Introduction
This paper highlights key issues that emerge from a case study, discussing gender gap issues in the education sector. Additionally, in this paper, the role that leaders and leadership play in addressing gender issues in the education sector will be examined. This area of the analysis will draw on experiences related to the use of the transformative leadership style in promoting reform in the education sector and the role that educational leadership plays in influencing its effectiveness in addressing the aforementioned gender gap issues. The last section of the assignment suggests a strategy that could be formulated to address the issues mentioned above.
Key Issues Presented in the Case Study
Gender Performance Gap
Stemming from the successes of gender equality initiatives, a new view emerged in the case study where girls were considered to be âwinningâ at the expense of boys (Banet-Weiser, Gill and Rottenberg, 2020). This issue was originally mentioned in the text, but it has recently been more pronounced in several academic research articles, such as that authored by Herd et al. (2019). It alludes to the notion that feminist ideologies have permeated the education system and have been allowed to affect almost all aspects of operation at the expense of boysâ interests (Ringrose, 2007). This current discourse pitting the sexes against each other stems from academic achievement measures showing that girls are registering a superior performance compared to boys.
The argument that girls are winning at the expense of boys is central to the case study. Phipps (2017) frames the problem around the theoretical agenda of laddish masculinity, which has been witnessed in many western societies, including the UK. The author argues that there is a feminist influence in education that can be traced to consumerist neoliberal ideologies about gender stereotypes, which should be compared with a counter-movement of neoconservative backlash against it (Phipps, 2017). It is advancing the idea that girls should not be seen to be winning against their male counterparts in the “battle of the sexes” because it undermines equality (Morton, Muchiri and Swiss, 2020). Therefore, the main argument advanced in this discussion is that one gender should not be seen to be winning at the expense of another. In this regard, the main point of contention between proponents and critics of feminism is the loss of educational quality experience for boys.
Gender Norms
Another key issue discussed in the case study is gender norms in society and their effects on educational performance. These norms define deeply embedded expectations placed on both boys and girls about behaviors that are considered gender-appropriate. These expectations are often promoted and safeguarded by parents, teachers, and peers (Wilkinson and Andersson, 2019). They influence studentsâ major beliefs, aspirations, and goals because the general expectation is that they should perform tasks or engage in activities that are suitable for their respective genders (Jacob et al., 2020). These inclinations also include gender stereotypes and educational preferences imposed on them, especially concerning subject selection and identification of preferred college majors. These influences have a far-reaching impact on the lives of students because colleges often track their preferred subject areas and use them as a basis for identifying majors, which eventually end up being their careers. By extension, this practice contributes to gender stereotypes in society.
The same issue is discussed in the operational environment where the strengths of each gender are played off against the weaknesses of the other to strengthen collective academic performance. For example, the practice of pairing boys and girls was seen as an effective way of improving the behaviors of boys because girls were deemed relatively better behaved (Bongiorno et al., 2020). Similarly, it was expected that students would better focus on their studies if the genders were mixed because boys rarely chatted with girls during idle class time. From the case study, the role of gender mixing in the classroom setting and its influence on academic performance was not only seen as a negative trait but also a tool for strengthening competition. For example, setting both boys and girls at odds with one another was deemed an effective way of achieving this outcome.
The role of gender norms in influencing the behaviors of boys and girls were also seen in the manner tasks were assigned to both sets of students. Particularly, it was mentioned that girls were commonly assigned roles that involved tidying the classroom among other cleaning duties considered to stem from society’s traditional definition of the roles of women. Comparatively, boys were assigned roles that involved moving tables and chairs, which were also consistent with traditional roles of men in society â men are seen as being more physically powerful than women, thereby handling jobs that involve physical strength.
The role of gender norms in influencing the learning experiences of both boys and girls was also visible in how students chose their favorite subjects. Statistics suggested that girls were more drawn to the language and drama-related subjects compared to their male counterparts who were inclined to do mathematics and science-related subjects (Cascella, Williams and Pampaka, 2021). These outcomes show that subject choice was also gender-specific.
Sexual Harassment and Violence
Sexual harassment and violence also emerged as one of the major issues mentioned in the case study. It refers to how both men and women are encouraged to exhibit certain behavioral traits that are considered dominant or cool (Steiner, 2019). It is a trend that is also defined by misogyny and sexual jokes that are meant to undermine the seriousness of the matter, such that anyone who raises concern about it is seen as a âmood killerâ or lacks a sense of humor (LĂ„ftman et al., 2021). This issue has been presented in the case study to define student-teacher relationships.
The relationship between teachers and students has been explored by researchers, such as Robinson (2000), GrÄstén and Kokkonen (2020) who have highlighted the same issue within the framework of the power balance between both parties. The traditional understanding of power dynamics between both parties is that teachers have more power than students and consequently have a higher likelihood of bullying or harassing them. However, this assumption has been challenged with findings that show that teachers are increasingly getting bullied or sexually harassed by their students. These findings challenge the traditional understanding of gender relationships in the educational setting because the researcher mentioned the existence of sexual harassment claims among female teachers who felt harassed by their male students (Odeyemi et al., 2016). Overall, their findings indicated that sexual harassment occurs in various forms and should not be confined to the traditional understanding of power dynamics where teachers are the aggressors.
Trans-Student Experiences
The experiences of students who do not conform to their gender role assignment and expectations also emerged as another core issue in the case study. This issue was noted among students whose behaviors or conduct defies the binary understanding of gender norms. It stems from a system of genderism, which strives to promote gender normativity in the education setting. Those who do not conform to the same standard are ostracized or forced to undergo humiliation or discrimination (Hines, 2020). Therefore, contemporary cultural norms enforce gendered stereotypes along the binary line of male and female roles, thereby failing to recognize alternative forms of gendered relations. The experiences of transgender students in the educational setting have been evaluated from multiple perspectives. However, the relationship between these students and their teachers is of notable interest to this study because of the role that the latter play in determining their studentsâ education outcomes.
Minority groups of students such as gays and lesbians have been noted to be under immense pressure to conform to mainstream ideologies, which may cause significant levels of stress among them (Lacono, 2019). Craig, Austin and Huang (2018) say that most of these students have difficulties coping with such pressures and may choose to exhibit avoidance behaviors. Evidence of such behaviors has been highlighted by researchers, such as Whitaker, Shapiro and Shields (2016) who have mentioned its efficacy in reducing suicide rates among lesbian and gay students. Additionally, a section of students often uses humor and relaxing emotional cues to deal with the stress (Craig, Austin and Huang, 2018).
Role of Leadership
The gap in performance between boys and girls has been highlighted in the field of educational leadership. Ringrose (2007) says that this gap is characterized by the rapid increase in the success of girls in various educational activities at the expense of boys whose performance is waning. The shift in performance represents a post-feminist society where the successes of girls are pitted against those of their male counterparts. This practice was once seen to be progressive because of its potential to promote competition but, recently, it has started to be retrogressive because of the growing wave of anti-feminist sentiments associated with the success of one gender in the educational setting (Banet-Weiser, Gill and Rottenberg, 2020). Particularly, there is a growing wave of resentment against education policies that are seen to aggressively promote the âfemale agendaâ at the expense of all other interests.
Leadership plays a critical role in helping people and organizations to achieve their individual or collective goals. This is why the concept refers to the ability to guide or influence people or organizations to achieve their goals. Leadership can play a critical role in minimizing the gender gap highlighted in the current case study because the roles assigned to both boys and girls often vary across contexts, time, and cultures. For example, in the case study, the current school uniform policy is that boys are dressed in blue while girls in pink. This was not always the case because color identities were reversed in the early 1900s whereby boys were dressed in pink and girls in blue (Ross and Cereda, 2020). The rationale for doing so was premised on the understanding that the blue color was appropriate for girls because it was paler and more dainty compared to pink. This example shows that gender associations and identities vary across time and generations. Leadership will play a critical role in navigating some of these differences and help students make sense of them today.
One of the most important points to note in this gender gap debate is the existence of a fluid understanding of gender roles among sections of the student population. This concept involves students defying traditional gender stereotypes to venture into interests or fields considered a preserve of one gender. For example, in the current case study, there is evidence of boys wanting to engage in art-related subjects, despite it being considered a preserve of girls. There was also evidence of girls wanting to participate in mathematics and science-related subjects, despite them being considered a preserve of boys.
The impact of gender stereotypes on student performance is also explored in the case study because biases have been observed to affect people’s judgment of gender roles and identities. For example, boys who were seen to engage in activities that were deemed to be feminine were characterized as “gay.” Similarly, assumptions about gender roles also had an impact on studentsâ acceptance of sports or social groups. For example, despite having an interest in playing football, male members of the school team did not allow some girls to become members because they were deemed âincapableâ to handle the task.
The gender gap issue mentioned in the case study stems from a discussion that has focused on analyzing male-female differences. Part of the problem has been attributed to rigid models that are still being used to define gender roles and relationships. Indeed, contemporary developmental sciences are increasingly favoring the use of a more gender-fluid understanding of male and female differences (Fine et al., 2013). However, this has not always been the case with scholars developing different subsets of theories to explain both male and female relationships in the educational setting (Davis, 2008). For example, the feminist theory has been proved to be a successful model for analyzing female attitudes in educational and work contexts. Its success has been linked to the intersectionality of the concept, which makes it ambiguous and fluid to the extent that its application in the educational context is unclear and unpredictable (Bell et al., 2019). However, intersectionality continues to be a core tenet of the theory and a major reason why it has been linked to its success.
The intersectionality of feminism theories has been used to criticize groups of researchers who have used the narrow prism of gender differences to explain differences in educational performance between boys and girls (Guillard, 2019; Vachhani and Pullen, 2019). Notably, the models fail to recognize the role of race and class in influencing their performance. Race and class have been observed to have a stronger impact on student performance more than gender itself (Lahtinen, Sirniö and Martikainen, 2020). This is a failure in leadership because all variables should be accounted for when evaluating student performance.
Leadership could influence how different sexes interact with one another through school-based interventions. This statement is supported by researchers, such as Hines (2020), who note that most government-funded schools in the UK are being increasingly becoming diverse with the influx of minority populations from other communities. However, issues affecting how students interact within the school setting are complicated and may stretch far beyond the boundary of what can be done within the educational setting. This is because sex is a socially constructed concept and, much like race, it can be varied based on the style of leadership adopted within a school setting. Therefore, schools today could be regarded as key sites for the construction and regulation of gender identities in the educational setting and by extension the social context. Such interventions play a critical role in influencing the environment that students learn and minimize chances of gender conflict.
The role of leadership in minimizing inequities has also been highlighted by researchers who have pointed out its importance in educational reform. For example, Lee (2020) highlighted its importance in cementing the leadership competencies of a UK-based school leadership program involving gay and lesbian community groups in the school. The groups were operating under a bigger umbrella body of school leadership known as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) School Leadership Program. Lee (2020) argued that authentic leadership plays a critical role in influencing educational outcomes because it helps institutions to promote diversity, integrate inclusion in their schools, and promote social justice by challenging the status quo (Lee, 2020). These initiatives could be effective in providing mentorship and training support activities to those involved.
Strategies that can be adopted
The origin of the gender debate between boys and girls stemmed from discussions about the importance of promoting equality and inclusivity in the education setting (Bragg et al., 2018). Characterized by the growing impact of marketization, globalization, and economic insecurity, educational policy outcomes started to reflect this trend with the ultimate aim being the minimization of gender performance gaps (Ringrose, 2007). Over time, the movement towards creating a gender-neutral educational environment has seen the loss of gender privileges in the learning environment.
Typically, this outcome has led to the development of a new social system known as laddism, which creates new forms of order based upon other identifiable attributes of society that includes both men and women, such as social classes or educational groups, which alienate groups from one another but using non-gender-specific criteria (Phipps, 2017). The emergence of these systems means that there is a need to understand how these new social systems are influenced by traditionally gendered norms and how they work towards reproducing the same systems even as they are reinvented for improved gender relations.
Given that there are different leadership styles available for use in various educational settings, the transformative leadership approach is significant to use in the current case study because of its ability to prepare students to be individually successful, thoughtful, and caring at the same time (Shields, 2017). This type of leadership is important in an educational setting struggling to promote gender diversity while maintaining the core attributes of each sex that make it unique. Notably, the transformative leadership approach would help students from both genders to maximize their competencies while being considerate about the differences in abilities and interests associated with each gender.
The transformative leadership approach is specifically suited to addressing the gender divide between boys and girls because it highlights the role of the culture of power in influencing student learning outcomes (Shields, 2017). In other words, this leadership style can break systemic barriers that prevent schools from achieving gender equality. A transformative leader will also see to it that the interests of disadvantaged or minority groups are addressed in a non-judgmental manner. The aim is to promote the inclusion of different student groups in the learning process. By adopting this leadership style, transformative leaders would be challenging the dominant school of thought on educational leadership and minimize deficit thinking (Valencia, 1997; Shields, 2017). At the same time, they would be using their power and influence to address difficult issues affecting equality policies by forcing people to have the same difficult conversations.
The strategies that are highlighted in this section of the report are adopted from the recommendations of Anderson, Boyle, and Deppeler (2014) on addressing diversity in government-funded schools. The authors highlight the importance of change reform, which is equally needed to address the gender gap issues highlighted in the case study (Anderson, Boyle and Deppeler, 2014). This plan is premised on the need to redistribute resources to disadvantaged student populations. The second component of the plan involves the recognition of value differences between male and female student populations.
Although these measures are likely to improve the way educators measure performance across the gender divide, it is important to recognize the difficulty of implementing such a proposal given the tight controls governing the education system. In this environment, there are high levels of resistance and accountability required of teachers, especially when making performance improvements in the learning environment. Overall, the recommendations provided in this report are aimed at improving the qualitative experiences of both girls and boys in the educational setting.
Conclusion
The main issues presented in the case study center on gender gap issues and their effects on the learning experiences of both boys and girls in the educational setting. Particularly, the case study describes how schools have become gendered spaces, characterized by differences in the performance between both sexes, gendered norms in the class setting, the disciplinary divide between girls and boys, experiences of transgender students in a rigid, conformist learning environment, as well as sexual harassment and violence against female teachers. To address these issues, there is need to engage in change reform through transformative leadership.
Reference List
Anderson, J., Boyle, C. and Deppeler, J. (2014). The ecology of inclusive education: reconceptualising Bronfenbrenner. London: Sense Publishers.
Banet-Weiser, S., Gill, R. and Rottenberg, C. (2020) âPostfeminism, popular feminism and neoliberal feminism? Sarah Banet-Weiser, Rosalind Gill and Catherine Rottenberg in conversationâ, Feminist Theory, 21(1), pp. 3-24.
Bell, E. et al. (2019) âTimeâs up! Feminist theory and activism meets organization studiesâ, Human Relations, 72(1), pp. 4-22.
Bongiorno, R. et al. (2020) âWhy women are blamed for being sexually harassed: the effects of empathy for female victims and male perpetratorsâ, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(1), pp. 11-27.
Bragg, S. et al. (2018) âMore than boy, girl, male, femaleâ: exploring young peopleâs views on gender diversity within and beyond school contextsâ, Sex Education, 18(4), pp. 420-434.
Cascella, C., Williams, J. S. and Pampaka, M. (2021) âGender differences in mathematics outcomes at different levels of locality to inform policy and practiceâ, European Educational Research Journal, 5(2), pp. 231-243.
Craig, S. L., Austin, A. and Huang, Y. (2018) Being humorous and seeking diversion: promoting healthy coping skills among LGBTQ and youthâ, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 22(1), pp. 20-35.
Davis, K. (2008) âIntersectionality as buzzword: a sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successfulâ, Feminist Theory, 9(1), pp. 67-85.
Fine, C., et al. (2013). âPlasticity, plasticity, plasticity…and the rigid problem of sexâ, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(11), pp. 550-560.
GrĂ„stĂ©n, A. and Kokkonen, M. (2020) âAssociations between teacher- and student-directed sexual and physical violence in physical educationâ, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(2), pp. 1-19.
Guillard, J. (2019) âA feminist manifesto for education, Miriam E. Davidâ, Feminist Theory, 20(1), pp. 113-114.
Herd, P. et al. (2019) âGenes, gender inequality, and educational attainmentâ, American Sociological Review, 84(6), pp. 1069-1098.
Hines, S. (2020) âSex wars and (trans) gender panics: identity and body politics in contemporary UK feminismâ, The Sociological Review, 68(4), pp. 699-717.
Jacob, M. et al. (2020) âSecondary school subjects and gendered STEM enrollment in higher education in Germany, Ireland, and Scotlandâ, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 61(1), pp. 59-78.
Lacono, G. (2019) âAn affirmative mindfulness approach for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth mental healthâ, Clinical Social Work Journal, 47(2), pp. 156-166.
LĂ„ftman, S. B. et al. (2021) âSexual jokes at school and psychological complaints: student- and class-level associationsâ, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(3), pp. 285-291.
Lahtinen, H., Sirniö, O. and Martikainen, P. (2020) âSocial class and the risk of unemployment: trends, gender differences and the contribution of educationâ, Acta Sociologica, 63(3), pp. 303-321.
Lee, C. (2020) âCourageous leaders: promoting and supporting diversity in school leadership developmentâ, Management in Education, 34(1), pp. 5-15.
Morton, S. E., Muchiri, J. and Swiss, L. (2020) âWhich feminism(s)? For whom? Intersectionality in Canadaâs feminist international assistance policyâ, International Journal, 75(3), pp. 329-348.
Odeyemi, K. et al. (2016) âSexual violence among out-of-school female adolescents in Lagos, Nigeriaâ, SAGE Open, 6(1), pp. 112-117.
Phipps, A. (2017) â(Re)theorising laddish masculinities in higher educationâ, Gender and Education, 29(7), pp. 815-830.
Ringrose, J. (2007) âSuccessful girls? Complicating postâfeminist, neoliberal discourses of educational achievement and gender equalityâ, Gender and Education, 19(4), pp. 471-489.
Robinson, K. (2000) ââGreat Tits, Miss!” The silencing of malestudents’ sexual harassment of female teachers in secondary schools: a focus on gendered authorityâ, Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), pp. 75-90.
Ross, J. and Cereda, A. (2020) Masculinity/femininty: re-framing a fragmented debate. New York, NY: BRILL.
Shields, C. (2017) Transformative Leadership in education: equitable and socially just change in an uncertain and complex world. London: Routledge.
Steiner, L. (2019) âAddressing sexual harassment in journalism educationâ, Journalism, 20(1), pp. 118-121.
Vachhani, S. J. and Pullen, A. (2019) âEthics, politics and feminist organizing: writing feminist infrapolitics and affective solidarity into everyday sexismâ, Human Relations, 72(1), pp. 23-47.
Valencia, R. R. (1997) The evolution of deficit thinking: educational thought and practice. London: The Falmer Press.
Whitaker, K., Shapiro, V. and Shields, J. (2016) âSchool-based protective factors related to suicide for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescentsâ, Journal of Adolescent Health, 58(1), pp. 63-68.
Wilkinson, R. and Andersson, M. A. (2019) âAdolescent socioeconomic status and parent-child emotional bonds: reexamining gender differences in mental well-being during young adulthoodâ, Society and Mental Health, 9(1), pp. 95-110.