 41 27 06/27 88 Mme Danièle LEVY-PUECH, Administrator, Directorate Rights/Administratrice, Direction générale des Droits de l'Homme General of Human

Ms Karen PALISSER, Principal Administrative Assistant, Equality Division/Assistante administrative principale, Division égalité Tel: (33) 3 88 41 28 36 E-mail: Fax: (33) 3 90 21 4918 Ms Lanna HOLLO, Secretariat of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance/Secrétariat de la Commission européenne contre le racisme et l’intolérance Ms Amanda RAIF, Administrative Assistant, Equality Division/Assistante Administrative, Division égalité Tel: (33) 3 88 41 29 66 E-mail: Fax: (33) 3 90 21 49 18 Mme Catherine MALARD, Administrative Assistant, Directorate General IV Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, Environment/Assistante administrative, Direction Générale IV Education, Culture, Jeunesse et Sport, Environnement Tel: (33) 3 88 41 37 52 E-mail: Fax: (33) 3 88 41 27 06 Ms Yvette SCHILLER, Administrative Assistant, Equality Division/Assistante administrative, Division Egalité Tel: (33) 3 90 21 4544 E-mail: Fax: (33) 3 90 21 49 18 Interpreters Mme Christine TRAPP Mme Maryline NEUSCHWANDER Mme Anne MEYER

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful